|  |  | Previous Folio / Baba Kamma Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Kamma ### Folio 19a so that the point at issue [between the contradictory statements] will be that the one Master [the former] maintains that the law of Mu'ad applies [also to Pebbles]1 whereas the other Master [the latter] holds that the law of Mu'ad does not apply [to Pebbles]?2 — 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]?3 — There had been some seeds there [in which case it was not unusual]. R. Ashi asked: Would an unusual act4 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?5 — But why not solve this question from that of Raba, for Raba asked [the following]:6 Is there such a thing as becoming Mu'ad in the case of Pebbles7 or is there no such thing as becoming Mu'ad in the case of Pebbles?8 Now, does not this query imply that no unusual act [affects the law of Pebbles]?9 — 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 Mu'ad [in the case of Pebbles] or is there no such thing as becoming Mu'ad? — Let it stand undecided. R. Ashi further asked: Is [damage occasioned by] indirect force, according to Symmachus,10 subject to the law applicable to direct force or not so? Is he11 acquainted with the special halachic tradition [on the matter]12 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. 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;13 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 … [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?14 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,14 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 query15 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 … [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]16 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;17 or should it perhaps be argued otherwise, since in fact the damage resulted from kicking18 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 case19 to Horn20 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].21 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],22 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?23 — 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].'24 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?25 — 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?]' To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The compensation is therefore in full. Consequently only half damages will be paid. Coming thus under the category of Horn only half damages should be paid in the case of Tam. Done by an animal making pebbles fly through kicking. But the compensation of half damages will be made in all cases of Pebbles. Supra p. 85. For compensation in full. And no more than half damages will ever be paid 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? Who orders full compensation in the case of Pebbles; supra p. 79. I.e., Symmachus. Ordering only half damages; v supra p. 79. Who, against the view of Symmachus, order only half damages to be paid, supra p. 79. Who orders full compensation in the case of Pebbles; ibid. As to the reading of the Mishnaic text. As queried by R. Ashi himself, supra p. 88. Coming thus under the law applicable to Pebbles in the usual way. 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. On account of the liability only for half damages. Where there is liability even on public ground. Cf. supra p. 9. Since it took place on public ground. Which is a refutation of R. Zera's first ruling. I.e., on the last point. Which shows that there is liability for Pebbles, i.e., for 'the second utensil,' on public ground, against the ruling of R. Zera. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Baba Kamma 19b — He answered him: 'I have since changed my mind [on this matter].'' 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.1 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?2 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.3 But if it is usual for an animal to knock about with its tail, what then was the problem?4 — The problem was raised regarding an excessive knocking about.5 R. 'Ena queried: In the case of an animal knocking about with its membrum virile and doing thereby damage,6 what is the law? Shall we say it is analogous to Horn?7 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?8 — Let it stand undecided. POULTRY ARE MU'AD 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 string9 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?10 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,11 which implies that there would be no liability for Cattle opening a Pit,12 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.13 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?14 — R. Huna b. Manoah said: Under the category of Pit, which is rolled about by feet of man and feet of animal.15 MISHNAH. WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT IS TOOTH MU'AD?16 [IT IS MU'AD] 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.17 THIS RULING APPLIES ONLY TO DAMAGE DONE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES, BUT IF IT IS DONE ON PUBLIC GROUND THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.18 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. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Tooth is Mu'ad 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,19 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 basket20 [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.21 Now, does not this ruling refer to [a domestic] animal?22 — No, it refers to a wild beast. To a wild beast? Is not meat its usual food? — The meat was roasted.23 Alternatively, you may say: It refers to a deer.24 You may still further say alternatively that it refers to a [domestic] animal, but the bread was consumed upon a table.25 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files 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. There will therefore be no liability. Coming thus under the category of Foot, for which there is no liability on public ground. Why should it not be regarded as a derivative of Foot? Whether it is still usual for it or not. On public ground. And there will be liability. It should therefore come under the category of Tooth and Foot, for which there is no liability on public ground. Not being the owner of the poultry. He should consequently be freed altogether. Ex. XXI, 33. I.e., no responsibility is involved in cattle creating a nuisance. Cf. infra 48a; 51a. 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. 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. For which there is liability, as explained supra p. 19. V. supra p. 68. For being an unusual act, it comes under the category of Horn. Cf. supra p. 17. E.g., horse-beans by an ass, or meat by a pig. Or 'split it', 'picked it to pieces' (Rashi). On the ground that the act was unusual and as such would come under the category of Horn. This shows that bread is not the usual food of animal. Which is in such a state not usually consumed even by a wild beast. Which, as a rule, does not feed on meat. Which was indeed unusual. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |