## Bava Kamma Daf 17b

###### Bava Kamma 17b:1
[Bava Kamma 17b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: הַיְינוּ רֶגֶל הַיְינוּ בְּהֵמָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנָא אָבוֹת, וְקָתָנֵי תּוֹלָדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara analyzes the mishna: **Ravina said to Rava:** In the context of the category of Trampling, damage caused by an animal trampling an object with its **foot is the same as** damage caused by **an animal** breaking an object with its body. Why does the mishna repeat the same *halakha* twice? Rava **said to him:** First, the *tanna* **teaches** the **primary categories** of damage, namely the category of Trampling with an animal’s foot, which is mentioned explicitly in the Torah, **and** then **he teaches** the **subcategories** of those primary categories, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to causing damage with other parts of its body in the course of its walking.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:2
[Bava Kamma 17b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:2)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת״ ״הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת״, מַאי אָבוֹת וּמַאי תּוֹלָדוֹת אִיכָּא? הֲוָה קָמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ בִּבְדִיחוּתָא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא שַׁנַּאי חֲדָא, וְאַתְּ שַׁנִּי חֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina challenges this explanation: **If that is so, the latter clause** of the mishna (19b), **which teaches,** concerning the primary category of Eating: For what damage caused by **Eating** is the animal deemed **forewarned?** It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption, i.e., **the animal is** deemed **forewarned** with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. Ravina asks: **What primary categories and what subcategories are there** in that context? No subcategories of Eating are enumerated there, and nevertheless, the phrase: The animal is deemed forewarned, is repeated. Rava **responded to** Ravina **with a humorous** response **and said to him: I resolved** the difficulty in **one** mishna, now **you resolve** the difficulty in **one** mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:3
[Bava Kamma 17b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:3)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: תַּנָּא שֵׁן דְּחַיָּה, וְקָתָנֵי שֵׁן דִּבְהֵמָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה״ כְּתִיב, בְּהֵמָה – אִין, חַיָּה – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּחַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is the reason** for the apparent redundancy in the mishna with regard to Eating? **Rav Ashi said:** First the *tanna* **teaches** the *halakha* of **Eating by an undomesticated animal and** then **he teaches** the *halakha* of **Eating by a domesticated animal.** And it was necessary to state both, as **it enters your mind to say** that since **it is written: “And he set his animal loose”** (Exodus 22:4), with regard to **domesticated animals, yes,** the primary category of Eating applies, but with regard to **undomesticated animals, no,** the primary category of Eating does not apply. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us that undomesticated animals** are included **in the category of domesticated animals** in this regard and the owner of an undomesticated animal is liable for damage caused by his animal eating another person’s produce.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:4
[Bava Kamma 17b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:4)

אִי הָכִי, הָא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי בְּרֵישָׁא! הַאי דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא – חֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the *tanna* **should have taught** the *halakha* with regard to a domesticated animal **first** and only afterward taught the *halakha* with regard to an undomesticated animal, as the latter is included in the category of the former. The Gemara answers: On the contrary, **that** *halakha*, **which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him,** and therefore the *tanna* preferred to begin with the derived *halakha* and only then proceed to the explicit *halakha*.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:5
[Bava Kamma 17b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:5)

אִי הָכִי, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי – לִיתְנֵי הָהִיא דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בְּרֵישָׁא! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אָבוֹת נִינְהוּ, הָךְ דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא – חֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ. הָכָא – שָׁבֵיק אָב, וְתָנֵי תּוֹלָדָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** then with regard to the **first clause,** in this mishna **too, let** the *tanna* **teach that which is not** explicitly **written first,** as that which is derived from an interpretation is dear to him. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: **How can** they **be compared? There,** with regard to Eating, **this** damage caused by a domesticated animal **and that** damage caused by an undomesticated animal **are primary categories** of damage; therefore, the *tanna* taught first **that** *halakha*, **which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him.** But **here,** with regard to Trampling, would **he leave aside the primary category** of Trampling, done with the animal’s foot, **and teach a subcategory** first?


