Bava Kamma 18a — the Talmud in English

When it projected pebbles

by means of the trampling, and the pebbles broke a vessel, while it did not touch the vessel,

and in the dispute

[in the disagreement]

of Somchos and the Rabbis they disagree

[they disagreed]: The first tanna, who says that it is not considered accustomed, holds like the Rabbis, that there is a special halakha concerning pebbles, that he pays only half-damage; and the ones who say that it is considered accustomed hold like Somchos, that he pays full damage. And one cannot resolve from there Rava’s question.

The Gemara attempts to resolve Rava’s question from another beraita.

Come and hear: Chickens that were pecking

[with their beaks]

at a bucket-rope, and the rope was severed and the bucket broke—

they pay full damage.

Learn from this: We follow the initial cause,

and it is considered to have broken because of what they pecked with their bodies at the rope, and not because of pebbles, that the bucket fell onto the ground and broke; therefore they pay full damage.

If so, one can resolve from there Rava’s uncertainty, that we follow the initial cause and not the factor that actually broke the vessel.

And the Gemara rejects: One cannot resolve Rava’s uncertainty from there, because

it can be interpreted

[it is possible to explain] the payment

as referring to the rope,

and it certainly injured the rope with its body, and therefore it is liable for full damage.

And we ask: How is it possible to explain that in the beraita the payment of full damage refers to the rope,

but the rope—

is an unusual act!

For it is not the way of a tooth to eat something that is not fit for it, and if so, he should pay only half-damage for the rope.

And we answer: It is possible to explain that it concerns a rope

in dough,

[that is smeared]

that is repulsive

[that dough is stuck to it], and therefore it is not unusual that the chickens pecked at the rope; and for that reason he must pay full damage, according to the law of a tooth.

And we ask: How is it possible to explain that the beraita speaks of payment for the rope and not payment for the bucket,

but it teaches, “the bucket broke”!

Rather,

you are forced to say that the beraita speaks of payment for the bucket.

But nevertheless one cannot resolve Rava’s uncertainty from there, that we follow the first factor [the initial cause] and therefore he pays full damage.

Because it is possible to establish the beraita as following the factor that actually broke the vessel [the breaking of the vessel], and

it is Somchos, who says: Pebbles—

he pays full damage.

And we ask:

If

we establish the beraita according to the view of

Somchos,

the words of the beraita in its latter clause will be difficult.

For

say its latter clause,

we learned there:

A fragment was projected from it

from the first vessel that broke

and fell upon another vessel and broke it—

for the first he pays full damage, and for the last he pays half-damage.

And if

we say that these are the words of

Somchos,

it will be difficult:

does he hold

[does Somchos have] the law of payment of

half-damage?

And if you would say

[and if you say],

that Somchos distinguishes for himself between damage caused by his force and damage caused by the force of his force,

that Somchos distinguishes between damage done by his force [such as the bucket that rolled by his force] and damage done by the force of his force [such as the other vessel that broke from the fragment of the bucket that flew upon it], and only concerning damage done by his force does he disagree with the Rabbis and hold that he pays full damage, but concerning damage done by the force of his force he concedes that he must pay only half-damage,

if so, it will be difficult:

But what of that which Rav Ashi asks

below:

The force of his force, according to Somchos—is it considered like his force, or is it not considered like his force?

Resolve it for him

from this beraita, that Somchos holds

that it is not considered like his force!

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that this beraita

is the Rabbis,

who hold that for pebbles he pays half-damage? Therefore, when a fragment is projected from the vessel onto another vessel and breaks it, he pays half-damage.

And if so,

learn from this

[it is demonstrated from the beraita] that

we follow the initial cause,

and therefore he pays full damage for the bucket that broke, because it is considered to have broken because of what they pecked with their bodies at the rope, and not because of pebbles, that the bucket fell onto the ground and broke.

If so, one can resolve Rava’s uncertainty from there, that we follow the initial cause and not the factor that actually broke the vessel.

