Bava Kamma - Daf 19
- התיזה ברשות הרבים והזיקה ברשות היחיד
Rebbe Yirmiyah asked Rebbe Zeira if צרורות in רשות הרבים is comparable to keren (since only half-damages are paid), and liable in רשות הרבים, or comparable to regel, and exempt in רשות הרבים. Rebbe Zeira responded that it is exempt as a toladah of regel. Rebbe Yirmiyah then asked: התיזה ברה"ר והזיקה ברה"י מהו – If it propelled pebbles in the public domain, and they flew and damaged utensils in a private domain, what is the halachah? Is he exempt because the damage originated in the public domain, or liable because the damage took place in the private domain? He answered: עקירה אין כאן – There is no initial movement of the pebbles for which he is responsible (since it took place in רשות הרבים); הנחה יש כאן – can there be liability here for the eventual coming to rest in רשות היחיד? Rebbe Yirmiyah sought to disprove both rulings from two Baraisos which teach that צרורות damages are liable in רשות הרבים, and Rebbe Zeira responded that they are discussing cases where the projectile was kicked from רשות הרבים and damaged in רשות היחיד. When Rebbe Yirmiyah persisted that this still disproves his second ruling, he responded: הדרי בי – I retract that ruling.
- כשכשה בזנבה
Rebbe Yehudah Nesiah and Rebbe Oshaya were sitting together, and one asked the other: כשכשה בזנבה מהו – If [an animal] swished its tail and broke something, what is the halachah? The other responded: וכי יאחזנה בזנבה וילך – Shall [its owner] hold it by its tail constantly? One cannot be held responsible for such damages inflicted by his animal in רשות הרבים. The Gemara asks that the same should be said for keren damages in the public domain: וכי יאחזנה בקרן וילך – Shall he hold it by its horn constantly? It answers: קרן לאו אורחיה – keren is abnormal, and preventing it does not require constant vigilance, whereas regel is common, and is impractical to guard from in רשות הרבים. The Gemara then asks that since swishing its tail is common, what was the original inquiry? It answers: כשכוש יתירא מבעיא ליה – he inquired about excessive swishing, which is less common than ordinary regel, and was told that this case, too, is exempt in רשות הרבים.
- Shein: אכילה על ידי הדחק
The next Mishnah states: כיצד השן מועדת – Regarding what is [an animal’s] tooth mu’ad? לאכול את הראוי לה – To eat what is fit for it. The Mishnah adds that even in רשות הרבים, where shein is exempt from paying damages, the owner must still pay for benefits derived by the animal. A Baraisa teaches that if a cow eats barley (usually eaten by donkeys), or a donkey eats vetch (usually eaten by cows), the owner pays full damages. The same applies to a dog which laps oil, or a pig which eats meat. Rav Pappa observed: השתא דאמרת כל מידי דלאו אורחיה – Now that you have said that anything which is not its normal food, ואכלה ליה ע"י הדחק שמיה אכילה – but would eat it out of necessity, it is called “eating” and not destructive keren (even where the animal eats it without necessity), then one is also fully liable for a cat which eats dates, or a donkey which eats fish. The Gemara records an incident in which a donkey ate bread and chewed the basket, and Rav Yehudah required the owner to pay for the bread in full, but only half-damages for the basket (as keren). The Gemara explains that although it would be normal for a donkey to chew the basket together with the bread (and should pay in full), the case was where the donkey chewed the basket after eating the bread.
