Bava Kamma 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

And it is with regard to this that they disagree:

One Master

Rami bar Yeḥezkel]

holds that there is habituation with regard to zerorot, and therefore he pays full damages;

for fragments thrown by an animal, and therefore it pays full compensation;

and the other Master

the scholars of the academy]

holds that there is no habituation with regard to zerorot, and therefore even after three occurrences he pays half-damages.

for fragments thrown by an animal, and therefore even after it has done so three times it pays half compensation.

And we reject this:

No,

that is not what it is speaking about; rather,

they disagree in a case involving a single occurrence, and their disagreement is that of Sumakhos and the Rabbis.

And we challenge this: How could Rami bar Yeḥezkel have held that the animal pays full damages,

but

this act

is unusual,

as it is not the usual practice of a rooster to peck inside a vessel, and it is a derivative of keren, for which one pays half-damages?

And we answer: It is speaking

where there were

seeds

in the vessel

and in such a case it is the rooster’s usual practice to insert its head into the vessel and eat. Since it is its practice to eat there, it is also its practice to peck inside it].

Rav Ashi inquired: According to the Rabbis, who hold that for zerorot one pays half-damages, what is the law where the animal acted unusually with zerorot? For example, the animal kicked with its foot, which is an unusual act, and as a result of the kick it scattered pebbles and broke vessels. What is the law? Do we say

According to the Rabbis, who hold that for fragments thrown by an animal one pays half compensation, what is the law when the animal acts unusually through fragments—for example, when the animal kicks with its foot, which is unusual, and because of the kick it propels fragments that break vessels? Do we say

there is

a

status of an unusual act with regard to zerorot, resulting in

payment of

one-quarter damages,

because it is considered an unusual act and he pays only one-quarter damages? For with zerorot in the usual manner he pays half-damages; therefore, when it acts unusually, he pays one-quarter damages;

or

perhaps

there is no

status of an unusual act with regard to zerorot

resulting in

payment of

one-quarter damages,

and even where the zerorot resulted from an unusual act, he pays half-damages, for there is no distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox with regard to zerorot, since we have never found an innocuous ox that pays less than half-damages?

And we say:

Resolve it

for this dilemma

from Rava,

for

this is what

Rava inquired:

whether

there is habituation with regard to zerorot

and after three occurrences the animal pays full damages,

or there is no habituation with regard to zerorot

and it always pays half-damages.

And from the fact that Rava was uncertain whether, when the animal had been forewarned with regard to zerorot, it pays full damages,

by inference,

he

holds that there is no unusual act

resulting in one-quarter damages. For if there were an unusual act with regard to unusual zerorot, such that one pays one-quarter damages, then their forewarning would entail half-damages. If so, what is the possibility that once they have been forewarned they should pay full damages?

And we answer: Rav Ashi said, “This cannot be resolved from there.”

For

perhaps Rava stated it as an ‘if you should say.’

And that is to say: He was uncertain with regard to both matters, and this is what he was asking:

a. Whether there is an unusual act resulting in one-quarter damages or not.

If

you should say that there

is no unusual act

resulting in one-quarter damages, and in its innocuous state it pays half-damages, there is still a dilemma whether

there is habituation

with regard to this innocuous state, so that it should pay full damages,

or is there no habituation?

And we conclude:

teiku!

Rav Ashi inquired:

According to Sumakhos, who holds that for zerorot one pays full damages, and does not accept the halakha given to Moses at Sinai that anyone who causes damage through his force pays half-damages, does

force of his force, according to Sumakhos,

for example, an animal threw a pebble at a vessel and the vessel broke, and a fragment from it struck another vessel and broke it, so that this damage results from the force of its force]

have the status of its force

and he pays full damages?

Or not,

and in this case he concedes that he pays only half-damages?

And the substance of the dilemma is:

Do

we say that Sumakhos too

learned the halakha

given to Moses at Sinai concerning half-damages for zerorot,

and

only

applies it to the force of one’s force and not to one’s force, and therefore, for the force of one’s force, he pays half-damages,

and not to force, and therefore in a case of force of force the animal pays half compensation,

or perhaps Sumakhos did not learn

this

halakha

given to Moses at Sinai concerning half-damages for zerorot at all, and therefore even for the force of one’s force he pays full damages?

And we establish it with

teiku!

We learned in our Mishna:

If

the animal

was kicking, or pebbles were being scattered from beneath its feet and it broke vessels,

it

pays half-damages.

