Study Bava Kamma folio 18A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בהתיז צרורות, ובפלוגתא דסומכוס ורבנן קמיפלגי.
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.
תא שמע: תרנגולין שהיו מחטטין בחבל דלי, ונפסק החבל ונשבר הדלי – משלמין נזק שלם. שמע מינה, בתר מעיקרא אזלינן! תרגמה אחבל.
The Talmud 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 Talmud 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.
והא חבל משונה הוא! דמאוס בלישה: והא ״נשבר דלי״ קתני! אלא סומכוס היא, דאמר: צרורות – נזק שלם משלם.
The Talmud 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 Talmud 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 Talmud 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 Talmud 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.