Bava Kamma - Daf 16
- Squatting on small jugs
The Mishnah on the previous Daf taught that an animal is not a mu’ad לרבוץ - to squat on objects and destroy them. Rebbe Elazar says: לא שנו אלא פכין גדולים – They only taught this in regard to large jugs, because it is unusual for an animal to squat on them, אבל פכין קטנים אורחיה הוא – but regarding small jugs, it is normal for an animal to squat on them. Such damage would be exempt in a public domain, and paid in full in a private domain, (as a toladah of regel). The Gemara suggests support from a Baraisa: הבהמה מועדת להלך כדרכה ולשבר – An animal is a mu’ad to walk in its normal way and break things, ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים – and to crush a person, an animal, or utensils. Since the Mishnah taught that an animal is not a mu’ad to crush utensils through squatting, we must differentiate between small and large jugs, as Rebbe Elazar did. The proof is rejected: דלמא מן הצד – Perhaps the case is where it crushed utensils from the side against a wall, whereas squatting on any utensil may be unusual.
In another version, Rebbe Elazar said that the Mishnah’s ruling does apply even to small jugs, and it is always unusual.
- Different ways a lion attacks its prey
Shmuel says: ארי ברה"ר – Where a lion attacks an animal in the public domain, דרס ואכל פטור – if it seized it and ate it while it was alive, [its owner] is exempt, טרף ואכל חייב – but if it tore the animal to death and then ate it, he is liable. Since it is normal for a lion to seize and devour its prey alive, it is the equivalent of an animal eating produce, which is exempt as shein in the public domain. Tearing the prey to death first is unusual for a lion and is classified as keren and liable (for half-damages) in a public domain. The Gemara addresses several pessukim which imply that a lion does commonly tear its prey to death. Shmuel is challenged from a Baraisa which states that if a wild animal entered someone’s chatzeir, טרפה בהמה ואכלה בשר – and tore an animal and ate the meat, משלם נזק שלם – [its owner] pays full damages. The generic term "חיה" implies that even for a lion, one pays full damages for “tearing,” which proves that it is normal!? The Gemara ultimately answers to read the Baraisa as two cases: שטרפה להניח – that [the wild animal] tore it to store it, או דרסה ואכלה – or it seized it and ate it.
- Tam pays חצי נזק מגופו, and mu’ad pays נזם שלם מן העלייה
The next Mishnah states: מה בין תם למועד – What is the difference between the laws of a tam and a mu’ad? אלא שהתם משלם חצי נזק מגופו – Only that regarding a tam, one pays half-damages from [the animal’s] body (i.e., the payment is limited to the value of the damaging animal), ומועד משלם נזק שלם מן העלייה – whereas regarding a mu’ad, one pays full damages from the “aliyah,” even if it exceeds his animal’s value. Rebbe Elazar explains the term “aliyah”: במעולה שבנכסיו – with the choicest of his properties (i.e., עידית). Similarly, a passuk describes that King Chizkiyah was buried "במעלה קברי בני דוד" – in the “maaleh” of the graves of Dovid’s descendants, which Rebbe Elazar explains: אצל מעולים שבמשפחה – he was buried next to the finest members of his family, whom he identifies as Dovid and Shlomo.