###### Bava Kamma 17b:6
[Bava Kamma 17b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:6)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַיְּידֵי דְּסָלֵיק מֵרֶגֶל, פָּתַח בָּרֶגֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead that the reason that in this mishna the *tanna* begins with that which is written explicitly in the Torah and only then proceeds to teach that which is derived through an interpretation is as follows: **Since** the *tanna* **concluded** the discussion in the final mishna in the previous chapter (15b) **with** the primary category of **Trampling** by teaching the clause: The foot of an animal is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking, therefore, **he began** the first mishna in the second chapter **with** the primary category of **Trampling.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:7
[Bava Kamma 17b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּלְשַׁבֵּר. כֵּיצַד? בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק – וְהִזִּיקָה בְּגוּפָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ; בָּאוּכָּף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, וּבְזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ; וַחֲמוֹר בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: צְרוֹרוֹת, וַחֲזִיר שֶׁהָיָה נוֹבֵר בָּאַשְׁפָּה וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: An animal is** deemed **forewarned** with regard **to walking in its** typical **manner and,** while doing so, **breaking** objects in the course of its walking. **How so?** If **an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured** party **and it damaged** an object **with its body** in **the course of its walking; or** if it caused damage **with its hair** in **the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the** packed **saddlebag [*shalif* ] that is on it; or with the halter in its mouth; or with the bell [*zog*] around its neck; or** if it was **a donkey** that caused damage **with its burden;** in all these cases the owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage. Sumakhos says:** In the case of **pebbles** propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, **or** in the case of **a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and caused damage,** the owner of the animal **pays the full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:8
[Bava Kamma 17b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:8)

הִזִּיק – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הִתִּיז וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If a pig **caused damage,** it **is obvious** that its owner must pay the full cost of the damage. What novel element is Sumakhos introducing? The Gemara answers: **Rather, say:** If **it propelled** pebbles **and** thereby **caused damage,** the owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:9
[Bava Kamma 17b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:9)

צְרוֹרוֹת מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַיְהוּ? חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: צְרוֹרוֹת כִּי אוֹרְחַיְיהוּ – חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וַחֲזִיר שֶׁהָיָה נוֹבֵר בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וְהִתִּיז וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: צְרוֹרוֹת, וַחֲזִיר שֶׁהָיָה נוֹבֵר בָּאַשְׁפָּה וְהִתִּיז וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Pebbles, who mentioned anything about it?** The Gemara answers: The *baraita* **is incomplete and this** is what **it is teaching:** For damage caused **by pebbles** that were propelled by animals walking **in their typical manner,** the owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage, and** for damage caused by **a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled** pebbles **and** that **damaged** an object, its owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage. Sumakhos says:** Both in the case of **pebbles** that were propelled **and** in the case of **a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled** pebbles **and damaged** an object, the owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage.** Sumakhos does not accept the *halakha* that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, i.e., in its typical manner. He holds that since the damage results from the animal’s typical behavior, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:10
[Bava Kamma 17b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מַפְרִיחִין מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְשָׁבְרוּ כֵּלִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶן – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. בְּרוּחַ שֶׁבְּכַנְפֵיהֶן – מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַדְּסִין עַל גַּבֵּי עִיסָּה וְעַל גַּבֵּי פֵּירוֹת, וְטִינְּפוּ אוֹ נִיקְּרוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. הֶעֱלוּ עָפָר אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת – מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** (*Tosefta* 2:1): If **chickens were flying from place to place and broke vessels with their wings,** their owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage** as this is a subcategory of Trampling. By contrast, if the damage was caused **by the wind** generated **by their wings,** the owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage,** in accordance with the *halakha* in the case of pebbles. **Sumakhos says:** The owner pays **the full** cost of the **damage. It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: If **chickens were hopping upon dough or upon produce and they sullied** it with their feet, **or** if **they pecked** at it and caused damage, their owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage. If** in the course of their hopping **they stirred up dust or** propelled **pebbles,** the owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage. Sumakhos says:** He pays **the full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:11
[Bava Kamma 17b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:11)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: תַּרְנְגוֹל שֶׁהָיָה מַפְרִיחַ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְיָצְתָה רוּחַ מִתַּחַת כְּנָפָיו וְשִׁיבְּרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סְתָמָא כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: If **a chicken was flying from place to place and wind emerged from beneath its wings and** the wind **caused vessels to break,** the owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage.** The Gemara notes: This **unattributed** *baraita* **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that the owner pays half the cost of the damage in these cases, just as he does in the case of pebbles propelled by the feet of an animal.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:12
[Bava Kamma 17b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא סוֹמְכוֹס – קָסָבַר: כֹּחוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן, אִי כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי – כּוּלֵּיהּ נֶזֶק בָּעֵי לְשַׁלֵּם; וְאִי לָאו כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי, חֲצִי נֶזֶק נָמֵי לָא לְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** analyzed the *baraita* and **said: Granted,** the opinion of **Sumakhos** is understood, as **he holds** that the status of damage resulting from **a force** generated by the animal’s action **is like** that of damage directly caused by the animal **itself,** and therefore the owner pays the full cost of the damage in both cases. **But** the opinion of **the Rabbis** is difficult, as **if** they hold that the status of damage resulting from **a force** generated by the animal’s action **is like** that of damage directly caused by the animal **itself,** the owner should **be required to pay the full** cost of the **damage. And if** they hold that the status of damage resulting from **a force** generated by the animal’s action **is not like** that of damage directly caused by the animal **itself,** and is not attributed to the animal, then the owner should not be required **to pay even half** the cost of **the damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:13
[Bava Kamma 17b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:13)

הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי, וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת – הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Then Rava said: Actually,** the Rabbis hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action **is like** that of damage directly caused by the animal **itself,** and in principle the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. **And** the liability to pay for **half** the cost of **the damage** caused by **pebbles** is because the Rabbis **learned this *halakha* through tradition,** and it does not correspond to the standard *halakhot* of damages.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:14
[Bava Kamma 17b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁבַּזָּב טָמֵא – בְּנִזָּקִין מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. כֹּל שֶׁבַּזָּב טָהוֹר – בְּנִזָּקִין מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says:** With regard to **any** type of action **which,** when **a *zav*** interacts with a vessel in that manner, he renders it **ritually impure,** if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting **in damage,** the owner of the animal is liable to **pay the full** cost of the **damage.** Conversely, with regard to **any** type of action **which,** when **a *zav*** interacts with a vessel in that manner, he leaves it **ritually pure,** e.g., where the contact is indirect, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting **in damage,** the owner of the animal is liable to **pay** only **half** the cost of **the damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:15
[Bava Kamma 17b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:15)

וְרָבָא, צְרוֹרוֹת אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?! לֹא; רָבָא – עֶגְלָה מוֹשֶׁכֶת בַּקָּרוֹן קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rava, did he come to teach us** the *halakha* of **pebbles?** The substance of Rava’s statement is that for damage caused by the indirect action of an animal, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. That is identical to the *halakha* of pebbles articulated in the *baraitot* cited earlier. The Gemara answers: **No, Rava teaches us** the *halakha* in the case of **a calf pulling a cart [*karon*].** Just as with regard to a *zav*, the status of a vessel that a *zav* moves is like that of a vessel with which he came into contact, so too, the status of damage caused by the cart pulled by the animal is like that of damage caused by the animal’s body, and it is not considered indirect damage like in the case of pebbles.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:16
[Bava Kamma 17b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:16)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְשַׁבֵּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ. כֵּיצַד? בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק – וְהִזִּיקָה בְּגוּפָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ; בָּאוּכָּף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, וּבְזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ; וַחֲמוֹר בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ, וְעֶגְלָה מוֹשֶׁכֶת בְּקָרוֹן – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava: An animal is** deemed **forewarned with regard to breaking** objects **in the course of its walking. How so?** If **an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured** party, **and it damaged** an object **with its body** in **the course of its walking; or with its hair** in **the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the** packed **saddlebag that is on it; or with the halter that is in its mouth; or with the bell that is around its neck; or** if **a donkey** caused damage **with its burden; or** if **a calf** caused damage while **pulling a cart;** in all these cases the owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:17
[Bava Kamma 17b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תַּרְנְגוֹלִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְחַטְּטִין בְּחֶבֶל דְּלִי, וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנִשְׁבַּר הַדְּלִי – מְשַׁלְּמִין נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** In a case where **chickens were pecking at the rope** tied to **a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket** fell and **broke,** their owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:18
