Bava Kamma 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

With scattering pebbles by its trampling, and the pebbles broke a vessel while it did not touch the vessel,

through its stamping, and the pebbles broke a vessel although the animal did not touch the vessel,

and they disagree [in a dispute]

and it is a dispute]

that Sumakhos and the Rabbis disagree: The first tanna, who says that it is not considered forewarned, holds in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that there is a special halakha concerning pebbles, that he pays only half-damages; and the Sages who say that it is considered forewarned hold in accordance with Sumakhos, who says that he pays full damages. The dilemma of Rava cannot be resolved from there.

[they disagree]: The first tanna, who says that the animal is not considered habituated, follows the Rabbis, who hold that there is a special rule concerning pebbles: the owner pays only half the damage. And the anonymous authorities who say that it is considered habituated follow Sumakhos, who holds that the owner pays the full damage. Therefore, one cannot resolve Rava’s question from there.

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

Come and hear: Chickens that were pecking [with their beaks]

pecking with their beaks]

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

they pay full damages.

Conclude from this: We follow the initial cause, and it is considered to have broken because they pecked at the rope with their bodies, and not because of pebbles, when the bucket fell to the ground and broke; therefore, they pay full damages.

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

If so, this resolves Rava’s doubt: We follow the initial cause, and not the factor that actually broke the vessel.

The Gemara rejects this: It cannot be resolved from there, because

interpret it [it is possible to explain]

it is possible to explain] that the payment is

as referring to the rope, and the rope was certainly damaged by the chicken’s body; therefore, it is liable for full damages for it.

and the chicken certainly caused damage to the rope with its body, and therefore the owner must pay the full damage for it.

And we raise an objection: How can one explain that in the beraita the payment of full damages refers to the rope,

but the rope—

is unusual! The normal manner of a tooth is not to eat something unsuitable for it, and if so, it should pay only half-damages for the rope.

For it is not the way of an animal’s teeth to eat something that is unfit for them, and if so, the owner should pay only half the damage for the rope.

And we answer: It is possible to explain that the rope was

in dough-kneading, [smeared]

that it was smeared]

and repulsive [with dough stuck to it]. Therefore, it was not unusual for the chickens to peck at the rope, and consequently they must pay full damages, as in the case of a tooth.

with dough stuck to it]. Therefore, it was not unusual for the chickens to peck at the rope, and for this reason the owner must pay the full damage, as is the law of damage caused by an animal’s teeth.

And we raise an objection: How can one explain that the beraita speaks of payment for the rope and not payment for the bucket,

when it explicitly teaches that the bucket broke!

Rather,

one is forced to say that the beraita speaks of payment for the bucket.

Nevertheless, Rava’s doubt cannot yet be resolved from there—that we follow the first cause and therefore he pays full damages.

For it is possible to establish the beraita as maintaining that we follow the factor that actually broke the vessel, and

it is the view of Sumakhos, who says: Pebbles—

he pays full damages.

And we raise an objection:

If

we establish the beraita in accordance with the view of

Sumakhos,

the latter clause of the beraita will present a difficulty.

For

consider the latter clause,

where it is taught:

A fragment was scattered

from the first vessel that broke

and fell on another vessel and broke it—

for the first he pays full damages, and for the latter he pays half-damages.

And if

we say that these are the words of

Sumakhos,

there is a difficulty:

Does he accept [does Sumakhos have] a law of payment of

does Sumakhos have] a rule of payment of

half-damages?

And should you say [if you would say] that

and if you were to say],

Sumakhos distinguishes between damage caused by his force and damage caused by the force of his force, that Sumakhos distinguishes between damage caused by his direct force—for example, the bucket that rolled because of his force—and damage caused by the force of his force—for example, the other vessel that broke from a fragment of the bucket that flew onto it—and he disagrees with the Rabbis and maintains that full damages are paid only for damage caused by his direct force, while for damage caused by the force of his force he concedes that only half-damages must be paid,

meaning that Sumakhos distinguishes between damage caused directly by the animal’s force, such as the bucket rolling because of its force, and damage caused by the force of its force, such as the other vessel being broken by a fragment from the bucket that flew into it—and he disputes the Rabbis and holds that the owner pays the full damage only for damage caused by its direct force, but concedes that for damage caused by the force of its force the owner pays only half the damage,

then there is a difficulty:

But what about the matter that Rav Ashi will raise

later:

With regard to the force of his force, according to Sumakhos, is it considered like his force or not considered like his force?

Resolve it for him

from this beraita: Sumakhos holds

that it is not considered like his force!

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that this beraita is

the view of the Rabbis,

who maintain that for pebbles he pays half-damages? Therefore, when a fragment is scattered from one vessel onto another vessel and breaks it, he pays half-damages.

And if so,

conclude from this [it is proven from the beraita] that

it is proven from the beraita]] that

we follow the initial cause, and therefore he pays full damages for the bucket that broke, because it is considered to have broken as a result of the chickens’ pecking at the rope with their bodies, and not as a result of pebbles, when the bucket fell to the ground and broke.

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

If so, this resolves Rava’s doubt: We follow the initial cause, and not the factor that actually broke the vessel.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Beיבי bar Abaye said:

The beraita cannot be used to resolve the matter, because it is possible to establish that it speaks of a case

where it went [the bucket went]

the bucket went]

on its own [from it, from it]; that is, after the rope was severed, the chicken continuously moved the bucket by rolling it, and it did not break because it rolled to another place; rather, the chicken continued rolling it even at the moment it broke.

[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 raised a dilemma: Half-damages

that one pays when his animal causes damage through

pebbles:

Does he

pay from its body

of the ox

by payment, like a non-forewarned ox,

when it is a non-forewarned ox, that pays only from its body, and when its body is not worth the amount of half the damages, the injured party suffers the loss,

which pays only from its body, and when the animal’s body is not worth the amount of half the damage, the injured party loses the unpaid amount?

or does he pay from the best property [even from money in his house]

even from money in his house]

by payment, like all forewarned animals that caused damage?

The foundation of the dilemma is:

Does he

pay from its body,

since

we have not found payment of

a payment of

half-damages paid from the best property, since only a non-forewarned ox pays half-damages, and a non-forewarned ox pays only from its body; so too, half-damages for pebbles should be paid from its body,

since only an unblemished ox pays half the damage, and an unblemished ox pays only from its body; so too, half the damage caused by pebbles should be paid from the animal’s body,

or perhaps half-damages for pebbles

half the damage caused by pebbles

are paid from the best property,

since

we have not found an animal that damages

an animal that causes damage

in its ordinary manner and pays from its body.

That is, only a non-forewarned ox pays from its body, because the goring of a non-forewarned ox is unusual. Therefore, pebbles, which are like an ordinary manner of damage, should be paid from the best property.

The Gemara proceeds to resolve Rava’s doubt:

Come and hear

from what was taught:

The trampling [dancing]

of a chicken, which broke vessels by its trampling,

is not forewarned. And some say: It is forewarned.

The difficulty is: Could it enter your mind that the issue is the breaking caused by

trampling—that it pays half-damages? It is an animal that damages in its ordinary manner, since it caused damage with its body, and it certainly pays full damages. How could the tannaim disagree about this?

for which the owner pays half the damage? The animal caused damage in its ordinary manner, acting with its body, and certainly the owner pays the full damage. How could the tannaitic sages disagree about this?

Rather, is it not

what the beraita is teaching:

Trampling, and scattering

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

And with regard to this they disagree: The one who says

that trampling and scattering

is not forewarned holds that half-damages for pebbles

that half the damage caused by pebbles

are paid from its body. This is what he means by saying “it is not forewarned”: Its law is in every respect like that of a non-forewarned animal.

That is why he says, “It does not make it habituated”: its law is in every respect like that of an unblemished animal.

And the one who says “forewarned”

is the one who

holds that half-damages for pebbles

that half the damage caused by pebbles

are paid from the best property. What he said, “it is forewarned,” refers only to the fact that payment is made from the best property; but the amount of the payment is certainly half-damages, as is the law of pebbles.

When he said, “It is considered habituated,” he meant only with regard to the fact that the payment is made from the best property; but the amount of the payment is certainly half the damage, as is the law for pebbles.

It follows that the tannaim disagree about the issue raised by Rava.

And we reject this: It is indeed speaking of trampling and scattering, as you said.

But

not

about this do they disagree; rather,

they disagree in the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis.

The one who says that it is not forewarned holds like the Rabbis, who say that for pebbles he pays only half-damages. And the one who says that it is forewarned holds like Sumakhos, who says that even for pebbles he pays full damages. Therefore, you cannot resolve Rava’s doubt from this beraita.

Come and hear:

as it was taught:

A dog that took a cake [a cake lying on coals, with the coals attached to it, and the dog took the cake together with the coal attached to it]

a cake lying on coals, with the coals attached to it, so that the dog took the cake together with the coal attached to it],

and went to a haystack and ate

the

cake and set the haystack on fire:

For

eating the

cake it pays full damages,

as this is damage caused by a tooth,

and for the haystack

that was burned

it pays half-damages.

The Gemara infers:

What is the reason

that it pays half-damages for the haystack?

Is it not because it is pebbles,

since the dog caused damage through its force: It placed the coal here, and the fire proceeded and burned the haystack, which is not damage caused by its body?

And it teaches concerning it,

in a Tosefta on this beraita, that it

pays half-damages from its body.

This proves that half-damages for pebbles are paid from its body, resolving Rava’s doubt.

And we reject this:

Can you really understand it? Can the tanna be saying that by the law of pebbles it is liable to pay half-damages?