And the Gemara rejects:

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said:

One cannot resolve it from the beraita, because it is possible to establish the beraita as speaking of a case

that it went

[that it went—the bucket]

by itself

[from it, from it]; that is to say: After the rope was severed, the chicken continually moved the bucket by rolling it, and it did not break by rolling to another place; rather, the chicken rolled it even at the time of the breaking.

Rava asked: Half-damage

that he pays when his animal caused damage through

pebbles,

whether

from its body

of the ox

he pays,

like an innocuous ox,

which pays only from its body, and when its body is not worth the amount of half-damage, the injured party suffers the loss.

Or from the best of his property

[even from money in my house]

he pays,

like all accustomed animals that caused damage. And the basis of the uncertainty is:

Whether

he pays from its body,

since

we have not found

a payment of

half-damage that he pays from the best of his property,

for only an innocuous ox pays half-damage, and an innocuous ox pays only from its body; so too, half-damage for pebbles he will pay from its body,

or perhaps half-damage for pebbles

he

pays from the best of his property,

since

we have not found

an animal that causes damage

in its ordinary manner, that pays from its body.

That is, only an innocuous ox pays from its body, because the goring of an innocuous ox is unusual. Therefore, pebbles, which are like its ordinary manner, he will pay from the best of his property.

And the Gemara comes to resolve Rava’s uncertainty:

Come and hear

for it was taught:

The trampling

[the dancing] of the chicken, which broke vessels through its trampling,

is not accustomed. And some say: This is accustomed.

And it is difficult: Does it enter your mind that the statement concerns breaking through

trampling,

that he pays half-damage?! It is damage in its ordinary manner, for it caused damage with its body, and certainly he pays full damage. How is it possible that the tannaim disagreed about this?

Rather, is it not

what it teaches is this:

Trampling, and it projected

the vessel through its dancing to another place, which is pebbles.

And concerning this they disagree: The one who says

trampling and projecting

is not accustomed, holds

half-damage for pebbles

he pays from its body.

And this is what he says: “It is not accustomed”—its law is like the law of an innocuous animal in every respect.

And the one who says, “accustomed,”

is the one who

holds

half-damage for pebbles

he pays from the best of his property,

and what he said, “This is accustomed,” refers only to this matter: that he pays from the best of his property; but the amount of the payment is certainly half-damage, according to the law of pebbles.

It follows that, concerning the matter of the question that Rava raised, the tannaim disagree.

And we reject: In fact, it deals with trampling and projecting, as you said.

But

not

about this did they disagree; rather,

they disagree in the dispute of Somchos and the Rabbis.

The one who says that it is not accustomed holds like the Rabbis, that for pebbles he pays only half-damage. And the one who says that it is accustomed holds like Somchos, that even for pebbles he pays full damage; and therefore you cannot resolve Rava’s uncertainty from this beraita.

Come and hear:

For it was taught:

The dog that took a cake

[a cake placed upon coals, with the coals attached to it, and the dog took the cake together with the coal attached to it],

and went to a grainstack and ate

the

cake, and set fire to the grainstack:

For

eating the

cake he pays full damage,

for this is damage of a tooth,

and for the grainstack

that was burned

he pays half-damage.

And the Gemara analyzes:

What is the reason

that for the grainstack he pays half-damage?

Is it not because they are pebbles,

that the dog caused damage with its force, for it placed the coal here, and the fire went and burned the grainstack, which is not damage with its body?

And it teaches upon it,

on this beraita in the Tosefta, that

he pays half-damage from its body.

And it is demonstrated that half-damage for pebbles he pays from its body, and Rava’s uncertainty is resolved.

And we reject:

And can you understand it so?

Would the tanna intend to say that by the law of pebbles he is liable to pay half-damage?

But

according to Rabbi Elazar,

who disagrees in the beraita concerning this law and holds that even for the grainstack he pays

full damage,

it is impossible to explain it this way.

For even if we say that according to Rabbi Elazar he pays full damage for pebbles because he holds like Somchos, nevertheless, that he should pay full damage

from its body—is such a thing found?!

Where do we find that he should pay full damage from its body?

And Rava too, who was uncertain whether for pebbles he pays from its body or from the best of his property, was uncertain about the matter only according to the Rabbis, who say that he pays half-damage. According to them, there is room to discuss whether to compare payments for pebbles to the other payments of half-damage, which are paid from their bodies, or not.

But according to Somchos, it was certainly obvious to Rava that he pays from the best of his property, because according to him, in every respect it is like an accustomed animal.

Rather,

necessarily, the fact that according to the Rabbis he pays half-damage is not because it is pebbles. For concerning the law of pebbles, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar hold like Somchos, that he pays full damage.

Rather, the fact that he pays half-damage is by the law of an unusual horn, and the beraita speaks of a case

such that it acted unusually

[that it changed its manner]

in this

[the dog]

with the coal,

that it did not place it upon the grainstack in its ordinary manner, but took it in its mouth and placed it upon the grainstack. And since this is unusual, the Rabbis hold that he pays half-damage and from its body.

And Rabbi Elazar,

who disagrees and holds that he pays full damage, because

he holds like Rabbi Tarfon, who says: An unusual act

that is

horn,

which caused damage

in the injured party’s courtyard, he pays full damage,

and the law that an innocuous ox pays half-damage was stated only when it caused damage in the public domain.

But nevertheless, even according to him, he pays only from its body, since it is an innocuous horn. And invariably an innocuous horn pays from its body, even if it pays full damage. Therefore, one cannot prove from this beraita that half-damage for pebbles is paid from its body.

And we reject:

It is not so!

That is, this that you proved—that the beraita certainly does not speak of pebbles in their ordinary manner, but of an unusual act—is not a proof.

For

for what reason do you establish it

as referring to an unusual act with pebbles, and establish Rabbi Elazar

as Rabbi Tarfon,

who says that an unusual act in the injured party’s courtyard entails full damage [and do not establish it as referring to pebbles, with Rabbi Elazar holding like Somchos, who says that he pays full damage]

because

he says that he pays from its body, and

full damage

in its ordinary manner paying from its body has not been found?

And this is not difficult. For one can always say as we established it initially: It concerns pebbles in their ordinary manner, and the Rabbis hold that for pebbles he pays half-damage from its body.

And

Rabbi Elazar holds like Somchos, who says that for pebbles he pays full damage, and

even so he pays from its body, because

he holds like Rabbi Judah, who says

below:

The side of innocuousness remains in its place.

That is, Rabbi Judah holds that an innocuous ox that gored three times and moved from innocuousness to being accustomed, and pays full damage, does not entirely leave the law of innocuousness, so that it should pay all of it from the best of his property and be exempt through lesser guarding. Rather, the portion of innocuousness [which is half-damage] remains in its place: For half of the damage he pays only from its body, according to the law of an innocuous ox [and likewise he is not exempt from this half-damage through lesser guarding].

And therefore, also concerning pebbles, Rabbi Elazar holds that although he pays full damage, nevertheless he pays half-damage from its body, since “the side of innocuousness remains in its place.”

And when it teaches

in the beraita that he pays

from its body,

this is not for all the damage, but only

for the side of innocuousness

alone. But the other half of the damage he pays from the best of his property.

And if so, if we establish the beraita this way, there is indeed proof that half-damage for pebbles is paid from its body.

And although one can reject the proof and establish the beraita as referring to an unusual act with the coal, and that he pays half-damage from its body by the law of an innocuous horn, nevertheless, what you refuted—that the beraita necessarily does not speak of pebbles in their ordinary manner—is not a valid refutation, and it is possible to establish it even as referring to its ordinary manner.

And now the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning what we established regarding Rabbi Elazar as Rabbi Judah, that the side of innocuousness remains in its place, and for that reason he holds that even the payments for pebbles are paid half from its body, because the side of innocuousness remains in its place.

Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Say that you heard from Rabbi Judah that he holds that the aspect of tamut remains in its place specifically

with a

tam

that gored three times

and became a muad,

for in this case we say: although it became a muad, the law of tamut for half-damage did not depart from it,