Bava Kamma - Daf 18
- תרנגולין שהיו מחטטין בחבל דלי ונפסק החבל ונשבר הדלי
The Gemara attempts to resolve Rava’s question if we follow the beginning of the breaking process, or the moment it actually breaks, regarding צרורות. A Baraisa teaches: תרנגולין שהיו מחטטין בחבל דלי – If chickens were pecking at the rope of a bucket, ונפסק החבל ונשבר הדלי – and the rope snapped and the bucket broke, he pays full damages. The Gemara assumes that the chickens’ actions caused the bucket to roll away and break, yet he still pays full damages!? The Gemara suggests that the Tanna is Sumchos, who obligates full payment for צרורות. This is rejected because the Baraisa concludes that if a shard of the bucket shot out and broke another utensil, he pays only half-damages (and it is an unresolved question if Sumchos concedes that half-damages are paid for a secondary force). Finally, Rav Bivi bar Abaye answers: דקאזיל מיניה מיניה – the case is where [the bucket] is moving constantly from [the chicken’s] pushing until it breaks from the chicken’s body.
- חצי נזק צרורות מגופו משלם או מעלייה משלם, כלב שנטל חררה
Rava asked: חצי נזק צרורות – Regarding half-damage payments for צרורות, מגופו משלם – does he pay from [the animal’s] body (i.e., liability cannot exceed the damaging animal’s value), או מעלייה משלם – or does he pay from choice property (without limit)? On the one hand, no half-damages are paid מעלייה (i.e., keren pays מגופו), but on the other hand, there is no precedent for regel paying מגופו.
A Mishnah is quoted which states: הכלב שנטל חררה והלך לגדיש – A dog which took a biscuit from coals and went to a heap of grain, ate the biscuit and set the grain on fire (with a coal stuck to the biscuit), the owner pays full damages for the biscuit and half damages for the grain. This is presumably because of צרורות (because the fire spread to another spot), yet a Baraisa teaches the payment is מגופו!? The Gemara counters that the case cannot be ordinary צרורות, because Rebbe Elazar requires paying full damages מגופו for the grain, which is impossible for צרורות!? Rava eventually concludes that both Tannaim hold like Sumchos (that ordinary צרורות pay fully), but here the dog did something unusual with the coal (keren). Rebbe Elazar holds like Rebbe Tarfon, that keren pays fully in private property, and Rava explains why he pays מגופו.
- יש העדאה לצרורות או אין העדאה לצרורות
Rava asked: יש העדאה לצרורות או אין העדאה לצרורות – Is there mu’ad for צרורות, or is there no mu’ad for צרורות? Rashi explained above (in his second explanation) that this refers to normal צרורות. לקרן מדמינן ליה – Do we compare it to keren, since it pays only half-damages, and should share the halachah of keren to pay fully after three times, או דלמא תולדה דרגל הוא – or perhaps we say it is a toladah of regel, being common even the first time, and since only half-damages are paid, this continues even beyond three times? A Baraisa is quoted which discusses an animal which dropped dung onto dough, where Rebbe Yehudah requires full payment, and Rebbe Elazar obligates half-damages. Since it is צרורות, we assume that Rebbe Yehudah obligates full payment because it happened three times previously, and he holds there is mu’ad for צרורות, and Rebbe Elazar holds there is not. The Gemara responds that it may be discussing a first incident, and Rebbe Yehudah holds צרורות always pays full damages, like Sumchos. The damage is not considered unusual (and therefore keren), because the animal was confined in a small space. This case teaches an additional novelty, that although dung was inside the animal’s body, it is still considered צרורות.
