Bava Kamma 38

והאמר ר' יוחנן אין חצי נזק חלוק לא לרשות היחיד ולא לרשות הרבים מאי לאו התיזה ברשות הרבים והזיקה ברשות הרבים לא התיזה ברה"ר והזיקה ברשות היחיד

— He answered him: 'I have since changed my mind [on this matter].''

והאמרת עקירה אין כאן הנחה יש כאן א"ל הדרי בי איבעית אימא כי אמר רבי יוחנן אקרן

But behold R. Johanan said that in regard to the liability of half damages there is no distinction between the plaintiff's premises and public ground. Now, does not this statement also deal with a case where the pebbles were made both to fly up on public ground and to do damage on public ground? — No, though the pebbles were made to fly up 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]?' — He answered him: 'I have since changed my mind [on this matter].' Alternatively, you might say that R. Johanan referred only to [the liability attached to] Horn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where indeed there is no distinction between public ground and the plaintiff's premises; (cf. however, the views of R. Tarfon, supra 14a; 18a and infra 24b), but in regard to Pebbles, there is a distinction, and liability is restricted to the plaintiff's premises, according to the ruling of R. Zera. ');">¹</span>

יתיב רבי יהודה נשיאה ורבי אושעיא אקילעא דרבי יהודה נפק מילתא מבינייהו כשכשה בזנבה מהו א"ל אידך וכי יאחזנה בזנבה וילך אי הכי קרן נמי נימא וכי יאחזנה בקרן וילך

R. Judah [II] the Prince and R. Oshaia had both been sitting near the entrance of the house of R. Judah, when the following matter was raised between them: In the case of an animal knocking about with its tail, [and doing thereby damage on public ground] what would be the law? — One of them said in answer: Could the owner be asked to hold the tail of his animal continuously wherever it goes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There will therefore be no liability. ');">²</span>

הכי השתא קרן לאו אורחיה הא אורחיה

But if so, why in the case of Horn shall we not say the same: 'Could the owner be asked to hold the horn of his animal continuously wherever it goes?' — There is no comparison. In the case of Horn the damage is unusual, whereas it is quite usual [for an animal] to knock about with its tail.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Coming thus under the category of Foot, for which there is no liability on public ground. ');">³</span>

וכי מאחר דאורחיה מאי מבעיא ליה כשכוש יתירא מבעיא ליה

But if it is usual for an animal to knock about with its tail, what then was the problem?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should it not be regarded as a derivative of Foot? ');">⁴</span>

בעי רב עינא כשכשה באמתה מהו מי אמרינן מידי דהוה אקרן קרן לאו יצרא קתקיף ליה הכא נמי לא שנא או דלמא קרן כוונתו להזיק הא אין כוונתה להזיק תיקו

— The problem was raised regarding an excessive knocking about.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it is still usual for it or not. ');">⁵</span>

התרנגולין מועדין להלך כדרכן ולשבר וכו' אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שנקשר מאליו אבל קשרו אדם חייב

R. 'Ena queried: In the case of an animal knocking about with its membrum virile and doing thereby damage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On public ground. ');">⁶</span>

נקשר מאליו מאן חייב אילימא בעל הדליל היכי דמי אי דאצנעיה אנוס הוא ואי לא אצנעיה פושע הוא

what is the law? Shall we say it is analogous to Horn?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there will be liability. ');">⁷</span>

אלא חייב בעל תרנגול מאי שנא כוליה נזק דלא דכתיב (שמות כא, לג) כי יפתח איש בור ולא שור בור חצי נזק נמי איש בור ולא שור בור

For in the case of Horn do not its passions get the better of it, as may be said here also? Or shall we perhaps say that in the case of Horn, the animal is prompted by a malicious desire to do damage, whereas, in the case before us, there is no malicious desire to do damage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It should therefore come under the category of Tooth and Foot, for which there is no liability on public ground. ');">⁸</span>

אלא מתני' בדאדייה ארויי וכי אתמר דרב הונא בעלמא אתמר דליל הפקר אמר רב הונא נקשר מאליו פטור קשרו אדם חייב

— Let it stand undecided.

