## Bava Kamma Daf 21b

###### Bava Kamma 21b:1
[Bava Kamma 21b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:1)

בְּעָלְמָא – בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ פָּטוּר; וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר: לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינָךְ דִּמְקָרְבַתְּ לְהוּ לְפֵירוֹתָךְ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּמְחַיְּיבַתְּ לְהוּ לְתוֹרַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that **usually,** if one digs **a pit within his** own **property** and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is **exempt,** as he dug the pit when the property was his. **But here** it **is different, because** here the owner of the animal can **say** to the owner of the produce: **It is not all in your power to bring your produce close to the public domain and to** also **hold my ox liable for** eating **it.**


###### Bava Kamma 21b:2
[Bava Kamma 21b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:2)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּעָלְמָא – בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ חַיָּיב; דְּבִשְׁלָמָא בּוֹר, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ; אֶלָּא פֵּירוֹת, מִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ?! הָא חָזֵי לְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel** can **say: Usually,** if one digs **a pit** or creates an obstacle that can cause damage **within his** own **property** and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is **liable** for any damage that is caused by the pit. **As** with regard to the **pit, granted, it is possible to say** that **he was not aware,** meaning the injured party was not thinking about the possibility that there may be a pit there that could cause him harm, and therefore the one who dug the pit is liable. **But** with regard to **produce** that is spread out over the ground, **can it be said that** the animal **was not aware** of it? It cannot be, because the animal **sees** the produce.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:3
[Bava Kamma 21b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:3)

לֵימָא מַחְזֶרֶת תַּנָּאֵי הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא: אָכְלָה מִתּוֹךְ הָרְחָבָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית, מִצִּידֵּי הָרְחָבָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לֶאֱכוֹל, אֶלָּא לְהַלֵּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that actually, the amoraic dispute about an animal that **turns** its head and eats produce at the side of the road **is** the subject of a dispute between ***tanna’im*. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If an animal **ate** produce **from the** public **square,** the owner of the animal **pays** for **the benefit that** the animal **derived;** but if it ate **from the sides of the** public **square,** he **pays** for that **which it damaged.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.** But **Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar say: It is not typical** for an animal **to eat** in the public domain **but only to walk** there. Consequently, the owner is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:4
[Bava Kamma 21b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:4)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אֶלָּא מַחְזֶרֶת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מַחְזֶרֶת נָמֵי – מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Initially, the Gemara understands Rabbi Yosei’s opinion as also referring to a situation in which the animal eats from the sides of the public square, and since this is so, it seems that the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei is** the same as that of **the first *tanna*,** Rabbi Meir, and the mishna presents their opinions as differing. **Rather,** it is clear that **there is** a difference **between them** with regard to a case in which the animal **turns** its head to eat. **The first *tanna* holds** that with regard to an animal that **turns** its head, the owner of the animal **also pays** for **the benefit that** the animal **derived, while Rabbi Yosei holds** that he **pays** for that **which it damaged.**


###### Bava Kamma 21b:5
[Bava Kamma 21b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:5)

לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, מַחְזֶרֶת – אִי כְּרַב, אִי כִּשְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָכָא בְּ״בִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ – וְלֹא בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים; וּמָר סָבַר: ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ – וְלֹא בִּרְשׁוּת הַמַּזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it is possible to say **that everyone** agrees about the *halakha* in the case of an animal that **turns** its head, **either in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav or in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel. And here they disagree** about the exemption inferred from the verse: **“It consumed in the field of another”** (Exodus 22:4), which renders the owner of an animal liable for damage classified as Eating. One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that only if it ate from private property is its owner liable, as the verse stating the owner’s liability means: **“And it consumed in the field of another,” but not** when it eats **in the public domain. And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yosei, **holds** it means that even if it ate from the public domain its owner is liable, as the verse stating the owner’s liability means: **“And it consumed in the field of another,” but not** when it eats **in the domain of the one responsible for the damage;** only if the animal ate produce of another that was on the property of the animal’s owner, is its owner exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:6
[Bava Kamma 21b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:6)

