## Bava Kamma Daf 19b

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

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין חֲצִי נֶזֶק חָלוּק לֹא לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְלֹא לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מַאי, לָאו הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים? לָא; הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** Payment of **half** the cost of **the damage is not differentiated** between private and public domains, as there is no exemption from payment **neither** for damage **on private property nor** for damage **in the public domain? What, is** this principle **not** stated even in a case where the animal **propelled** pebbles **in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain?** Rabbi Zeira said to him: **No,** Rabbi Yoḥanan stated this principle in a case where the animal **propelled** pebbles **in the public domain and caused damage on private property.**


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

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: עֲקִירָה אֵין כָּאן, הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – אֲקַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya said to 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. Or, **if you wish, say** instead: **When Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that payment of half the cost of the damage is not differentiated between private and public domains, and there is no exemption from payment neither for damage on private property nor for damage in the public domain, he said it only **with regard to** damage in the category of **Goring,** but not with regard to the case of propelled pebbles, for which one is exempt in the public domain.


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

יָתֵיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נְפַק מִילְּתָא מִבֵּינַיְיהוּ: כִּשְׁכְּשָׁה בִּזְנָבָהּ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: וְכִי יֹאחֲזֶנָּה בִּזְנָבָהּ וְיֵלֵךְ?! אִי הָכִי, קֶרֶן נָמֵי, נֵימָא: וְכִי יֹאחֲזֶנָּה בְּקֶרֶן וְיֵלֵךְ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that **Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and Rabbi Oshaya sat in the antechamber [*akil’a*] of Rabbi Yehuda** Nesia. **A matter emerged from among them** and one of them raised a dilemma: If an animal **swung its tail** and thereby caused damage, **what is** the *halakha*? **The other** Sage **said to him: Must** the owner **grasp its tail and walk** to prevent the animal from causing damage? Since this is typical behavior for the animal, the owner should be exempt from liability. The Gemara asks: **If so, with regard to** damage in the category of **Goring, too, let us say: Must** the owner **grasp its horn and walk** to prevent the animal from causing damage? Nevertheless, the *halakha* is that the owner is liable for damage in the category of Goring.


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

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! קֶרֶן לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, הָא אוֹרְחַיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared?** Damage in the category of **Goring is not** caused in the course of the **typical** behavior **of** the animal. Consequently, the owner is required to prevent his animal from causing damage in that manner. **This** damage caused by the swinging of an animal’s tail is caused in the course of **its typical** behavior, and one cannot hold the owner responsible for an animal's normal behavior.


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

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאוֹרְחַיהּ, מַאי מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? כִּשְׁכּוּשׁ יַתִּירָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And since that is its typical behavior, what is the dilemma** that **he raised?** Obviously one has no liability for the damage caused by the typical behavior of his animal in the public domain. The Gemara answers: **He raised a dilemma** with regard to a case of **excessive** tail **swinging;** is excessive tail swinging considered typical behavior?


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

בָּעֵי רַב עֵינָא: כִּשְׁכְּשָׁה בְּאַמָּתָהּ מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקֶּרֶן – קֶרֶן לָאו יִצְרָא קָתָקֵיף לֵיהּ? הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, קֶרֶן כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ לְהַזִּיק, הָא אֵין כַּוּוֹנָתָהּ לְהַזִּיק? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Eina raises a dilemma:** If an animal **swung its penis** and caused damage, **what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara elaborates: **Do we say just as it is with regard to Goring: Is it not** so in a case of **Goring** that the animal’s **inclination overcame it** and caused it to gore? **Here too, it is no different:** The animal’s inclination overcame it and that is why it caused damage. **Or perhaps** the cases are different, as in the case of damage in the category of **Goring** the **objective** of **its** action **is to cause damage,** whereas in **this** case the **objective** of **its** action **is not to cause damage.** The Gemara concludes: This dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 19b:7
[Bava Kamma 19b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/19b:7)

הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין מוּעָדִין לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּן וּלְשַׁבֵּר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְשַׁר מֵאֵלָיו, אֲבָל קְשָׁרוֹ אָדָם – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Chickens are** deemed **forewarned** with regard **to walking in their** typical **manner and breaking** objects. If there was a string tied to a chicken’s leg and it broke a vessel, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. **Rav Huna says: They taught** that one pays half the cost of the damage **only** in a case **where** the string **was tied** to the leg of the chicken **on its own,** i.e., a string became entangled on the leg of a chicken without the involvement of the owner and an item was broken by the string; **but if a person tied** the string to the chicken, he is **liable** to pay the full cost of the damage, as the string is in the category of Pit.


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

נִקְשַׁר מֵאֵלָיו – מַאן חַיָּיב? אִילֵימָא בַּעַל הַדְּלִיל, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַצְנְעֵיהּ – אָנוּס הוּא! וְאִי לָא אַצְנְעֵיהּ – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the string **was tied on its own, who is liable** to pay half the cost of the damage? **If we say** it is the **owner of the string** who pays, as the damage was caused by the string, **what are the circumstances? If** it is a case where the owner of the string **concealed** the string in a secure place and the chicken became entangled in it, the owner of the string **is a victim of circumstances beyond his control** and would be exempt from payment. **And if he did not conceal it** and instead left it exposed where it could become entangled in the feet of a passing chicken, **he is negligent** and liable as though he actually tied the string to the chicken.


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

אֶלָּא חַיָּיב בַּעַל תַּרְנְגוֹל? מַאי שְׁנָא כּוּלֵּיהּ נֶזֶק דְּלָא – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בּוֹר; חֲצִי נֶזֶק נָמֵי, ״אִישׁ בּוֹר״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בּוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the case in the mishna is one where the owner of the string concealed it and is exempt from liability, and Rav Huna means that the **owner of the chicken** is **liable.** Here too, the question arises: **What is different** in this case where one is **not** obligated to pay **the full** cost of **the damage, as it is written** (Exodus 21:33): **“If a man shall open a pit,** or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein,” he pays the damage, **and** it is **not** written: If **an ox** shall open **a pit.** This indicates that if an ox opens a pit, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability. With regard to the payment of **half** the cost of **the damage as well,** the owner should be exempt from liability, as it is written: “If **a man** shall open **a pit,” and** it is **not** written: If **an ox** shall open **a pit.**


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

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין בִּדְאַדְּיֵיהּ אַדּוֹיֵי. וְכִי אִתְּמַר דְּרַב הוּנָא – בְּעָלְמָא אִתְּמַר. דְּלִיל הֶפְקֵר – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נִקְשַׁר מֵאֵלָיו – פָּטוּר, קְשָׁרוֹ אָדָם – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the case in **the mishna** is one where the chicken **moved** the string and thereby caused damage. Since the chicken did not cause damage with its body, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, as he does in a case of pebbles. **And when Rav Huna’s** distinction between whether the string was tied on its own or by a person **was stated, it was stated in a general** sense, and not with regard to the *halakha* in the mishna. With regard to **an ownerless string** tied to the leg of a chicken, **Rav Huna says:** If the string **was tied** to the leg of the chicken **on its own,** the owner of the chicken is **exempt; but if a person tied** the string to the chicken, he is **liable** to pay the full cost of the damage.


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

מִשּׁוּם מַאי חַיָּיב? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ: מִשּׁוּם בּוֹרוֹ הַמִּתְגַּלְגֵּל בְּרַגְלֵי אָדָם וּבְרַגְלֵי בְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Due to what** primary category of damage is he **liable? Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ says:** He is liable **due to** the fact that although the string is not stationary, as in the standard obstacle in the primary category of Pit, this is an example of **his pit that is rolled at the feet of a person and at the hooves of an animal,** and that too is a subcategory of Pit.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** כֵּיצַד הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת? לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל פֵּירוֹת וִירָקוֹת. אָכְלָה כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Within the context of the primary category of Eating, for **what** damage caused with **the tooth** is an animal deemed **forewarned?** It is deemed forewarned with regard **to eating** food items **fit for its** consumption. **The domesticated animal is** deemed **forewarned** with regard **to eating fruits and vegetables.** If the animal **ate garments or vessels,** the owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage.** As these are not items fit for its consumption, the animal is not deemed forewarned in this case. **In what** case **is this statement** applied, that one pays the full value of the food eaten by the animal? It is a case where the animal ate the food **on the property of the injured** party; **but** if the animal ate food **in the public domain,** the owner of the animal is **exempt** from liability.


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

וְאִם נֶהֱנֵית – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** even if the animal ate food in the public domain, **if** the animal **derives benefit** from eating another’s produce in the public domain, the owner **pays** for **the benefit that it derives,** just not for the full cost of the food.