משום מאי חייב אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משום בורו המתגלגל ברגלי אדם וברגלי בהמה

POULTRY ARE <i>MU'AD</i> TO WALK IN THEIR USUAL WAY AND TO BREAK [THINGS]. IF A STRING BECAME ATTACHED TO THEIR FEET OR WHERE THEY HOP ABOUT AND BREAK UTENSILS, [ONLY] HALF DAMAGES WILL BE PAID. R. Huna said: The ruling regarding half damages applies only to a case where the string became attached of itself, but in a case where it was attached by a human being the liability would be in full. But in the case where the string was attached of itself, who would be liable to pay the half damages? It could hardly be suggested that the owner of the string<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being the owner of the poultry. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כיצד השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה הבהמה מועדת לאכול פירות וירקות אכלה כסות או כלים משלם חצי נזק במה דברים אמורים ברשות הניזק אבל ברשות הרבים פטור

would have to pay it, for in what circumstances could that be possible? If when the string was kept by him in a safe place [so that the fact of the poultry taking hold of it could in no way be attributed to him], surely it was but a sheer accident?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He should consequently be freed altogether. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואם נהנית משלמת מה שנהנית

If [on the other hand] it was not kept in a safe place, should he not be liable for negligence [to pay in full]? It was therefore the owner of the poultry who would have to pay the half damages. But again why differentiate [his case so as to excuse him from full payment]? If there was exemption from full payment on account of [the inference drawn from] the verse, If a man shall open a pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33. ');">¹¹</span>

כיצד משלמת מה שנהנית אכלה מתוך הרחבה משלמת מה שנהנית מצדי הרחבה משלמת מה שהזיקה מפתח החנות משלמת מה שנהנית מתוך החנות משלמת מה שהזיקה

which implies that there would be no liability for Cattle opening a Pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., no responsibility is involved in cattle creating a nuisance. Cf. infra 48a; 51a. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה כיצד בהמה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק ואכלה אוכלין הראויין לה ושתתה משקין הראויין לה משלם נזק שלם וכן חיה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק וטרפה בהמה ואכלה בשר משלם נזק שלם

half damages should [for the very reason] similarly not be imposed here as [there could be liability only when] Man created a pit but not [when] Cattle [created] a pit? — The Mishnaic ruling [regarding half damages] must therefore be applicable only to a case where the poultry made the string fly [from one place to another, where it broke the utensils, being thus subject to the law of Pebbles]; and the statement made by R. Huna will accordingly refer to a case which has been dealt with elsewhere [viz.]: In the case of an ownerless string, R. Huna said that if it had become attached of itself to poultry [and though damage resulted to an animate object tripping over it while it was still attached to the poultry] there would be exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there was no owner to the string, while the owner of the poultry could not be made liable for damage that resulted from a nuisance created by his poultry on the principle that Cattle, creating a nuisance, would in no way involve the owner in any obligation. ');">¹³</span>

ופרה שאכלה שעורין וחמור שאכל כרשינן וכלב שליקק את השמן וחזיר שאכל חתיכה של בשר משלמין נזק שלם אמר רב פפא השתא דאמרת כל מידי דלאו אורחיה ואכלה ליה ע"י הדחק שמיה אכילה האי שונרא דאכל תמרי וחמרא דאכיל ביניתא משלם נזק שלם

But if it had been attached to the poultry by a human being, he would be liable to pay [in full]. Under what category of damage could this liability come?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since that human being was neither the owner of the poultry nor the owner of the string, and the damage did not occur at the spot where he attached the string. ');">¹⁴</span>

ההוא חמרא דאכל נהמא ופלסיה לסלא חייביה רב יהודה לשלם נזק שלם אנהמא ואסלא חצי נזק ואמאי כיון דאורחיה למיכל נהמא אורחיה נמי לפלוסי סלא דאכל והדר פליס

