Bava Kamma 93

But where the cow is not available, quarter damages will be paid out of the body of the calf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the doubt involved in the case dealt with in the Mishnah. ');">¹</span>

Now this is so only where it is not known whether the calf was still part of the cow at the time she gored or whether it was not so, but were we certain that the calf was still part of the cow at the time of the goring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it participated in the goring. ');">²</span>

the whole payment of the half damages would be made from the body of the calf. Raba here adopts the same line of reasoning [as in another place], as Raba has indeed stated: Where a cow has done damage, payment can be collected out of the body of its calf, the reason being that the latter is a part of the body of the former, whereas in the case of a chicken doing damage, no payment will be made out of its eggs, the reason being that they are a separate [body].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Rashi. Curr. edd. read 'mere excrement'.] ');">³</span>

Raba further said: [Where an ox has gored a cow and caused miscarriage] the valuation will not be made for the cow separately and for the calf separately, but the valuation will be made for the calf as at the time when it formed a part of the cow; for if you do not adopt this rule,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that the cow should be valued separately and the calf separately. ');">⁴</span>

you will be found to be making the defendant suffer unduly. The same method is followed in the case of the cutting off the hand of a neighbour's slave;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [You do not value the hand separately, viz., what price a master would in the first instance be willing to take for depriving his slave of the use of his hand; but the difference in the value of a slave who had his hand cut off — a much smaller price.] ');">⁵</span>

and the same method is followed in the case of damage done to a neighbour's field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The valuation is not made on the basis of the single plot which has been damaged, but on the basis of its value in relation to the whole field.] ');">⁶</span>

Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: If justice demands, why should not the defendant suffer? — Because he is entitled to say to him: 'Since it was a pregnant cow that I deprived you of, it is a pregnant cow which should be taken into valuation.'

There is no question that where the cow belonged to one owner and the calf to another owner, the value of the fat condition of the cow will go to the owner of the cow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the embryo did not increase the fatness of the cow. ');">⁷</span>

But what of the value of its bulky appearance? — R. Papa said: It will go to the owner of the cow. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: It will be shared [by the two owners].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As both the cow and embryo participate in the bulky appearance of the animal. ');">⁸</span>

The law is that it will be shared [by the two owners].

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>.IF A POTTER BRINGS HIS WARES INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND THE CATTLE OF THE OWNER OF THE COURTYARD BREAKS THEM, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the plaintiff was a trespasser. ');">⁹</span> MOREOVER, SHOULD THE ANIMAL BE INJURED BY THEM, THE OWNER OF THE POTTERY IS LIABLE [TO PAY DAMAGES]. IF, HOWEVER, HE BROUGHT [THEM] IN WITH PERMISSION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he was no trespasser ');">¹⁰</span> THE OWNER OF THE COURTYARD IS LIABLE. SIMILARLY IF [A MAN] BRINGS HIS PRODUCE INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT PERMISSION AND THE ANIMAL OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES CONSUMES IT, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.p. 266, n. 7. ');">¹¹</span> IF IT WAS HARMED BY IT THE OWNER WOULD BE LIABLE. IF, HOWEVER, HE BROUGHT THEM IN WITH PERMISSION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he was no trespasser ');">¹⁰</span> THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES WOULD BE LIABLE. SO ALSO IF [A MAN] BRINGS HIS OX INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER WITHOUT