Bava Kamma 36

מי שמעת ליה

you have surely not found him maintaining so! You can therefore only say that R. Eleazar's statement regarding full payment deals with a case where the dog has already become <i>Mu'ad</i> [to set fire to stacks in an unusual manner]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being thus subject to the law applicable to Horn whereas in the case of Pebbles not accompanied by an unusual act, R. Eleazar would maintain the view of the Rabbis that the payment will not be in full. ');">¹</span>

אלא כי קאמר רבי אלעזר נזק שלם כגון דאייעד ובהא קמיפלגי מר סבר יש העדאה לצרורות ומר סבר אין העדאה לצרורות

and the point at issue will be that R. Eleazar maintains that there is such a thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> [also] regarding [the law of] Pebbles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When thrown by an unusual act and repeated on more than three occasions; the payment would thus then have to be in full. ');">²</span>

אלא הא דבעי רבא יש העדאה לצרורות או אין העדאה לצרורות אי לרבנן אין העדאה לצרורות אי לרבי אלעזר יש העדאה לצרורות

whereas the Rabbis maintain that there is no such thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> in the case of Pebbles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that in spite of all repetitions of the damage the payment will never exceed half damages on account of the consideration that the case of Pebbles in the usual way is always Mu'ad ab initio and yet no more than half damages is involved. ');">³</span>

אמר לך רבא כי מיבעיא לי לדידי אליבא דרבנן דפליגי עליה דסומכוס אבל הכא בין לרבנן בין לרבי אלעזר כסומכוס סבירא להו דאמר צרורות נזק שלם משלם

But If so what about another problem raised [elsewhere]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra p. 86. ');">⁴</span>

וטעמא מאי אמור רבנן חצי נזק דשני ולא אייעד ובפלוגתא דרבי טרפון ורבנן קמיפלגי

by Raba: 'Is there such a thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> regarding [the law of] Pebbles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in the case of an animal making pebbles fly (by means of an unusual act) on more than three occasions, the payment will be in full, on the analogy with Horn ');">⁵</span>

אימור דשמעת ליה לר' טרפון נזק שלם מגופו מי שמעת ליה

or is there no such thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> in the case of Pebbles?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The payment will thus never exceed half damages on account of the fact that the repetition on three occasions renders the act usual and makes it subject to the general laws of Pebbles, requiring half damages in the case of any usual act of an animal making pebbles fly. ');">⁶</span>

אין מהיכא מייתי לה מקרן מרשות הרבים

Why then not say that according to the Rabbis there could be no such thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> in the case of Pebbles, whereas according to R. Eleazar there may be a case of becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> even in the case of Pebbles? — Raba, however, may say to you: The problem raised by me [as to the possibility of becoming <i>Mu'ad</i>] is of course based on the view of the Rabbis who differ [in this respect] from Symmachus, whereas here [in the case of the dog] both the Rabbis and R. Eleazar may hold the view of Symmachus who maintains that Pebbles always involve payment in full. The reason, however, that the Rabbis order only half damages [to be paid]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the dog. ');">⁷</span>

דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון

is on account of the fact that the dog handled the coal in an unusual manner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Coming thus within the category of Horn. ');">⁸</span>

והא רבי טרפון לית ליה דיו

while it had not yet become <i>Mu'ad</i> [for that]. The point at issue between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., between the Rabbis and R. Eleazar. ');">⁹</span>

כי לית ליה דיו היכא דמפריך קל וחומר היכא דלא מפריך ק"ו אית ליה דיו

would be exactly the same as between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference in damage done by Horn (Tam) on the Plaintiff's premises; cf. supra pp. 59. 84; infra p. 125. ');">¹⁰</span>

גופא בעי רבא יש העדאה לצרורות או אין העדאה לצרורות לקרן מדמינן ליה או דלמא תולדה דרגל הוא

But R. Tarfon who took the view that the payment will be in full may perhaps never have intended to make it dependent upon the body [of the tort-feasant cattle]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the payment is in full why should it not be out of the best of the defendant's estate? Cf. however supra p. 15, infra p. 180; but also pp. 23, 212. ');">¹¹</span>

ת"ש הידוס אינו מועד ויש אומרים הרי זה מועד הידוס ס"ד אלא הידוס והתיז

— Cer tainly so, for he derives his view from [the law of] Horn on public ground<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 24b. ');">¹²</span>

מאי לאו כגון דעבד תלתא זימני ובהא קמיפלגי מר סבר יש העדאה ומר סבר אין העדאה לא בחד זימנא ובפלוגתא דסומכוס ורבנן קמיפלגי

and it only stands to reason that Dayyo,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'It is sufficient for it'. ');">¹³</span>

