Bava Kamma 37

ובהא קמיפלגי מר סבר יש העדאה ומר סבר אין העדאה

so that the point at issue [between the contradictory statements] will be that the one Master [the former] maintains that the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> applies [also to Pebbles]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The compensation is therefore in full. ');">¹</span>

לא בחד זמנא ובפלוגתא דסומכוס ורבנן קמיפלגי והא משונה הוא דאית ביה בזרני

whereas the other Master [the latter] holds that the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> does not apply [to Pebbles]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently only half damages will be paid. ');">²</span>

בעי רב אשי יש שנוי לצרורות לרביע נזק או אין שנוי לצרורות לרביע נזק

— No, we suppose the act not to have been repeated, the point at issue being the same as that between Symmachus and the Rabbis. But is it not unusual [for a cock to crow into a utensil]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Coming thus under the category of Horn only half damages should be paid in the case of Tam. ');">³</span>

תפשוט ליה מדרבא דבעי רבא יש העדאה לצרורות או אין העדאה לצרורות מכלל דאין שנוי

— There had been some seeds there [in which case it was not unusual].

דלמא רבא אם תמצי לומר קאמר אם תמצי לומר אין שנוי יש העדאה או אין העדאה תיקו

R. Ashi asked: Would an unusual act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Done by an animal making pebbles fly through kicking. ');">⁴</span>

בעי רב אשי כח כחו לסומכוס ככחו דמי או לא

reduce Pebbles [by half, i.e.,] to the payment of quarter damages or would an unusual act not reduce Pebbles to the payment of quarter damages?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the compensation of half damages will be made in all cases of Pebbles. ');">⁵</span>

מי גמיר הלכה ומוקי לה בכח כחו או דלמא לא גמיר הלכה כלל תיקו

— But why not solve this question from that of Raba, for Raba asked [the following]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 85. ');">⁶</span>

היתה מבעטת או שהיו צרורות מנתזין מתחת רגליה ושברה את הכלים משלם חצי נזק איבעיא להו היכי קאמר

Is there such a thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> in the case of Pebbles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For compensation in full. ');">⁷</span>

היתה מבעטת והזיקה בביעוטה או צרורות כאורחייהו משלם חצי נזק ורבנן היא או דלמא היתה מבעטת והזיקה בביעוטה או צרורות מחמת ביעוט משלם חצי נזק הא כי אורחיה משלם נזק שלם ומני סומכוס היא

or is there no such thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> in the case of Pebbles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no more than half damages will ever be paid ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש מסיפא דרסה על הכלי ושברתו ונפל השבר על כלי אחר ושברו על הראשון משלם נזק שלם ועל האחרון חצי נזק ואי סומכוס מי אית ליה חצי נזק

Now, does not this query imply that no unusual act [affects the law of Pebbles]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if otherwise, and quarter damages will be paid in the first instance of an unusual act in the case of Pebbles, how could the compensation rise above half damages? ');">⁹</span>

וכי תימא ראשון ראשון להתזה ושני שני להתזה ושאני ליה לסומכוס בין כחו לכח כחו

— Raba may perhaps have formulated his query upon a mere supposition as follows: If you suppose that no unusual act [affects the law of Pebbles], is there such a thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> [in the case of Pebbles] or is there no such thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i>? — Let it stand undecided.

אלא הא דבעי רב אשי כח כחו לסומכוס ככחו דמי או לאו ככחו דמי תפשוט ליה דלאו ככחו דמי

R. Ashi further asked: Is [damage occasioned by] indirect force, according to Symmachus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who orders full compensation in the case of Pebbles; supra p. 79. ');">¹⁰</span>

רב אשי כרבנן מוקי לה ובעי לה הכי היתה מבעטת והזיקה בביעוטה או צרורות כאורחייהו חצי נזק הא מחמת ביעוט רביע נזק ויש שנוי

subject to the law applicable to direct force or not so? Is he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Symmachus. ');">¹¹</span>

