Bava Kamma

but not responsibility for any damage [that it may do].  If so, explain the concluding clause: 'If a wall broke open at night, or if robbers took it by force and it went out and did damage, there is exemption.' From this it may surely be inferred that [if this had happened] in the daytime, the borrower would have been liable. Why so, if he did not take upon himself responsibility for any damage [that it may do]? — The meaning must be as follows: [But] if he has taken upon himself responsibility for damage [that it may do], he would be liable to compensate, yet, if a wall broke open at night, or if robbers took it by force and it went out and did damage there is exemption [in such a case]. Is it really so?  Did not R. Joseph learn: In the case of jointly owned premises or an inn, there is liability for Tooth and for Foot? Is not this a refutation of R. Eleazar? — R. Eleazar may answer you as follows: Do you really think so? Are Baraithas not divided [in their opinions] on the matter?  For it was taught:  'Four general rules were stated by R. Simeon b. Eleazar to apply to the laws of torts: [In the case of damage done in] premises owned by the plaintiff and not at all by the defendant, there is liability in all; if owned by the defendant and not at all by the plaintiff, there is total exemption; but if owned by the one and the other, e.g., jointly owned premises or a valley, there is exemption for Tooth and for Foot, whereas for goring, pushing, biting, falling down, and kicking, Tam pays half-damages and Mu'ad pays full damages; if not owned by the one and the other, e.g., premises not belonging to them both, there is liability for Tooth and for Foot, whereas for goring, pushing, biting, falling down, and kicking, Tam pays half-damages and Mu'ad pays full damages.' It has thus been taught here that in the case of jointly owned premises or a valley there is exemption for Tooth and Foot. Do then the two Baraithas contradict each other? — The latter Baraitha speaks of a case where the premises were set aside by the one and the other  for the purposes of both keeping fruits and keeping cattle in, whereas that of R. Joseph deals with premises set aside for keeping fruits in but not cattle, in which case so far as Tooth is concerned the premises are in practice the plaintiff's ground.  In fact the context points to the same effect. In the Baraitha here  the jointly owned premises are put on the same footing as an inn whereas in the Baraitha there  they are put on the same footing as a valley. This is indeed proved. R. Zera, however, demurred: In the case of premises which are set aside for the purpose of keeping fruits [of the one and the other].  how shall we comply with the requirement, and it feed in another man's field,  which is lacking in this case? — Abaye said to him: Since the premises are not set aside for keeping cattle in, they may well be termed 'another man's field.' R. Aha of Difti  said to Rabina: May we say that just as the Baraithas  are not divided on the matter so also are the Amoraim  not divided on the subject?  He answered him: Indeed, it is so; if, however, you think that they are divided [in their views].  the objection of R. Zera and the answer of Abaye form the point at issue. [To revert] to the above text: 'Four general rules were stated by R. Simeon b. Eleazar to apply to the laws of torts: [Where damage is done in] premises owned by the plaintiff, and not at all by the defendant, there is liability in all.' It is not stated 'for all'  but 'in all', i.e., in the whole of the damage; is it not in accordance with R. Tarfon who maintains that the unusual damage occasioned by Horn in the plaintiff's premises will be compensated in full.  Read, however, the concluding clause: 'If not owned by the one and the other, e.g., premises not belonging to them both, there is liability for Tooth and for Foot.' Now, what is the meaning of 'not owned by the one and the other'? It could hardly mean 'owned neither by the one nor by the other, but by somebody else,' for have we not to comply with the requirement, and it feed in another man's field,  which is lacking in this case? It means therefore, of course, not owned by them both, but exclusively by the plaintiff,' and yet it is stated in the concluding clause, 'Tam pays half-damages and Mu'ad pays full damages,' which follows the view of the Rabbis who maintain that the unusual damage occasioned by Horn in the plaintiff's premises will still be compensated only by half-damages.  Will the commencing clause be according to R. Tarfon and the concluding clause according to the Rabbis? — Yes, even as Samuel said to Rab Judah: Shinena,  leave this Baraitha alone,  and follow my view that the commencement of the Baraitha is according to R. Tarfon and its conclusion according to the Rabbis. Rabina, however, said in the name of Raba: The whole Baraitha is according to R. Tarfon; what is meant by 'not owned by the one and the other' is that the right of keeping fruits there is owned not by both, the one and the other, but exclusively by the plaintiff, whereas the right of keeping cattle there is owned by both, the one and the other. In the case of Tooth the premises are in practice the plaintiff's ground,  whereas in the case of Horn they are jointly owned ground.  If so, how are the rules four in number?  Are they not only three? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: