Bava Kamma 35

בהתיז צרורות ובפלוגתא דסומכוס ורבנן קמיפלגי

the 'hopping' only caused pebbles to fly, so that the point at issue is the same as that between Symmachus and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether full or half payment has to be made for damage caused by Pebbles. ');">¹</span>

ת"ש תרנגולין שהיו מחטטין בחבל דלי ונפסק החבל ונשבר הדלי משלמין נזק שלם שמע מינה בתר מעיקרא אזלינן תרגמא אחבל

Come and hear: 'In the case of poultry picking at a cord attached to a pail so that the cord was snapped asunder and the bucket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably by rolling to some other place, where it finally broke. ');">²</span>

והא חבל משונה הוא דמאוס בלישה והא נשבר דלי קתני אלא סומכוס היא דאמר צרורות נזק שלם משלם

broken, the payment must be in full.' Could it not be proved from this [Baraitha] that it is the original cause of the damage that has to be followed? — You may, however, interpret [the liability of full payment] to refer to the damage done to the cord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas for the bucket only half damages will perhaps be paid. ');">³</span>

אי סומכוס אימא סיפא ניתז ממנו שבר ונפל על כלי אחר ושברה על הראשון משלם נזק שלם ועל האחרון משלם חצי נזק ואי סומכוס מי אית ליה חצי נזק

But behold, is not [the damage of] the cord unusual [with poultry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being thus subject to the law of 'Horn'. ');">⁴</span>

וכי תימא שאני ליה לסומכוס בין נזק כחו לכח כחו ואלא הא דבעי רב אשי כח כחו לסומכוס ככחו דמי או לאו ככחו דמי

and only half damages ought to be paid]? — It was smeared with dough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is not unusual with poultry to pick at such a cord. ');">⁵</span>

תפשוט ליה דלאו ככחו דמי

But, does it not say 'and the bucket [was] broken'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus clearly indicating that the payment is in respect of the damage done to the bucket. ');">⁶</span>

אלא לאו רבנן היא ש"מ בתר מעיקרא אזלינן

This Baraitha must therefore be in accordance with Symmachus, who maintains that also in the case of Pebbles full payment must be made. But if it is in accordance with Symmachus, read the concluding clause: Were a fragment of the broken bucket to fly and fall upon another utensil, breaking it, the payment for the former [i.e., the bucket] must be in full, but for the latter only half damages will be paid. Now does Symmachus ever recognise half damages [in the case of Pebbles]? If you, however, submit that there is a difference according to Symmachus between damage occasioned by direct force<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in the case of a bucket upon which pebbles were thrown directly by an animal. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב ביבי בר אביי דקאזיל מיניה מיניה

and that caused by indirect force,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a second bucket damaged by a fragment that fell from a first bucket, which was broken by pebbles thrown by an animal. ');">⁸</span>

בעי רבא חצי נזק צרורות מגופו משלם או מעלייה משלם מגופו משלם דלא אשכחן חצי נזק דמשלם מעלייה או דלמא מעלייה משלם דלא אשכחן כאורחיה דמשלם מגופיה

what about the question raised by R. Ashi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 19a. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש הידוס אינו מועד ויש אומרים הרי זה מועד הידוס סלקא דעתך אלא לאו הידוס והתיז

Is damage occasioned by indirect force according to Symmachus subject to the same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to full payment. ');">¹⁰</span>

ובהא קמיפלגי מאן דאמר אינו מועד קסבר מגופו משלם ומאן דאמר מועד קסבר מעלייה משלם

applicable to direct force, or not subject to the law of direct force?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But merely to half damages. ');">¹¹</span>

לא בפלוגתא דסומכוס ורבנן קמיפלגי

Why is it not evident to him that it is not subject to the law of direct force? Hence the above Baraitha is accordingly more likely to be in accordance with the Rabbis, and proves thus that it is the original cause that has to be followed [as the determining factor]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though the bucket rolled to some other place where it broke, the case is still subject to the law of Foot. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ש הכלב שנטל חררה והלך לגדיש ואכל החררה והדליק את הגדיש על החררה משלם נזק שלם ועל הגדיש משלם חצי נזק

R. Bibi b. Abaye, however, said: The bucket [that was broken] was [not rolled but] continuously pushed by the poultry [from one place to another, so that it was broken by actual bodily touch].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And coming within the usual category of Foot. ');">¹³</span>

מאי טעמא לאו משום דהויא להו צרורות ותני עלה משלם חצי נזק מגופו

Raba [again] queried: Will the half damages in the case of 'Pebbles' be paid out of the body [of the tort-feasant animal]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of Tam; cf. supra, p. 73. ');">¹⁴</span>