ת"ש בהמה שהטילה גללים לעיסה רב יהודה אומר משלם נזק שלם ורבי אלעזר אומר חצי נזק מאי לאו כגון דעבד תלתא זימני ובהא קמיפלגי מר סבר יש העדאה ומר סבר אין העדאה

[i.e. it is sufficient] to a derivative by means of a Kal wa-homer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'From Minor to Major'; v. Glos. ');">¹⁴</span>

לא בחד זימנא ובפלוגתא דסומכוס ורבנן קמיפלגי והא משונה הוא דדחיק ליה עלמא

to involve nothing more than the original case from which it has been deduced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was Horn on public ground where the payment in the case of Tam is made out of the body of the tort-feasant animal. ');">¹⁵</span>

ולימא רב יהודה הלכה כסומכוס ולימא רבי אלעזר הלכה כרבנן גללים אצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא הואיל ובתר גופיה גרירין כגופיה דמי קמ"ל

But behold, R. Tarfon is expressly not in favour of the Principle of Dayyo?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'It is sufficient for it'. ');">¹³</span>

תא שמע דתני רמי בר יחזקאל תרנגול שהושיט ראשו לאויר כלי זכוכית ותקע בו ושברו משלם נזק שלם ואמר רב יוסף אמרי בי רב סוס שצנף וחמור שנער ושיבר את הכלים משלם חצי נזק

— He is not in favour of Dayyo only when the Kal wa-<i>homer</i> would thereby be rendered completely ineffective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as, e.g., to make on account of Dayyo, the payment in the case of Tam doing damage on the plaintiff's premises only for half damages — a payment which would be ordered even without a Kal wa-homer. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי לאו כגון דעבד תלתא זימני

but where the Kal wa-<i>homer</i> would not be rendered ineffective he too upholds Dayyo.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The full payment in the case of Tam on the plaintiff's premises which is deduced from the Hal wa-homer, will therefore be collected only out of the body of the tort-feasant animal, on the strength of the Dayyo. ');">¹⁷</span> To revert to the previous theme:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 85. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba asked: Is there such a thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> regarding [the law of] Pebbles, or is there no such thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> in the case of Pebbles? Do we compare Pebbles to Horn [which is subject to the law of <i>Mu'ad</i>] or do we not do so since the law of Pebbles is a derivative of Foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 3b; v. also p. 85, n. 5. ');">¹⁹</span> [to which the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> has no application]? Come and hear: 'Hopping is not <i>Mu'ad</i> [with poultry]. Some, however, say: It is <i>Mu'ad</i>.' Could 'hopping' be thought [in any way not to be habitual with poultry]? It, therefore, of course means 'Hopping and making thereby [pebbles] fly.' Now, does it not deal with a case where the same act has been repeated three times, so that the point at issue between the authorities will be that the one Master [the latter] maintains that the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> applies [also to Pebbles] whereas the other Master [the former] holds that the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> does not apply [to Pebbles]? — No, it presents a case where no repetition took place; the point at issue between them being the same as between Symmachus and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether the payment for Pebbles generally be in full or half; cf. supra 17b. ');">²⁰</span> Come and hear: In the case of an animal dropping excrements into dough. R. Judah maintains that the payment must be in full, but R. Eleazar says that only half damages will be paid. Now, does it not deal here with a case where the act has been repeated three times, so that the point at issue between the authorities will be that R. Judah maintains that the animal has thus become <i>Mu'ad</i> whereas R. Eleazar holds that it has not become <i>Mu'ad</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus the problem propounded by Raba is a point at issue between Tannaim. ');">²¹</span> — No, it deals with a case where no repetition took place, the point at issue between them being the same which is between Symmachus and the Rabbis. But is it not unusual [with an animal to do so]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case must accordingly come under the category of Horn where only half damages should he paid in the first three occasions. ');">²²</span> — The animal was pressed for space [in which case it is no more unusual]. But why should not R. Judah have explicitly stated that the <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with Symmachus and similarly R. Eleazar should have stated that the <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why deal at all with the specific case of an animal dropping excrements? ');">²³</span> — [A specific ruling in regard to] excrements is of importance, for otherwise you might have thought that since these [excrements formed a part of the animal and] were poured out from its body, they should still be considered as a part of its body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any damage done by them should thus be compensated in full on the analogy of any other derivative of Foot proper. ');">²⁴</span> it has therefore been made known to us that this is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it does not come under the category of Foot proper but under that of Pebbles. ');">²⁵</span> Come and hear: Rami b. Ezekiel learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 24b. ');">²⁶</span> In the case of a cock putting its head into an empty utensil of glass where it crowed so that the utensil thereby broke, the payment must be in full, while R. Joseph on the other hand said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 24b. ');">²⁶</span> that it has been stated in the School of Rab that in the case of a horse neighing or an ass braying so that utensils were thereby broken, only half damages will be paid. Now, does it not mean that the same act has already been repeated three times,