## Bava Kamma Daf 19a

###### Bava Kamma 19a:1
[Bava Kamma 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:1)

וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין הַעֲדָאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **with regard to this** that **they disagree:** One **Sage,** the first *tanna* in the *baraita* cited by Rami bar Yeḥezkel, **holds: There is forewarning** for pebbles, **and** one **Sage,** Rav Yosef, **holds: There is no forewarning** for pebbles.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:2
[Bava Kamma 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:2)

לָא; בְּחַד זִמְנָא, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי. וְהָא מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא! דְּאִית בֵּיהּ בִּזְרָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this resolution: **No,** perhaps the reference in the *baraita* is to a case where the rooster or animal damaged the vessel **one time. And** the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Sumakhos and the Rabbis,** concerning compensation for damage caused by pebbles. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** it **atypical** behavior for an animal to insert its head into a glass vessel, and isn’t all atypical behavior classified within the category of Goring, meaning that the owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The case is one where **there were seeds in** the vessel, and therefore the rooster extending its head into the vessel is considered typical behavior.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:3
[Bava Kamma 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:3)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: יֵשׁ שִׁנּוּי לִצְרוֹרוֹת לִרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק, אוֹ אֵין שִׁנּוּי לִצְרוֹרוֹת לִרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is there** any halakhic significance to **deviation** from typical behavior **with regard to** propelling **pebbles,** and therefore if an animal propelled pebbles in an atypical manner its owner is liable **to** pay **one-quarter of the damage,** i.e., half the restitution for damage caused by pebbles? **Or, is there no** halakhic significance to **deviation** from typical behavior **with regard to** propelling **pebbles,** resulting in its owner being liable **to** pay only **one-quarter of the damage,** and therefore, even in an atypical case, the owner pays the standard restitution of half the cost of the damage?


###### Bava Kamma 19a:4
[Bava Kamma 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:4)

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרָבָא, דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת, אוֹ אֵין הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת? מִכְּלָל דְּאֵין שִׁנּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Resolve** Rav Ashi’s dilemma **from Rava’s** dilemma, **as Rava raises a dilemma: Is there forewarning for pebbles, or is there no forewarning for pebbles?** Based on that dilemma, one may conclude **by inference that there is no** halakhic significance to **deviation** from typical behavior with regard to pebbles propelled by an animal, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, as, were that the case, forewarning would lead to an animal owner’s liability to pay half the cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:5
[Bava Kamma 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:5)

דִּלְמָא רָבָא ״אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר״ קָאָמַר – אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר אֵין שִׁנּוּי, יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה, אוֹ אֵין הַעֲדָאָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps Rava stated** his dilemma employing the style of: **If you say. If you say** that **there is no** halakhic significance to **deviation** from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, and the owner pays half the cost of the damage in every case, **is there forewarning for** pebbles, meaning that after three incidents the owner pays the full cost of the damage, **or is there no forewarning for** pebbles? According to that understanding, the *halakha* with regard to Rav Ashi’s dilemma cannot be inferred from Rava’s dilemma. Rav Ashi’s dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:6
[Bava Kamma 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:6)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ לְסוֹמְכוֹס, כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises** another **dilemma** with regard to pebbles: **According to** the opinion of **Sumakhos,** that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, 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 19a:7
[Bava Kamma 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:7)

מִי גְּמִיר הֲלָכָה – וּמוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא גְּמִיר הֲלָכָה כְּלָל? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Did** Sumakhos **learn** the *halakha* that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles as **a tradition** transmitted to Moses at Sinai, **and he interprets** that tradition as applying in a case where the damage was caused **by a force** generated by **a force** generated by the action of an animal? By contrast, in a typical case of damage caused by pebbles, which is an example of a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. **Or perhaps he did not learn** any *halakha* as **a tradition** in this regard **at all,** and therefore even in a case where the damage was caused by a force generated by a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma, too, **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:8
[Bava Kamma 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:8)

הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ, וְשָׁבְרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the animal **was kicking** while it was walking, **or** it occurred **that pebbles were** inadvertently **propelled from under its feet and** those pebbles **broke vessels,** the owner of the animal **pays half** the cost of **the damage. A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **what** case **is** the *tanna* of the mishna **speaking?**


###### Bava Kamma 19a:9
[Bava Kamma 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:9)

הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת כְּאוֹרְחַיְיהוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וְרַבָּנַן הִיא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, הָא כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וּמַנִּי – סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: Is the *tanna* saying that if the animal **was kicking and caused damage** directly **with its kick,** which is a subcategory of Goring, **or** if the animal was walking and propelled **pebbles in its typical manner,** the owner of the animal **pays half** the cost of **the damage, and,** accordingly, the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that one pays half the cost of damage caused by pebbles? **Or perhaps** the *tanna* is saying: If the animal **was kicking and caused damage** directly **with its kick, or** if the animal propelled **pebbles due to its kick** and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal **pays half** the cost of **the damage.** Accordingly, one may infer: **But** if the animal propelled **pebbles** as it was walking **in its typical manner,** the owner **pays the full** cost of the **damage, and** if so, in accordance with **whose** opinion is the mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos.**


###### Bava Kamma 19a:10
[Bava Kamma 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וּשְׁבָרַתּוּ, וְנָפַל הַשֶּׁבֶר עַל כְּלִי אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְאִי סוֹמְכוֹס, מִי אִית לֵיהּ חֲצִי נֶזֶק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma **from the latter clause** of the mishna: If an animal **trod upon a vessel and broke it and** then a shard of that vessel **fell upon** a second **vessel and broke it,** the owner **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage for the first** vessel, **and he pays half** the cost of **the damage for the latter** vessel. **And if** the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos, does he hold** that one pays **half** the cost of **the damage** caused by pebbles?


###### Bava Kamma 19a:11
[Bava Kamma 19a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא ״רִאשׁוֹן״ – רִאשׁוֹן לְהַתָּזָה, וְ״שֵׁנִי״ – שֵׁנִי לְהַתָּזָה; וְשָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְסוֹמְכוֹס בֵּין כֹּחוֹ לְכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, and can be understood as follows: **The first** vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage, is **the first** vessel damaged following the **propelling** of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the second vessel that was broken. **And the second** vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage, is **the second** vessel following the **propelling** of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the third vessel that was broken by shards from the second vessel. **And** the reason for the difference in liability is that **there is a difference, according to Sumakhos, between** damage caused **by a force** generated by the action of an animal, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and damage caused by **a force** generated by **a force** generated by **its** action, for which he pays for only half the cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:12
[Bava Kamma 19a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:12)

אֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ לְסוֹמְכוֹס, כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי אוֹ לָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי? תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ דְּלָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if one were to say this explanation, what can be said of **that dilemma which Rav Ashi raised: According to** the opinion of **Sumakhos,** that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, 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? Why does he have a dilemma? Let him **resolve** from here **that** its status is **not like** that of damage caused by **a force** generated by **its** action.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:13
[Bava Kamma 19a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:13)

רַב אָשֵׁי כְּרַבָּנַן מוֹקֵי לַהּ, וּבָעֵי לַהּ הָכִי – הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת כְּאוֹרְחַיְיהוּ – חֲצִי נֶזֶק. הָא מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט – רְבִיעַ נֶזֶק, וְיֵשׁ שִׁנּוּי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Perhaps **Rav Ashi interprets** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, **and** he **raises this dilemma:** If the animal **was kicking and caused damage** directly **with its kick,** which is a subcategory of Goring, **or** if the animal was walking and propelled **pebbles in its typical manner,** the owner of the animal pays **half** the cost of **the damage.** Accordingly, one may infer: **But** if the pebbles were propelled **due to a kick,** the owner pays **one-quarter of the damage. And there is** halakhic significance to **deviation** from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:14
[Bava Kamma 19a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:14)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט – חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וְאֵין שִׁנּוּי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** the *tanna* is saying: If the animal **was kicking and caused damage** directly **with its kick or** if the animal propelled **pebbles due to its kick** and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal **pays half** the cost of **the damage. And there is no** halakhic significance to **deviation** from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles. The Gemara concludes: Rav Ashi’s dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:15
[Bava Kamma 19a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:15)