They raised a dilemma: What is it saying? — “

It was kicking” and

caused damage with its kick

without zerorot, which is keren. “

Or

there were

pebbles

being scattered from beneath its feet,”

in its usual manner, and therefore, “

and therefore it says: “

it pays half-damages,”

and

according to

the Rabbis, who hold that for zerorot one pays half-damages,

who hold that for fragments an animal pays half compensation.

or perhaps this is what our Mishna is saying: “

It was kicking and caused damage through its kick,”

It was kicking and caused damage with its kick”

without zerorot, and it is a derivative of keren; “

or

there were

pebbles

being scattered from beneath its feet”

because of

the

the kick

that it kicked, and in this case it

pays half-damages,

because it is unusual,

but if the pebbles were scattered in

the usual manner, it pays full damages. And whose Mishna is this? —

It is that of Sumakhos, who holds this way?

who holds this way.

Come and hear from the latter clause:

For our Mishna teaches in its latter clause: “

If it stepped on a vessel and broke it, and a fragment fell upon another vessel and broke it: For the

vessel

first, it pays full damages,

since it broke it with its body.

And for the

vessel

last

it pays

half-damages,”

since it broke it through zerorot.

And from the fact that it obligates payment of half-damages for zerorot, conclude from it that our Mishna is not that of Sumakhos.

For,

and if it is Sumakhos

’s Mishna,

does he hold

of a payment of

half-damages

for zerorot? It must be that our Mishna is that of the Rabbis, and our Mishna is speaking of zerorot in the usual manner, and not of pebbles that resulted from a kick.

And should you say that we should establish it according to Sumakhos and say that the terms “first” and “last” taught there do not refer to the first vessel, which was broken by the animal’s stepping on it, and the last vessel, which was broken through the scattering of fragments of the vessel, but rather to

the first, first in the scattering

the first with regard to the scattering,

meaning that the second vessel, which was broken as a result of the scattering of fragments of the vessel upon which the animal stepped, is called “first” by the tanna, since it is the first vessel broken through the scattering; and for it he pays full damages, despite the fact that these are zerorot, in accordance with Sumakhos,

and “second,” the second with regard to the scattering.

And that which it teaches, “for the last he pays half-damages,” likewise refers to the last with regard to the scattering—for example, fragments scattered from the vessel broken by the zerorot broke a third vessel. This last vessel was broken only through the force of the animal’s force, and in this case even according to Sumakhos he pays only half-damages.

Since

he distinguishes for him, according to Sumakhos, between the force of his action and the force of the force of his action.

If so, this is difficult:

but regarding that which Rav Ashi asked

above, whether

according to Sumakhos, the force of the force of his action is considered like the force of his action

and he pays full damages,

or not

considered like the force of his action, and he pays half-damages—let him resolve it from our Mishna

that it is not considered like the force of his action.

For that is why the Mishna exempts him from paying full damages for the last vessel?

Rather, necessarily, our Mishna is according to the Rabbis: he is liable for the first vessel for full damages, namely, the first vessel upon which the animal trampled and which it damaged with its body; and for the last vessel he is liable for half-damages, namely, the second vessel that was broken by the projection of the fragment, which is zerorot. From this one may resolve the first clause of our Mishna, which teaches, “or pebbles were being projected,” that it is speaking of the animal's ordinary manner and not of damage caused by kicking, and that it is according to the Rabbis.

And we reject this:

Rav Ashi establishes it according to the Rabbis

for our Mishna.

And he asks his earlier question—whether there is a deviation with regard to zerorot such that one pays one-quarter damages for the first three occurrences—on the basis of this Mishna.

And he asks it as follows:

Does our Mishna mean this:

“It was kicking and caused damage”

through its kicking, not by means of zerorot,

or

there were

pebbles

being projected from beneath its feet

in its ordinary manner

and not as a result of kicking, and it pays

half-damages?

If so, it should be precisely inferred from here:

that

if it projected pebbles

as a result of kicking, it pays one-quarter damages

—that is what it pays—

and

it is thereby proven that

there is a deviation

with regard to zerorot, resulting in one-quarter damages;

or perhaps

this is what it means:

“It was kicking and caused damage through its kicking, or

there were

pebbles

being projected

as a result of kicking,”

and it pays

half-damages, and it is proven

that

there is no deviation

with regard to zerorot resulting in one-quarter damages; therefore, even for zerorot involving a deviation, it pays half-damages?

And it concludes:

Teyku!

Rabbi Abba bar Memel asked Rabbi Ami, and some say that Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba asked him: “It was

the animal

walking

in the courtyard of the injured party,

in a place

filled with pebbles,

such that it is impossible for it

to walk

unless it projects

pebbles, but it did not walk in its ordinary manner

and

project them; rather,

it kicked and projected

a pebble with its kick

and caused damage—what is the law?”

