Study Bava Kamma folio 22A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
והתניא: הכלב והגדי שדילגו; בין מלמעלה למטה, בין מלמטה למעלה – פטורין! תרגמא רב פפא: דאפיך מיפך – כלבא בזקירא וגדיא בסריכא. אי הכי, אמאי פטורים? פטור מנזק שלם, וחייבין בחצי נזק.
The Talmud asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a dog or a goat jumped, regardless of whether they jumped from above to below or from below to above, their owners are exempt from all liability? Rav Pappa interpreted it in the following way: Their manners of movement were changed from the typical manner of movement for their species. The dog moved by leaping [bizkira], while the goat moved by climbing [bisrikha]. The Talmud asks: If that is so, why are the owners exempt from liability? After all, they still caused damage. The Talmud answers: The baraita does not intend to say that they are completely exempt, but that they are exempt from paying the full cost of the damage; they are, however, liable to pay half the cost of the damage, as is the halakha in any case of damage caused by atypical behavior, as such acts are classified as Goring.
הכלב שנטל.
§ The Mishnah teaches: 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.
אתמר, רבי יוחנן אמר: אשו – משום חציו. וריש לקיש אמר: אשו – משום ממונו.
With regard to damage caused by a fire lit by one person spreading to a location other than where it was lit, the Talmud cites a dispute among the amora’im: It was stated: R' Yoḥanan says: His liability for damage caused by his fire is due to its similarity to his arrows, meaning that damage caused by a fire in a location other than where it was lit is comparable to damage caused by an arrow shot at a distant target. And Reish Lakish says: His liability for the damage caused by his fire is due to its similarity to his property; he is responsible for this damage just as he is responsible for damage caused elsewhere by any of his possessions, e.g., one of his animals.