Bava Kamma - Daf 47
- Collecting payment from the offspring of the damaging cow
The Mishnah taught that where a pregnant cow gored an ox, and it is unknown if the cow gave birth before the attack or afterward, half-damages can be collected from the cow, and quarter-damages from the offspring. The Gemara on the previous Daf asks that since the cow is a tam, how can three-quarters of the total damages be collected?! Rava ultimately interprets the Mishnah: איתה לפרה משתלם חצי נזק מפרה – if the cow is here and available for collection, the half-damages are collected from the cow. ליתא לפרה משתלם רביע נזק מולד – If the cow is not here to be collected, then quarter-damages may be collected from the offspring. Since it is unknown if the offspring was born beforehand, only half of the half-damages may be collected from it. Thus, the Mishnah means that either half-damages or quarter-damages may be collected, not both. That damages may be collected from offspring (that was inside the mother when it damaged) reflects Rava’s ruling: פרה שהזיקה גובה מולדה – If a [tam] cow damaged, he may collect from its offspring, because גופה היא – it was part of [the cow’s] body. In contrast, if a chicken damaged, he cannot collect from its egg, because פירשא בעלמא הוא – it is a mere secretion, and not part of its body.
- הקדר שהכניס קדרותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות, או ברשות
The next Mishnah states: הקדר שהכניס קדרותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות – If a potter brought his pots into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the homeowner’s animal damaged the pots, he is exempt from paying, and if the animal was harmed by the pots, the potter is liable. ואם הכניס ברשות בעל החצר חייב – But if he brought them in with permission and they were broken, the courtyard’s owner is liable. The same laws are taught for bringing in produce or an animal. Rebbe says: בכולן אינו חייב עד שיקבל עליו לשמור – In all these [cases], [the homeowner] is not liable for property damaged in his domain unless he accepted to guard it. The Gemara initially assumes that according to the Rabbonon, that the homeowner’s granting permission to bring pots into his courtyard amounts to agreeing to pay for damages to the pots, the potter similarly agrees to pay for his pots’ damaging the homeowner’s animals. Based on this, Rebbe Zeira says that the Mishnah, which contains contradictory implications if the Rabbonon argue with Rebbe, reflects differing opinions. Rava says that according to the Rabbonon, the homeowner’s permission is an acceptance to pay for any damages to the pots (even from outside forces, like wind), whereas the potter accepts no responsibility at all for the homeowner’s property.
- הוה לה שלא תאכל
The Mishnah taught that if the homeowner’s animal was harmed by produce brought in without permission, the produce’s owner is liable. Rava said that this is only שהוחלקה בהן – where [the animal] slipped on it, but if the animal ate the produce and died from overeating, he is exempt, because הוה לה שלא תאכל – it should not have eaten. Tosafos explains that one is not liable where the animal brought the harm upon itself. Rava is challenged from a Baraisa which teaches that if someone placed poison before someone’s animal which it ate and died, פטור מדיני אדם – he is exempt from the laws of man (i.e., he is not compelled to pay), וחייב בדיני שמים – but is liable under the laws of Heaven (i.e., he is morally obligated to pay). This implies that only regarding poison, which an animal does not usually eat, is he exempt from paying, but for normal food, he would be liable!? The Gemara answers that although he would also be exempt for produce, the Baraisa discussed poison to teach that even with poison, he is liable בדיני שמים. Alternatively, the Baraisa is discussing afrazta, a poisonous plant which animals would naturally eat.