בִּרְשׁוּת הַמַּזִּיק – לֵימָא: פֵּירָךְ בִּרְשׁוּתִי מַאי בָּעֵי? אֶלָּא דְּאִילְפָא וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: But not when it eats **in the domain of the one responsible for the damage?** What is the novelty in this statement? **Let** the owner of the animal **say** to the owner of the produce: **What is your produce doing on my property?** The owner would certainly not be liable if the produce is damaged in that case. **Rather,** it must be that the difference **between them** is with regard to the dispute **between Ilfa and Rabbi Oshaya** concerning an animal that ate produce from the back of another animal or the like. Rabbi Meir holds that one is never liable for damage classified as Eating in the public domain, even if his animal ate from the back of another, and Rabbi Yosei holds that if it ate off the back of another animal, this is equivalent to Eating from the property of the injured party.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:7
[Bava Kamma 21b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁקָּפְצוּ מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וְשָׁבְרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מוּעָדִין. הַכֶּלֶב שֶׁנָּטַל חֲרָרָה וְהָלַךְ לְגָדִישׁ, אָכַל הַחֲרָרָה וְהִדְלִיק הַגָּדִישׁ – עַל הַחֲרָרָה מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הַגָּדִישׁ מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a dog or a goat that jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels** while doing so, their owners **must pay the full** cost of the **damage** to the vessels **because** these animals **are** deemed **forewarned** concerning to jumping. With regard to **a dog that took a cake** that had been baked directly on hot coals, **and went to a stack** of grain to eat it, **and it ate the cake** and at the same time **ignited the stack** of grain with a coal that it had taken along with the cake, the owner of the dog must **pay the full** cost of the **damage for the cake, and** he must **pay for half** the cost of **the damage to the stack** of grain.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:8
[Bava Kamma 21b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּקָפְצוּ, הָא נָפְלוּ – פָּטוּר; אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: תְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאוֹנֶס – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers from the mishna: **The reason** the owners must pay the full cost of the damage is **because** the animals **jumped** off the rooftop. This indicates that if **they fell** off the roof, they would be **exempt** from all liability despite his obligation to keep them from climbing onto the roof and jumping down from there. **Apparently,** the *tanna* **holds** that in an incident that **begins with negligence,** meaning carelessness or even an intention to cause damage, **and ends in an accident,** the one who caused the damage is **exempt,** as in this case the owner was careless in allowing the animals to go to the rooftop, but since they did not jump off the roof but rather fell accidentally, he is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:9
[Bava Kamma 21b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:9)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַכֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁקָּפְצוּ מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג וְשָׁבְרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. נָפְלוּ – פְּטוּרִין. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: תְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאוֹנֶס – פָּטוּר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: חַיָּיב, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **If a dog or a goat jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels** while doing so, their owners must **pay the full** cost of the **damage. If they fell** from there, they are **exempt** from all liability. The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that if an incident **begins with negligence and ends in an accident,** the one who caused the damage is **exempt, but according to the one who says** that in such a case he is **liable, what can be said?** It seems that this *baraita* constitutes conclusive proof against that opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:10
[Bava Kamma 21b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:10)

כְּגוֹן דִּמְקָרְבִי כֵּלִים לְגַבֵּי כוֹתֶל – דְּכִי קָפְצִי בִּקְפִיצָה, לָא נָפְלִי עֲלַיְיהוּ; וַאֲפִילּוּ תְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The case in the *baraita* is a case **where the vessels were brought close to the wall** by their owners, **so** that **when** the animals **jump** off the rooftop **in** an ordinary **leap they do not fall on top of them,** and the vessels broke because the animal fell and didn’t jump. **And** since in an ordinary circumstance no damage should occur, **this** case does **not even begin with negligence.** Since the damage was caused by falling, the entire case is ruled an accident.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:11
[Bava Kamma 21b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:11)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ נָפְלוּ נָמֵי חַיָּיב – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּכוֹתֶל רָעוּעַ. מַאי נִיהוּ – דְּאִבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַסּוֹקֵי דַּעְתָּא דְּנָפְילִ[י] אַרְחֵי? סוֹף סוֹף, לָא נְפֻל אַרְחֵי – וּנְפוּל אִינְהוּ; תְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאוֹנֶס הוּא! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּכוֹתֶל צַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Sometimes** one can be **obligated** to pay **even** in a case where the animals **fell** from the wall of their owner’s house. **You find** such a case **where the wall was unstable,** and the owner was negligent in allowing the animals to go up to the roof due to the danger of the wall collapsing. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? Is it **because it should have occurred to him that bricks may fall** from the wall and break the vessels? But **ultimately, no bricks fell and** instead **the** animals **fell,** so **this is** actually a case that **begins with negligence and ends in an accident.** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* **with regard to** a case of **a narrow wall,** in which case it is clear that if they climb up there they will fall, and that is why he is liable for the damage they cause by falling.


###### Bava Kamma 21b:12
[Bava Kamma 21b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/21b:12)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁדִּלְּגוּ מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה – פְּטוּרִין. מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה – חַיָּיבִין. אָדָם וְתַרְנְגוֹל שֶׁדִּלְּגוּ; בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה, בֵּין מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה – חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **If a dog or a goat jumped from below to** something that was **above** them and thereby caused damage, their owners are **exempt,** as this is atypical behavior. But if they jumped **from above to below,** their owners are **liable** to pay the full cost of any damage they cause, as this is typical behavior. **If a person or a chicken jumped** and broke something, **regardless of whether they jumped from above to below or from below to above, they are liable.**