## Bava Kamma Daf 18a

###### Bava Kamma 18a:1
[Bava Kamma 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:1)

בְּהִתִּיז צְרוֹרוֹת, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The dispute concerns a case **where** the chicken **propelled pebbles** from underfoot as it was hopping, **and** it is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis,** cited earlier, that the *tanna’im* in the *baraita* **disagree.** One *tanna* holds that the owner pays the full cost of the damage for pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, and the other *tanna* holds that its owner pays half the cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:2
[Bava Kamma 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְחַטְּטִין בְּחֶבֶל דְּלִי, וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנִשְׁבַּר הַדְּלִי – מְשַׁלְּמִין נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן! תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַחֶבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an additional attempt to resolve the dilemma from a *baraita*: 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,** the owner of the chickens **pays the full** cost of the **damage. Conclude from** the *baraita* that **we follow the initial** action that ultimately led to the damage in determining liability for damage. The Gemara rejects this conclusion, and one cannot adduce proof from the *baraita*. **Interpret** instead that the reference in the *baraita* is **to** the damage caused to **the rope,** while the owner pays only half the cost of the damage for breaking the bucket.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:3
[Bava Kamma 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:3)

וְהָא חֶבֶל מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא! דְּמָאוּס בְּלִישָׁה: וְהָא ״נִשְׁבַּר דְּלִי״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא, דְּאָמַר: צְרוֹרוֹת – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** eating **a rope atypical** behavior for a chicken, and therefore it should be classified within the primary category of Goring, not the primary category of Eating? Why then must the owner of the chicken pay the full cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The reference in the *baraita* is to a case where the rope **was filthy [*ma’us*] with kneaded dough,** and in those circumstances it is typical for a chicken to peck at it. The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t** the *tanna* **teach** in the *baraita*: And the **bucket broke,** indicating that the dispute is with regard to damage done to the bucket, not to the rope? The Gemara explains: **Rather,** this *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos, who says:** In the case of **pebbles** propelled by an animal, the owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 18a:4
[Bava Kamma 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:4)

אִי סוֹמְכוֹס, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִיתַּז מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁבֶר, וְנָפַל עַל כְּלִי אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרָהּ – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְאִי סוֹמְכוֹס, מִי אִית לֵיהּ חֲצִי נֶזֶק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos, say the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **If a shard was propelled from** the bucket broken by a chicken **and it fell upon another vessel and broke it,** the owner of the chicken **pays the full** cost of the **damage for the first** vessel, **and half** the cost of **the damage for the second** one. **And if** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos, is he of** the opinion that one pays **half** the cost of **the damage** caused by pebbles?


###### Bava Kamma 18a:5
[Bava Kamma 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:5)

וְכִי תֵּימָא שָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְסוֹמְכוֹס בֵּין נֶזֶק כֹּחוֹ לְכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ; וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ לְסוֹמְכוֹס, כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי אוֹ לָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that there is **a difference, according to Sumakhos, between damage** resulting from **a force** generated by the animal’s action, e.g., pebbles, **and** damage caused **by a force** generated by **a force** generated by **its** action, e.g., damage caused by the shard of the bucket, and in the latter case Sumakhos concedes that the owner pays half the cost of the damage, that would result in a difficulty. The Gemara asks: **But** what of **this dilemma raised by Rav Ashi: According to** the opinion of **Sumakhos,** what is the *halakha* with regard to damage caused **by a force** generated by **a force** generated by the animal’s action? Is the status of that secondary force **like** that of damage caused by **a force** generated by **its** action, in which case the owner is liable, **or** is its status **not like** that of damage caused by **a force** generated by **its** action?


###### Bava Kamma 18a:6
[Bava Kamma 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:6)

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ דְּלָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Why did Rav Ashi state his dilemma; why did he not **resolve** the dilemma and conclude that according to Sumakhos its status is **not like** that of damage caused by **a force** generated by **its** action? Since Rav Ashi does not resolve the dilemma based on this *baraita*, apparently, Sumakhos does not distinguish between the two types of force.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:7
[Bava Kamma 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:7)

אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן הִיא? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather,** is it **not** so that this *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and **conclude from** the *baraita* **that we follow the initial** action that ultimately led to the damage when determining one’s liability for the damage. Therefore, an owner is liable for any damage resulting from his animal’s typical behavior, and he pays the full cost of the damage done to the bucket even if the damage took place in another location.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:8
[Bava Kamma 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:8)

אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: דְּקָאָזֵיל מִינֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai bar Abaye said:** There is no proof from the *baraita*, as it could be explained that the reference in the *baraita* is to a case **where** the bucket is **continually** propelled **from** the impetus of the chicken, who caused the bucket to break. That is why the ruling in the *baraita* is that the owner of the chicken pays the full cost of the damage. The dilemma with regard to the case where an animal treads upon a vessel that rolls away and breaks elsewhere remains unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:9
[Bava Kamma 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:9)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת – מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, אוֹ מֵעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם? מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם – דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן חֲצִי נֶזֶק דִּמְשַׁלֵּם מֵעֲלִיָּיה, אוֹ דִלְמָא מֵעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם – דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן כְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּמְשַׁלֵּם מִגּוּפֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma:** With regard to one’s liability to pay **half** the cost of **the damage** caused by **pebbles** inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, does the owner of the animal **pay** restitution exclusively **from** the **body** of the animal, just as one pays half the cost of the damage caused by an innocuous ox with regard to damage categorized under the primary category of Goring? **Or** does he **pay** restitution **from** his **superior**-**quality** land, as he does for other forms of damage? The Gemara elaborates: Does he **pay** restitution exclusively **from** the **body** of the animal, **as we do not find** any case where one **pays half** the cost of **the damage from** his **superior**-**quality** land? **Or perhaps he pays** restitution **from** his **superior**-**quality** land, **as we do not find** any case where an animal causes damage **in its** typical **manner where** the owner **pays** restitution exclusively **from** the **body** of his animal?