או דלמא היתה מבעטת והזיקה בביעוטה או צרורות מחמת ביעוט חצי נזק ואין שנוי תיקו

acquainted with the special halachic tradition [on the matter]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ordering only half damages; v supra p. 79. ');">¹²</span>

בעי מיניה רבי אבא בר ממל מרבי אמי ואמרי לה מרבי חייא בר אבא היתה מהלכת במקום שאי אפשר לה אלא אם כן מנתזת ובעטה והתיזה והזיקה מהו כיון דאי אפשר לה אורחיה הוא או דלמא השתא מיהא מחמת ביעוט קמנתזה צרורות תיקו

but he confines its effect to damage done by indirect force or is he perhaps not acquainted at all with this tradition? — Let it stand undecided.

בעא מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא היתה מהלכת ברה"ר (ובעטה) והתיזה והזיקה מהו לקרן מדמינן ליה וחייבת או דלמא תולדה דרגל הוא ופטורה אמר ליה מסתברא תולדה דרגל הוא

IF IT WAS KICKING OR PEBBLES WERE FLYING FROM UNDER IT'S FEET AND UTENSILS WERE BROKEN, [ONLY] HALF DAMAGES WILL BE PAID. The following query was put forward: Does the text mean to say: 'If it was kicking so that damage resulted from the kicking, or in the case of pebbles flying in the usual way … [only] half damages will be paid,' being thus in accordance with the Rabbis;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, against the view of Symmachus, order only half damages to be paid, supra p. 79. ');">¹³</span>

התיזה ברה"ר והזיקה ברה"י מהו א"ל עקירה אין כאן הנחה יש כאן

or does it perhaps mean to say: 'If it was kicking so that damage resulted from the kicking, or when pebbles were flying as a result of the kicking&nbsp;… [only] half damages will be paid.' thus implying that in the case of pebbles flying in the usual way, the payment would be in full, being therefore in accordance with Symmachus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who orders full compensation in the case of Pebbles; ibid. ');">¹⁴</span>

איתיביה היתה מהלכת בדרך והתיזה בין ברה"י בין ברה"ר חייב מאי לאו התיזה ברשות הרבים והזיקה ברה"ר לא התיזה ברה"ר והזיקה ברה"י והאמרת עקירה אין כאן הנחה יש כאן א"ל הדרי בי

Come and hear the concluding clause: IF IT TROD UPON A UTENSIL AND BROKE IT, AND A FRAGMENT [OF IT] FELL UPON ANOTHER UTENSIL WHICH WAS ALSO BROKEN, FOR THE FIRST UTENSIL FULL COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID, BUT FOR THE SECOND, [ONLY] HALF DAMAGES. Now, how could the Mishnah be in accordance with Symmachus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who orders full compensation in the case of Pebbles; ibid. ');">¹⁴</span>

איתיביה דרסה על הכלי ושברתו ונפל השבר על כלי אחר ושברו על הראשון משלם נזק שלם ועל האחרון משלם חצי נזק ותני עלה במה דברים אמורים ברשות הניזק אבל ברה"ר על הראשון פטורה ועל האחרון חייבת מאי לאו התיזה ברשות הרבים והזיקה ברשות הרבים

who is against half damages [in the case of Pebbles]? If you, however, suggest that THE FIRST UTENSIL refers to the utensil broken by a fragment that flew off from the first [broken] utensil, and THE SECOND refers thus to the utensil broken by a fragment that flew off from, the second [broken] utensil, and further assume that according to Symmachus there is a distinction between damage done by direct force and damage done by indirect force [so that in the latter case only half damages will be paid], then [if so] what about the question of R. Ashi: 'Is [damage occasioned by] indirect force, according to Symmachus, subject to the law of direct force or not subject to the law of direct force?' Why is it not evident to him [R. Ashi] that it is not subject to the law applicable to direct force? — R. Ashi undoubtedly explains the Mishnah in accordance with the Rabbis, and the query<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the reading of the Mishnaic text. ');">¹⁵</span>

לא התיזה ברשות הרבים והזיקה ברה"י והאמרת עקירה אין כאן הנחה יש כאן אמר ליה הדרי בי

is put by him as follows: [Does it mean to say:] 'If it was kicking so that damage resulted from the kicking, or in the case of pebbles flying in the usual way&nbsp;… [only] half damages will be paid', thus implying that [in the case of Pebbles flying] as a result of kicking, [only] quarter damages would be paid on account of the fact that an unusual act reduces payment [in the case of Pebbles]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As queried by R. Ashi himself, supra p. 88. ');">¹⁶</span>

איני

or [does it perhaps mean to say:] 'If it was kicking so that damage resulted from the kicking or when pebbles were flying as a result of the kicking … half damages will be paid,' thus making it plain that an unusual act does not reduce payment [in the case of Pebbles]? — Let it stand undecided. R. Abba b. Memel asked of R. Ammi, some say of R. Hiyya b. Abba, [the following Problem]: In the case of an animal walking in a place where it was unavoidable for it not to make pebbles fly [from under its feet], while in fact it was kicking and in this way making pebbles fly and doing damage, what would be the law? [Should it be maintained that] since it was unavoidable for it not to make pebbles fly there, the damage would be considered usual;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Coming thus under the law applicable to Pebbles in the usual way. ');">¹⁷</span> or should it perhaps be argued otherwise, since in fact the damage resulted from kicking<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is an unusual act and should thus be subject to the query put forward by Raba regarding pebbles that were caused to fly by means of an unusual act. ');">¹⁸</span> that caused the pebbles to fly? — Let it stand undecided. R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: In the case of an animal walking on public ground and making pebbles fly from which there resulted damage, what would be the law? Should we compare this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the liability only for half damages. ');">¹⁹</span> to Horn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is liability even on public ground. ');">²⁰</span> and thus impose liability; or since, on the other hand, it is a derivative of Foot, should there be exemption [for damage done on public ground]? — He answered him: It stands to reason that [since] it is a secondary kind of Foot [there is exemption on Public ground].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 9. ');">²¹</span> Again [he asked him]: In a case where the pebbles were kicked up on public ground but the damage that resulted therefrom was done in the plaintiff's premises, what would be the law? — He answered him: if the cause of raising [the pebbles] is not there [to institute liability],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it took place on public ground. ');">²²</span> how could any liability be attached to the falling down [of the pebbles]? Thereupon he [R. Jeremiah] raised an objection [from the following]: In the case of an animal walking on the road and making pebbles fly either in the plaintiff's premises or on public ground, there is liability to pay. Now, does not this Baraitha deal with a case where the pebbles were made both to fly up on public ground and to do damage on public ground?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a refutation of R. Zera's first ruling. ');">²³</span> — No, though the pebbles were made to fly on public ground, the damage resulted on the plaintiff's premises. But did you not say [he asked him further, that in such a case there would still be exemption on account of the argument].'If the cause of raising [the pebbles] is not there [to institute liability], how could any liability be attached to the falling down [of the pebbles]?' He answered him: 'I have since changed my mind [on this matter].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the last point. ');">²⁴</span> He raised another objection: IF IT TROD UPON A UTENSIL AND BROKE IT, AND A FRAGMENT [OF IT] FELL UPON ANOTHER UTENSIL WHICH WAS ALSO BROKEN, FOR THE FIRST UTENSIL FULL COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID, BUT FOR THE SECOND [ONLY] HALF DAMAGES. And it was taught on the matter: This ruling is confined to [damage done on] the plaintiff's premises, whereas if it took place on public ground there would be exemption regarding the first utensil though with respect to the second there would be liability to pay. Now, does not the Baraitha present a case where the fragment was made both to fly up on public ground and to do damage on public ground?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that there is liability for Pebbles, i.e., for 'the second utensil,' on public ground, against the ruling of R. Zera. ');">²⁵</span> — No, though the fragment was made to fly on public ground, the damage resulted on the plaintiff's premises. But did you not say [that in such a case there would still be exemption on account of the argument]: 'If the cause of raising [the pebbles] is not there [to institute liability], how could any liability be attached to the falling down [of the pebbles?]'