Can the tanna be understood as saying that the owner is obligated to pay half the damage by virtue of the law of pebbles?

For

according to Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with this law in the beraita and holds that even for the haystack it pays

who disagrees with this ruling in the beraita and holds that even for the haystack the owner pays

full damages,

this explanation is impossible.

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

from its body—is that ever found!?

Where do we find that full damages are paid from its body?

Moreover, Rava, who raised the doubt whether pebbles are paid from its body or from the best property, raised the doubt only according to the Rabbis, who say that he pays half-damages. According to them, there is room to consider whether the payments for pebbles should be likened to the other payments of half-damages, which are paid from the body, or not.

But according to Sumakhos, it was certainly obvious to Rava that he pays from the best property, because according to him it is like a forewarned animal in every respect.

Rather, it is necessarily the case that according to the Rabbis he pays half-damages not because it is pebbles. For with regard to the law of pebbles, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar hold like Sumakhos, that he pays full damages.

it is necessarily the case that the reason the Rabbis say that the owner pays half the damage is not that this is the law of pebbles. For with regard to pebbles, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar follow Sumakhos and say that the owner pays the full damage.

Rather, the reason he pays half-damages is the law of an unusual horn, and the beraita is speaking

for example, when it acted unusually

in which it deviated from its ordinary behavior]

in this matter

the dog]

with the coal: The dog did not place it on the haystack in its usual manner, but took it in its mouth and placed it on the haystack. Since this was unusual, the Rabbis hold that it pays half-damages and from its body.

It did not place it on the haystack in its ordinary manner, but took it in its mouth and placed it on the haystack. Since this was unusual, the Rabbis hold that the owner pays half the damage from the animal’s body.

And Rabbi Elazar,

who disagrees and holds that he pays full damages, does so because

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon, who says: An unusual act

that is

a horn,

which caused damage

in the property of the injured party, pays full damages. The law that a non-forewarned ox pays half-damages applies only when it caused damage in the public domain.

and the law that an unblemished ox pays half the damage applies only when it caused damage in the public domain.

Nevertheless, even according to his view, it pays only from its body, since it is a non-forewarned horn. In general, a non-forewarned horn pays from its body even when it pays full damages. Therefore, this beraita cannot prove that half-damages for pebbles are paid from its body.

And we reject this:

That is not so!

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

For

why do you establish it

as a beraita in which the dog acted unusually with pebbles, and establish Rabbi Elazar

in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon,

who says that an unusual act in the property of the injured party entails full damages [and do not establish it as pebbles, with Rabbi Elazar holding like Sumakhos and saying that full damages are paid]

because

he says that payment is made from its body, and

full damages

for an ordinary act are not found as being paid from its body?

This is not difficult. In fact, one can say, as we initially established it, that it is speaking of pebbles in their ordinary manner, and the Rabbis hold that payment for pebbles is half-damages from its body.

And

Rabbi Elazar holds like Sumakhos, who says that for pebbles he pays full damages, and

nevertheless he pays from its body, because

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says

below:

The aspect of non-forewarned status remains in its place.

That is, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a non-forewarned ox that gored three times and thereby changed from non-forewarned to forewarned, and pays full damages, does not entirely leave the law of non-forewarned status, such that it pays the entire amount from the best property and is exempt through a lesser degree of guarding. Rather, the portion of non-forewarned status, which is half-damages, remains in its place: For half the damage it pays only from its body, as is the law of a non-forewarned animal [and it is likewise not exempt from this half-damage through a lesser degree of guarding].

Accordingly, with regard to pebbles as well, Rabbi Elazar holds that although it pays full damages, nevertheless it pays half-damages from its body, since “the aspect of non-forewarned status remains in its place.”

And when it teaches

in the beraita that he pays

from its body,

this does not refer to the entire damage, but only

to the aspect of non-forewarned status.

He pays the other half of the damage from the best property.

If so, if we establish the beraita in this manner, there is indeed proof that half-damages for pebbles are paid from its body.

And although the proof can be rejected by establishing the beraita as referring to an unusual act with the coal, for which he pays half-damages from its body by the law of a non-forewarned horn, nevertheless, the objection that the beraita necessarily does not speak of pebbles in their ordinary manner is not an objection; it is possible to establish it even as referring to its ordinary manner.

The Gemara now raises a difficulty concerning our establishment of Rabbi Elazar as agreeing with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the aspect of non-forewarned status remains in its place, and that for this reason he holds that even the payment for pebbles is paid partly from its body, because the aspect of non-forewarned status remains in its place.

Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Granted, you heard Rabbi Yehuda say

that he holds that the aspect of tamut remains in its place, specifically

in the case of a tam

that gored three times

and became a muad,

for in this case we say that, despite its having become a muad, the status of tamut entitling one to pay half-damages was not removed from it,