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מְנַתֶּזֶת, וּבִעֲטָה וְהִתִּיזָה וְהִזִּיקָה, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַהּ – אוֹרְחַיהּ הוּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט קָמְנַתְּזָה צְרוֹרוֹת? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and some say** that it was **before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba:** If the animal **was walking in a place where it is impossible for it** to walk **without propelling** pebbles as it proceeds, **and it kicked and propelled** pebbles **and caused damage, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara elaborates: Does one say that **since it is impossible for it** to walk without propelling pebbles, propelling pebbles **is its typical manner** in that situation and the *halakha* in this case would be the same as any case of pebbles? **Or perhaps,** since **now, in any event, the pebbles were propelled due to a kick,** it is different. The Gemara concludes: Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:16
[Bava Kamma 19a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:16)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבִעֲטָה וְהִתִּיזָה וְהִזִּיקָה, מַהוּ? לְקֶרֶן מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ – וְחַיֶּיבֶת, אוֹ דִלְמָא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל הוּא – וּפְטוּרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא, תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira:** If the animal **was walking in the public domain and** it **kicked and propelled** pebbles **and caused damage, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara elaborates: **Do we liken** the damage in this instance **to Goring,** since the action was performed with intent, **and** therefore the owner of the animal **is liable** even though the incident transpired in the public domain? **Or perhaps,** since this is a case of pebbles, **it** is classified as **a subcategory of Trampling and** the owner is **exempt** from liability in the public domain. Rabbi Zeira **said to him: It stands to reason** that **it is a subcategory of Trampling.**


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

הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲקִירָה אֵין כָּאן, הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya continued and asked Rabbi Zeira another question: If an animal **propelled** pebbles **in the public domain and caused damage on private property, what is** the *halakha*? Rabbi Zeira **said to him,** employing terminology from the *halakhot* of Shabbat: If **there is no** act of **lifting here, is there** an act of **placing here?** Since the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain, the owner is exempt from liability for any damage that it causes. The fact that the damage occurred on private property is not relevant.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהִתִּיזָה, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – חַיָּיב. מַאי, לָאו הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים? לָא, הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: עֲקִירָה אֵין כָּאן, הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya **raised an objection to** Rabbi Zeira’s first statement, that one is exempt from liability for one’s animal propelling pebbles in the public domain because it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, from a *baraita*: If an animal **was walking along the way and it propelled** pebbles, **whether** it was **on private property** and **whether** it was **in the public domain,** the owner is **liable** to pay damages. **What, is it not** a case where the pebbles were **propelled in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain?** Rabbi Zeira replied: **No,** the reference is to a case where the animal **propelled** the pebbles **in the public domain and caused damage on private property.** Rabbi Yirmeya asked him: **But didn’t you say:** If **there is no** act of **lifting here, is there** an act of **placing here?** Rabbi Zeira **said to him: I retract** my previous statement, as there is proof from the *baraita* that there is liability in that case.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וּשְׁבָרַתּוּ, וְנָפַל הַשֶּׁבֶר עַל כְּלִי אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּטוּרָה וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיֶּיבֶת. מַאי, לָאו הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya **raised an objection to** Rabbi Zeira’s first statement from the mishna: If an animal **trod upon a vessel and broke it and** then a shard of that vessel **fell upon** a second **vessel and broke it,** the owner **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage for the first** vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, **and he pays half** the cost of **the damage for the latter** vessel. **And it is taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to this** *halakha*: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case where the incident transpired **on the** private **property of the injured** party; **but** if it transpired **in the public domain,** the owner of the animal is **exempt** from liability **for the first** vessel, as it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, **and** he is **liable for** the damage to **the second** vessel. **What, is it not** that the animal **propelled** the pebbles **in the public domain and it caused damage in the public domain,** indicating that one does not pay for damage caused by pebbles in the public domain?


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

לֹא, הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. וְהָאָמְרַתְּ עֲקִירָה אֵין כָּאן הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira replied: **No,** perhaps the reference in the mishna is to a case where the animal **propelled** the pebbles **in the public domain and it caused damage on private property.** Rabbi Yirmeya said: **But didn’t you say:** If **there is no** act of **lifting here, is there** an act of **placing here?** Rabbi Zeira **said to him: I retract** my previous statement.


###### Bava Kamma 19a:21
[Bava Kamma 19a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19a:21)

אִינִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an additional objection to Rabbi Zeira’s statement: **Is that so?** Is the owner of the animal exempt from liability for pebbles propelled by his animal in the public domain?