— R. Huna b. Manoah said: Under the category of Pit, which is rolled about by feet of man and feet of animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which there is liability, as explained supra p. 19. ');">¹⁵</span>

ופת אורחיה הוא ורמינהו אכלה פת ובשר ותבשיל משלם חצי נזק מאי לאו בבהמה לא בחיה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT IS TOOTH <i>MU'AD</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 68. ');">¹⁶</span>

חיה בשר אורחיה הוא דמטוי ואיבעית אימא בטביא ואיבעית אימא לעולם בבהמה ובפתורא

[IT IS <i>MU'AD</i>] TO CONSUME WHATEVER IS FIT FOR IT. ANIMAL IS MUA'D TO CONSUME BOTH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. BUT IF IT HAS DESTROYED CLOTHES OR UTENSILS, [ONLY] HALF DAMAGES WILL BE PAID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For being an unusual act, it comes under the category of Horn. ');">¹⁷</span> THIS RULING APPLIES ONLY TO DAMAGE DONE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES, BUT IF IT IS DONE ON PUBLIC GROUND THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 17. ');">¹⁸</span> WHERE, HOWEVER, THE ANIMAL HAS DERIVED SOME BENEFIT [FROM THE DAMAGE DONE BY IT], PAYMENT WILL [IN ANY CASE] BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT. WHEN WILL PAYMENT BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT? IF IT CONSUMED [FOOD] IN THE MARKET, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT WILL BE MADE; [BUT IF IT CONSUMED] IN THE SIDEWAYS OF THE MARKET, THE PAYMENT WILL BE FOR THE ACTUAL DAMAGE DONE BY THE ANIMAL. [SO ALSO IF IT CONSUMED] AT THE ENTRANCE OF A SHOP, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT WILL BE MADE, [BUT IF IT CONSUMED] INSIDE THE SHOP, THE PAYMENT WILL BE FOR THE ACTUAL DAMAGE DONE BY THE ANIMAL. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Tooth is <i>Mu'ad</i> to consume whatever is fit for it. How is that? In the case of an animal entering the plaintiff's premises and consuming food that is fit for it or drinking liquids that are fit for it, the payment will be in full. Similarly in the case of a wild beast entering the plaintiff's premises, tearing an animal to pieces and consuming its flesh, the payment will be in full. So also in the case of a cow consuming barley, an ass consuming horse-beans, a dog licking oil, or a pig consuming a piece of meat, the payment will be in full. R. Papa [thereupon] said: Since it has been stated that things which in the usual way would be unfit as food [for particular animals] but which under pressing circumstances are consumed by them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., horse-beans by an ass, or meat by a pig. ');">¹⁹</span> come under the designation of food, in the case of a cat consuming dates, and an ass consuming fish, the payment will similarly be in full. There was a case where an ass consumed bread and chewed also the basket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'split it', 'picked it to pieces' (Rashi). ');">²⁰</span> [in which the bread had been kept]. Rab Judah thereupon ordered full payment for the bread, but only half damages for the basket. Why can it not be argued that since it was usual for the ass to consume the bread, it was similarly usual for it to chew at the same time the basket too? — It was only after it had already completed consuming the bread, that the ass chewed the basket. But could bread be considered the usual food of an animal? Here is [a Baraitha] which contradicts this: If it [the animal] consumed bread, meat or broth, only half damages will be paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the ground that the act was unusual and as such would come under the category of Horn. ');">²¹</span> Now, does not this ruling refer to [a domestic] animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that bread is not the usual food of animal. ');">²²</span> — No, it refers to a wild beast. To a wild beast? Is not meat its usual food? — The meat was roasted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is in such a state not usually consumed even by a wild beast. ');">²³</span> Alternatively, you may say: It refers to a deer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, as a rule, does not feed on meat. ');">²⁴</span> You may still further say alternatively that it refers to a [domestic] animal, but the bread was consumed upon a table.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was indeed unusual. ');">²⁵</span>