[Bava Kamma 17b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:18)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: דָּרְסָה עַל כְּלִי וְלֹא שְׁבָרַתּוּ, וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְנִשְׁבַּר, מַהוּ? בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן – וְגוּפֵיהּ הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּתַר תְּבַר מָנָא אָזְלִינָא – וּצְרוֹרוֹת נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma:** If an animal **trod upon a vessel but did not break it and** the vessel then **rolled to another place and broke** there, **what is** the *halakha*? Rava elaborates: In determining one’s liability for causing damage, **do we follow the initial** action that ultimately led to the damage **and this** case is regarded as damage caused by the animal **itself?** Accordingly, the owner would pay the full cost of the damage as he would in any case classified under the primary category of Trampling. **Or perhaps** do **we follow the breaking of the vessel and** therefore **this** case is regarded as similar to the case of **pebbles** propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, since the vessel was not broken by a direct action of the animal, but rather, as an indirect result of the animal’s action?


###### Bava Kamma 17b:19
[Bava Kamma 17b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:19)

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבָּה – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק כְּלִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וּבָא אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ בְּמַקֵּל – פָּטוּר; דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: מָנָא תְּבִירָא תְּבַר! לְרַבָּה – פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, לְרָבָא – מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Resolve** Rava’s dilemma **from** the statement **of Rabba, as Rabba says:** If one **threw a vessel from a roof and another came and broke it with a stick** as it was falling, the one who hit it with the stick is **exempt** from all liability **as we say to him** that **he broke a broken vessel.** From the moment the vessel was tossed from the roof it was inevitable that it would break. Consequently, breaking it with a stick as it was falling had no real effect. Apparently, the initial action is the decisive factor in determining liability for damages. The same should be the *halakha* in a case where a vessel was trod upon by an animal but it did not break, and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there. The liability should be determined based on the initial action that caused the damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The *halakha* in this case **is clear to Rabba,** who ruled as he did, but it remains **a dilemma to Rava.** One cannot prove the opinion of one *amora* from the opinion of another.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:20
[Bava Kamma 17b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:20)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִידּוּס – אֵינוֹ מוּעָד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** the resolution of this dilemma from a *baraita*: With regard to **hopping,** a chicken **is not** deemed **forewarned. And some say that it is forewarned.**


###### Bava Kamma 17b:21
[Bava Kamma 17b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:21)

הִידּוּס סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא לָאו הִידּוּס וְהִתִּיז, וּבְהָא קָמִפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: בָּתַר תְּבַר מְנָא אָזְלִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the formulation of the *baraita*: Does it **enter your mind** to raise the possibility that a chicken is not forewarned with regard to **hopping?** Hopping is the typical manner of movement for chickens. **Rather, is it not** that the reference in the *baraita* is to a case where the chicken was **hopping and** the hopping **propelled** the vessel to roll to another place, and the vessel was broken there? **And they disagree with regard to this:** One **Sage holds** that **we follow the initial** action that ultimately led to the damage, and since hopping is typical manner of movement for a chicken, its owner is responsible for any damage that resulted from its hopping. **And** one **Sage holds: We follow the breaking of the vessel,** and since there was an additional factor that broke the vessel, the owner of the chicken is not liable.


###### Bava Kamma 17b:22
[Bava Kamma 17b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/17b:22)

לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the parallel between the dispute and the dilemma: **No,** the dispute in the *baraita* can be explained differently.