Do we say:

Since it is impossible for it

to walk without projecting pebbles, therefore even the pebbles projected through kicking

are its ordinary manner,

and it pays half-damages, as is the law for zerorot,

or perhaps

although pebbles would have been projected as it walked even without the kicking, nevertheless,

now, at any rate, it is projecting pebbles as a result of kicking,

and this is considered zerorot caused by a deviation.

The law governing its payment depends on Rav Ashi's uncertainty as to whether there is a deviation with regard to zerorot that results in one-quarter damages. For if there is a deviation resulting in one-quarter damages, here too it will pay only one-quarter damages. [And according to the side that there is no deviation resulting in one-quarter damages, there is no room at all for this uncertainty].

And we conclude:

Teyku!

It was explained above that payment for damage caused by shen and regel applies only when the damage occurred in the domain of the injured party, as it is written: “When it consumes in another's field.” Payment for keren, by contrast, applies even to damage caused in the public domain,

Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: “It was walking in the public domain,

and kicked]],

and projected

pebbles,

and caused damage

through their projection.

What is the law?

Do

we compare it to keren

because even the liability for zerorot is half-damages, like that of keren,

and

therefore it is

liable

for damage caused by zerorot in the public domain,

or perhaps

all zerorot caused in the ordinary manner are

a derivative of regel, and it is exempt

in the public domain, as is regel?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

It is logical

that zerorot are

a derivative of regel

and are exempt in the public domain.

Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira further: The animal was walking and

projected

pebbles

in the public domain

and

caused damage in the private domain,

as the pebbles proceeded into the domain of the injured party and broke vessels.

What is the law?

Is its law like zerorot in the domain of the injured party, for which it is liable, or like zerorot in the public domain, for which it is exempt?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira: If

the taking up

of the pebble, which is the act of liability,

did not occur here,

since the pebble was taken up in a place of exemption, then

is there a placing down here?!

That is, it is certainly exempt, for once the taking up did not occur in a place of liability, it no longer matters where the placing down occurs.

Rabbi Yirmeya challenged him

Rabbi Zeira concerning his earlier statement that zerorot are compared to regel and are exempt in the public domain:

It is taught:

“The animal was walking along the road and projected

pebbles

both in the private domain and in the public domain,”

and it is

liable.

Is it not

that what it teaches,

“It projected in the public domain,”

means that it also

caused damage in the public domain,

and it teaches that it is liable? Thus, even zerorot that cause damage in the public domain entail liability, because we compare them to keren, and this contradicts Rabbi Zeira!?

Rabbi Zeira rejects this: What it teaches, “It projected in the public domain,”

does not

refer to a case in which it caused damage in the public domain, for in that case it is exempt. Rather,

it projected in the public domain

and caused damage in the private domain.

It is liable in that case because the damage occurred in the domain of the injured party.

Rabbi Yirmeya then asks: How can you say that if it projected in the public domain and caused damage in the private domain it is liable?

But you said,

“There is no taking up here; there is a placing down here,”

meaning that since the taking up occurred in a place of exemption, the place where the pebble came to rest and caused damage is irrelevant?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

I retract my earlier position

[I have retracted my position] regarding this reasoning, and I say that since there is no taking up that creates liability, it should be exempt. Rather, since the pebble came to rest and caused damage in the domain of the injured party, he is liable, even though the taking up occurred in the public domain.

Further,

Rabbi Yirmeya challenged him

Rabbi Zeira concerning his exempting zerorot in the public domain, like regel:

We learned in our Mishna:

“It trampled a vessel and broke it, and the fragment fell onto another vessel and broke it: for the first vessel

that was broken,

he pays full damages,

for this is regel, since it caused the damage with its body;

and for

the

last

vessel, which was damaged by the projection of the fragment,

he pays half-damages,

for this is zerorot,

and it teaches concerning it

in a beraita:

“In what case is this statement said?

When it caused damage

in the domain of the injured party. But”

if it caused damage

in the public domain, for

the

first vessel it is exempt,

as is the law of regel in the public domain,

but for the last

vessel, which was damaged through zerorot,

it is liable.”

And we say: As for what it teaches, that it is liable for the last vessel even in the public domain,

is it not

speaking of a case in which it

projected in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain

and proving that there is liability for zerorot in the public domain, because we compare them to keren? This would be difficult for Rabbi Zeira.

Rabbi Zeira rejects this:

No,

that is not the case under discussion.

Rather, it is a case in which it

projected in the public domain and caused damage in the private domain, and when it caused damage in the public domain it is always exempt.

and indeed, when she caused damage in the public domain, she is exempt.

Rabbi Yirmeya returned and challenged him:

But you said, “There is no taking up here; there is a placing down here?”

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

I retract my earlier position

regarding this reasoning; and in all cases we follow the location where the damage occurred.

And we further challenge Rabbi Zeira:

Is that so?!