###### Bava Kamma 18a:10
[Bava Kamma 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִידּוּס – אֵינוֹ מוּעָד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד. הִידּוּס סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא לָאו הִידּוּס וְהִתִּיז,

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


###### Bava Kamma 18a:11
[Bava Kamma 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:11)

וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ מוּעָד – קָסָבַר מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּעָד – קָסָבַר מֵעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **with regard to this** matter **that they disagree: The one who says** that the chicken **is not** deemed **forewarned holds that** its owner **pays** restitution **from** the **body** of the animal, as is the *halakha* when an innocuous animal gores, while **the one who says** that the chicken **is forewarned holds that he pays** restitution **from** his **superior**-**quality** land, as is the *halakha* when a forewarned animal causes damage. According to this analysis, Rava’s dilemma is the subject of a tannaitic dispute.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:12
[Bava Kamma 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:12)

לָא; בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** perhaps the dispute in the *baraita* is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis** with regard to the legal status of damage caused by a force generated by the animal’s action. It is with regard to the similarity of damage caused by an action performed by an animal’s body to the case where the chicken was hopping and propelled pebbles that caused the damage that the *tanna’im* in the *baraita* **disagree.**


###### Bava Kamma 18a:13
[Bava Kamma 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַכֶּלֶב שֶׁנָּטַל חֲרָרָה וְהָלַךְ לְגָדִישׁ, וְאָכַל הַחֲרָרָה וְהִדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ – עַל הַחֲרָרָה מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הַגָּדִישׁ מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution of this dilemma from a mishna (21b): If **the dog took a loaf [*ḥarara*]** that was baking on hot coals **and went to a stack of grain** to eat the loaf, **and** the dog **ate the loaf and ignited the stack** of grain with one of the coals attached to the loaf, the owner of the dog **pays the full** cost of the **damage for** the damage to **the loaf,** as it is classified in the primary category of Eating, **and he pays half** the cost of **the damage for** the damage to **the stack** of grain. Rabbi Elazar says: He pays the full cost of the damage for the damage to the stack of grain as well.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:14
[Bava Kamma 18a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:14)

מַאי טַעְמָא – לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא לְהוּ צְרוֹרוֹת? וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק – מִגּוּפוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that the first *tanna* holds that the owner pays half the cost of the damage caused to the stack of grain? **Is it not due to** the fact **that it is** analogous to propelling **pebbles,** as the coal fell from the loaf held in its mouth and ignited the grain? **And** it **is taught** in a *baraita* **in that regard** that when the first *tanna* said that **he pays half** the cost of **the damage,** he pays restitution exclusively **from** proceeds of the sale of the **body** of his animal. Apparently, half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is paid from the body of the animal that caused the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:15
[Bava Kamma 18a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:15)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִגּוּפֵיהּ מִי אַשְׁכְּחַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **And can you understand** the *baraita* in that way? According to that understanding, with regard to Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with the first *tanna* and holds that the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage caused to the grain, **do we find** anywhere that **according to Rabbi Elazar** one **pays** restitution exclusively **from** proceeds of the sale of the **body** of his animal?


###### Bava Kamma 18a:16
[Bava Kamma 18a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:16)

אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהָא גַּחֶלֶת, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* can be explained in a case **where** the dog **acted atypically with this coal** with which he lit the stack of grain. Since the dog’s behavior was atypical, the damage is classified under the primary category of Goring, not under the category of Eating. **And Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon, who says** in a mishna (24b): The *halakha* of **Goring in the courtyard of the injured** party **is atypical,** as there, the owner of the ox **pays the full** cost of the **damage,** in contrast to half the cost of the damage that he pays when it transpires in the public domain. Nevertheless, since it was an innocuous animal that caused the damage, restitution is paid from its body.


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

וְלָא הִיא; מַאי טַעְמָא מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – מִשּׁוּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that explanation: **But** that **is not so. What is the reason** that **you interpreted** that the *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon?** It is **due to** the difficulty presented by the *halakha* that he pays **the full** cost of the **damage** exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the animal, which would not be so according to Rabbi Elazar.


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

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר כְּסוֹמְכוֹס, דְּאָמַר: צְרוֹרוֹת – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם; וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: צַד תַּמּוּת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת. וְכִי קָתָנֵי מִגּוּפוֹ – אַצַּד תַּמּוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: There is an alternative explanation. **Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Sumakhos, who says** that one **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage** caused by **pebbles, and** he also **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** with regard to a forewarned ox: **The aspect of innocuousness,** which dictates that the owner pays half the cost of the damage from the body of the ox, **remains intact.** According to Rabbi Yehuda, the owner of a forewarned ox pays half the cost of the damage from the body of his ox and half the cost of the damage from his superior**-**quality land. **And** when the *tanna* of the *baraita* **teaches** that the owner pays restitution **from the body** of his animal, the reference is **to the aspect of innocuousness,** i.e., half the cost of the damage. He pays the other half from his superior**-**quality land as he would in the case of any forewarned animal.


###### Bava Kamma 18a:19
[Bava Kamma 18a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/18a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבִינָא: אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בְּתָם וְנַעֲשָׂה מוּעָד; בְּמוּעָד מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Say that you heard** that **Rabbi Yehuda** stated that the aspect of innocuousness remains intact **with regard to** damage categorized under the primary category of Goring, where the ox was initially **innocuous and** then **became forewarned. In** the case of propelled pebbles, which is a subcategory of Trampling, where the ox is **forewarned from the outset,**