Bava Kamma 26A

מידי כוליה קאמרינן?! פלגא קאמרינן!

The Talmud asks: Are we saying that based on the a fortiori inference one should have to pay the full cost of the damage caused in the public domain for Eating and Trampling? That would be false, as the verse indicating one’s liability to pay the full cost of the damage limits the application to damage caused in “the field of another.” We are saying only that he should be liable for half the cost of the damage there, just as with regard to Goring.

אמר קרא: ״וחצו את כספו״⁠ – כספו של זה, ולא כספו של אחר.

The Talmud rejects this as well: This is also incorrect, as the verse states with regard to the payment of half the damages: “And divide its monetary value” (Exodus 21:35). The use of the expression “its monetary value,” and not “the monetary value,” emphasizes that it is specifically the price of this ox that caused damage classified as Goring whose money will be divided, i.e., the owner of the ox will be obligated to pay half the cost of the damage, but not the price of another, i.e., not in other cases of damage caused by one’s ox.

ולא תהא שן ורגל חייבת ברשות הניזק אלא חצי נזק ⁠– מקל וחומר מקרן; ומה קרן, שברשות הרבים חייבת ⁠– ברשות הניזק אינה משלמת אלא חצי נזק; שן ורגל, שברשות הרבים פטורה ⁠– אינו דין שברשות הניזק משלם חצי נזק?

The Talmud suggests a derivation from a different inference: And let one be held liable to pay only half the cost of the damage caused by Eating and Trampling even if the incident took place on the property of the injured party. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference drawn from Goring, as follows: And if for damage classified as Goring, which is governed by a stricter halakha, as one is held liable for damage classified as Goring even if it occurs in the public domain, yet one nevertheless pays only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party, then with regard to damage classified as Eating and Trampling, which are governed by more lenient halakhot, as one is completely exempt from liability for damage caused in the public domain, is it not right that he should have to pay only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party?