Bava Kamma - Daf 23
- Opinion that אשו משום חציו agrees that אש is also משום ממונו
Abaye asked, according to the opinion that fire is liable as one’s own force, how is fire exempt from paying for damages of טמון – something hidden? He explained that it applies where one’s fire was contained by his fenced yard, but the fence fell (not due to the fire), and burned in another field, דהתם כלו ליה חציו – for there, his arrows ceased, and the subsequent spreading is not his force. The Gemara asks that if so, why is he liable at all? It concludes that Rebbe Yochanan, besides for holding that fire is considered one’s force, also holds he is responsible for it as his property. Thus, the exemption for טמון would apply where he could have rebuilt the fallen fence but did not: שורו הוא ולא טפח באפיה – it is like his ox in front of which he did not close the stable door to prevent it from damaging. Since all agree that one is liable for fire as his property, the Gemara explains the nafka mina between the opinions: לחייבו בארבעה דברים – to obligate him in the additional four [payments] for directly injuring a person.
- פי פרה כחצר הניזק דמי או כחצר המזיק דמי
The Mishnah on Daf 21b taught that a dog which ate someone’s biscuit, its owner is responsible. The Gemara explains that it was eaten on the damaged party’s property, thus qualifying as ובער בשדה אחר – and it consumes in the field of another. The Gemara says this resolves the inquiry presented below: פי פרה כחצר הניזק דמי או כחצר המזיק דמי – Is the mouth of a cow inside the damaged party’s property considered the damaged party’s yard, so the owner is liable, or the damager’s yard, and the owner is not responsible? This Mishnah proves it is considered the damaged party’s yard, because if it is considered the dog’s owner’s yard, he could say: מאי בעי רפתך בפומא דכלבאי – “What is your bread doing in my dog’s mouth?” The Gemara wonders about the inquiry itself, for how could one ever be liable for shein if the animal’s mouth is considered the damager’s property? It answers that it can apply where an animal rubs against a wall, or ruins fruit by rolling on it, for its gratification (without entering its mouth). Since shein is described as "עד תומו" – destroyed until its completion, the Gemara clarifies that the wall had an image that was rubbed out, or the fruits were pressed into the mud and destroyed.
- Machlokes about the process of becoming a mu’ad, and reverting to tam status
The next Mishnah states: איזהו תם ואיזו מועד – Which animal is a tam, and which is a mu’ad? Rebbe Yehudah says: מועד כל שהעידו בו שלשה ימים – A mu’ad is any animal about which they testified about its keren damages on three separate days. ותם משיחזור בו שלשה ימים – It reverts to being a tam when it desists from damaging in such circumstances on three days. Rebbe Meir says: מועד שהעידו בו שלשה פעמים – A mu’ad is any animal about which they testified about its keren damages three times, even on one day. ותם כל שיהו התינוקות ממשמשין בו ואינו נוגח – It reverts to being a tam whenever children stroke it and it does not gore in reaction. Abaye explains that Rebbe Yehudah darshens three terms to imply three days of damages, about which the Torah states that if he still does not guard his animal, allowing a fourth incident, he pays full damages. Rava only darshens two days from these terms, and Rashi explains he obligates full damages for the third incident. Rebbe Meir’s position is explained on the following Daf.
