Study Bava Kamma folio 19B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
והאמר רבי יוחנן: אין חצי נזק חלוק לא לרשות היחיד ולא לרשות הרבים. מאי, לאו התיזה ברשות הרבים, והזיקה ברשות הרבים? לא; התיזה ברשות הרבים, והזיקה ברשות היחיד.
But doesn’t R' 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? R' Zeira said to him: No, R' Yoḥanan stated this principle in a case where the animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property.
והאמרת: עקירה אין כאן, הנחה יש כאן! אמר ליה: הדרי בי. איבעית אימא: כי אמר רבי יוחנן – אקרן.
R' Yirmeya said to him: But didn’t you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? R' Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement. Or, if you wish, say instead: When R' 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.
יתיב רבי יהודה נשיאה ורבי אושעיא אקילעא דרבי יהודה, נפק מילתא מבינייהו: כשכשה בזנבה, מהו? אמר ליה אידך: וכי יאחזנה בזנבה וילך?! אי הכי, קרן נמי, נימא: וכי יאחזנה בקרן וילך?!
§ The Talmud relates that R' Yehuda Nesia and R' Oshaya sat in the antechamber [akil’a] of R' 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 Talmud 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.