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

כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית? אָכְלָה מִתּוֹךְ הָרְחָבָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית, מִצִּדֵּי הָרְחָבָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה. מִפֶּתַח הַחֲנוּת – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית, מִתּוֹךְ הַחֲנוּת – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Under what** circumstances does the owner of the animal **pay** for **the benefit that it derives?** If the animal **ate** produce **in** the public **square** in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal **pays** for **the benefit that it derives.** If the animal ate **from** food placed at **the side of** the public **square,** which is not a public thoroughfare, the owner of the animal **pays** for **what it damaged,** as the legal status of that area is like that of the property of the injured party. If the animal ate produce **from the entrance of the store,** its owner **pays** for **the benefit that it derives,** as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. If the animal ate produce **from inside the store,** its owner **pays** for **what it damaged.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ – כֵּיצַד? בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, וְאָכְלָה אוֹכָלִין הָרְאוּיִין לָהּ וְשָׁתְתָה מַשְׁקִין הָרְאוּיִין לָהּ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. וְכֵן חַיָּה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, וְטָרְפָה בְּהֵמָה וְאָכְלָה בָּשָׂר – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: Eating is** deemed **forewarned** in that an animal tends **to eat that which is fit for it** to eat. **How** is this applied? In the case of **a domesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured** party **and it ate food fit for it** to eat, **or if it drank drinks fit for it** to drink, the owner of the animal must **pay the full** cost of the **damage. And similarly,** in the case of **an undomesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured** party **and tore apart a domesticated animal and ate** its **meat** there, the owner must **pay the full** cost of the **damage.**


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

וּפָרָה שֶׁאָכְלָה שְׂעוֹרִין, וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁאָכַל כַּרְשִׁינִין, וְכֶלֶב שֶׁלִּיקֵּק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וַחֲזִיר שֶׁאָכַל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר – מְשַׁלְּמִין נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּלָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, וְאָכְלָה לֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק – שְׁמֵיהּ אֲכִילָה; הַאי שׁוּנָּרָא דַּאֲכַל תַּמְרֵי, וַחֲמָרָא דַּאֲכַיל בִּינִיתָא – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And in the case of **a cow that ate barley,** although this is not normally a food that a cow would eat, or in the case of **a donkey that ate vetches,** i.e., legumes which are usually fed to cows but not to donkeys, **or** in the case of **a dog that licked oil or a pig that ate meat,** the owner of the animal must **pay the full** cost of the **damage.** Although these animals do not ordinarily consume these items, doing so is not a significant deviation from the animal’s typical behavior. **Rav Pappa said: Now that you said** that eating **anything that** is **not typical for** an animal to eat **but it eats it under duress** is **considered** an ordinary act of **eating,** it can be deduced that in the case of **a cat that eats dates or a donkey that is eating fish,** the owner must **pay the full** cost of the **damage,** despite the fact that these animals do not ordinarily eat these items.


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

הָהוּא חַמְרָא דַּאֲכַל נַהֲמָא וּפַלְּסֵיהּ לְסַלָּא, חַיְּיבֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם אַנַּהֲמָא, וְאַסַּלָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְאַמַּאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ לְמֵיכַל נַהֲמָא – אוֹרְחֵיהּ נָמֵי לְפַלּוֹסֵי סַלָּא! דַּאֲכַל וַהֲדַר פַּלֵּיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain donkey that ate bread and** while eating it also **broke the basket** in which the bread was stored. **Rav Yehuda obligated** the owner **to pay the full** cost of the **damage for** the loss of **the bread and half** the cost of **the damage to the basket.** The Gemara asks: **But why? Since it is typical for** a donkey **to eat bread, it is also typical** for it **to break the basket** in which the bread is stored; therefore, the owner should pay the full cost of the damage for the basket as well. The Gemara answers: This case is one where the donkey **ate** the bread **and then** afterward **broke** the basket, a sequence which demonstrates that its intent was to cause damage. The breaking of the basket is therefore a subcategory of Goring, and the owner is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.


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

וּפַת אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: אָכְלָה פַּת וּבָשָׂר וְתַבְשִׁיל – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. מַאי, לָאו בִּבְהֵמָה? לֹא, בְּחַיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is it typical for** a donkey to eat **bread?** The Gemara **raises a contradiction** against this based on a *baraita*: If **it ate bread or meat or a cooked dish,** its owner **must pay for half** the cost of **the damage. What, is it not referring to a domesticated animal** and thereby implying that it is not typical for a domesticated animal to eat bread? The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it is discussing **an undomesticated animal,** which does not typically eat bread, but a domesticated animal does eat bread.


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

חַיָּה – בָּשָׂר אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא! דְּמִטְּוֵי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּטַבְיָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם בִּבְהֵמָה, וּבְפָתוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: If the *baraita* is discussing **an undomesticated animal,** then it is **typical for it** to eat **meat.** The Gemara clarifies: The *baraita* is referring **meat that is roasted,** and it is not typical for an undomesticated animal to eat roasted meat. **Or, if you wish, say** instead that the *halakha* of the *baraita* is not stated with regard to an undomesticated predator, but **with regard to a deer,** which does not ordinarily eat meat and bread. **Or, if you wish, say** that **actually** it is discussing **a domesticated animal,** but it is discussing a case where the animal ate **at the table,** and this is not typical behavior for an animal.