ותסברא לר' אלעזר נזק שלם מגופיה מי אשכחן

or will it be paid out of the best of the defendant's estate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of Foot; cf. supra, p. 9. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא כגון דשני בהא בגחלת ורבי אלעזר סבר לה כר' טרפון דאמר משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם משלם

Will it be paid out of the body [of the tort-feasant animal] on account of the fact that nowhere is the payment of half damages made out of the best of the defendant's estate, or shall it nevertheless perhaps be paid out of the best of the defendant's estate since there is no case of habitual damage being compensated out of the body [of the tort-feasant animal]? —

ולא היא מאי טעמא מוקמת לה כרבי טרפון משום נ"ש

Come and hear: 'Hopping [with poultry] is not <i>Mu'ad</i>. Some, however, say: It is <i>Mu'ad</i>.' Could 'hopping' be said [in any way not to be habitual with poultry]? Does it not therefore mean: 'Hopping and making [pebbles] fly,' so that the point at issue is as follows: The former view maintaining that it is not [treated as] <i>Mu'ad</i>, requires payment to be made out of the body [of the tort-feasant poultry]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of Tam; cf. supra, p. 73. ');">¹⁴</span>

רבי אלעזר סבר כסומכוס דאמר צרורות נזק שלם משלם וסבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר צד תמות במקומה עומדת וכי קתני מגופו אצד תמות

whereas the latter view maintaining that it is [treated as] <i>Mu'ad</i>, will require the payment [of the half damages for Pebbles] to be made out of the best of the defendant's estate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of Foot; cf. supra, p. 9. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר ליה רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה בתם ונעשה מועד במועד מתחילתו

— No, the point at issue is that between Symmachus and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether full or half damages are to be paid in the case of Pebbles. ');">¹⁶</span> Come and hear: In the case of a dog taking hold of a cake [with live coals sticking to it] and going [with it] to a stack of grain where he consumed the cake and set the stack on fire, full payment must be made for the cake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being subject to the law applicable to Tooth, cf. supra p. 68. ');">¹⁷</span> whereas for the stack only half damages will be paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 21b. ');">¹⁸</span> Now, what is the reason [that only half damages will be paid for the stack] if not on account of the fact that the damage of the stack is subject to the law of Pebbles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the damage to the stack was not done by the actual body of the dog but was occasioned by the dog through the instrumentality of the coal, which, after having been put on a certain spot, spread the damage near and far. ');">¹⁹</span> It has, moreover, been taught in connection with this [Mishnah] that the half damages will be collected out of the body [of the tort-feasant dog]. [Does not this ruling offer a solution to the problem raised by Raba?] — But do you really think [the law of 'Pebbles' to be at the basis of this ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of half damages for the stack. ');">²⁰</span> According to R. Eleazar [who maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a Baraitha. ');">²¹</span> that the payment even for the stack will be in full and out of the body of the tort-feasant dog], do we find anywhere full payment being collected out of the body [of tort-feasant animals]? Must not this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of half damages for the stack. ');">²⁰</span> therefore be explained to refer to a case where the dog acted in an unusual manner in handling the coal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By taking it in its mouth and applying it to the stack, in which case it is subject to the law of 'Horn'. ');">²²</span> R. Eleazar being of the same opinion as R. Tarfon, who maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 59 and infra 24b. ');">²³</span> that [even] for the unusual damage by Horn, if done in the plaintiff's premises, the payment will be in full?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Though the payment will still be made out of the body of the tort-feasant animal.) ');">²⁴</span> — This explanation, however, is not essential. For that which compels you to make R. Eleazar maintain the same opinion as R. Tarfon, is only his requiring full payment [out of the body of the dog]. It may therefore be suggested on the other hand that R. Eleazar holds the view expressed by Symmachus, that in the case of Pebbles full damages will be paid; and that he further adopts the view of R. Judah who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 39a. 45b. ');">²⁵</span> that [in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>, half of the payment, i.e.] the part of <i>Tam</i>, remains unaffected [i.e., is always subject to the law of <i>Tam</i>]; the statement that payment is made out of the body [of the dog] will therefore refer only to [one half] the part for which even <i>Tam</i> would be liable. But R. Samia the son of R. Ashi said lo Rabina: I submit that the view you have quoted in the name of R. Judah is confined to cases of <i>Tam</i> turned into <i>Mu'ad</i> [i.e. Horn],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 39a. 45b. ');">²⁵</span> whereas in cases which are <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as Foot (and Pebbles at least according to Symmachus). ');">²⁶</span>