Bava Kamma

GEMARA. Rabina said to Raba: Is not FOOT [Mentioned in the commencing clause] identical with ANIMAL [mentioned in the second clause]?  — He answered him: [In the commencing clause the Mishnah] deals with Principals  whereas [in the second clause] derivatives are introduced.  But according to this, the subsequent Mishnah stating, 'Tooth is Mu'ad … Any animal is Mu'ad …'  what Principals and what derivatives could be distinguished there?  — Raba, however, answered him humorously, 'I expounded one [Mishnah], it is now for you to expound the other.' But what indeed is the explanation [regarding the other Mishnah]? — R. Ashi said: [In the first clause, the Mishnah] speaks of 'Tooth' of beast, whereas [in the second place] 'Tooth' of cattle is dealt with. For it might have been thought that since he shall put in be'iroh [his cattle]  is stated in Scripture, the law concerning Tooth should apply only to cattle, but not to beast; it is therefore made known to us that beast is included in the term 'animal'. If so, cattle  should be dealt with first! — Beast, which is deduced by means of interpretation, is more important [to the Mishnah which thus gives it priority]. If so, also in the opening Mishnah [dealing with FOOT, the same method should have been adopted] to state first that which is not recorded [in Scripture]?  — What a comparison! There [in the case of Tooth] where both [beast and cattle] are Principals, that which is introduced by means of interpretation is preferable; but here [in the case of Foot], how could the Principal be deferred and the derivative placed first?  You may alternatively say: Since [in the previous chapter the Mishnah] concludes with 'Foot',  it commences here with 'Foot'. Our Rabbis taught: An animal is Mu'ad to walk in its usual way and to break [things]. That is to say, in the case of an animal entering into the plaintiff's premises and doing damage [either] with its body while in motion, or with its hair while in motion, or with the saddle [which was] upon it, or with the load [which was] upon it, or with the bit in its mouth, or with the bell on its neck,  similarly in the case of an ass [doing damage] with its load, the payment must be in full. Symmachus says: In the case of Pebbles  or in the case of a pig burrowing in a dunghill and doing damage. the payment is [also] in full. [In the case of a pig] actually doing damage, is it not obvious [that the payment must be in full]?  — Read therefore: 'When it had caused [something of the dunghill] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, the payment will be in full.' But have Pebbles ever been mentioned [in this Baraitha, that Symmachus makes reference to them]? — There is something missing [in the text of the Baraitha where] the reading should be as follows: Pebbles, though being quite usual [with cattle, involve nevertheless] only half-damages; in the case of a pig digging in a dunghill and causing [something of it] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, only half-damages will therefore be paid. Symmachus, however, says: In the case of Pebbles, and similarly in the case of a pig digging in a dunghill and causing [something of it] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, the payment must he in full. Our Rabbis taught: In the case of poultry flying from one place to another and breaking utensils with their wings. the payment must be in full: but if the damage was done by the vibration that resulted from their wings, only half-damages will be paid.  Symmachus. however, says: [In all cases] the payment must be in full. Another [Baraitha] taught: In the case of poultry hopping upon dough or upon fruits which they either made dirty or picked at, the payment will be in full; but if the damage resulted from their raising there dust or pebbles, only half damages  will be paid. Symmachus. however, says: [In all cases] the payment must be in full. Another [Baraitha] taught: In the case of poultry flying from one place to another, and breaking vessels with the vibration from their wings, only half-damages will be paid. This anonymous Baraitha records the view of the Rabbis. Raba said: This fits in very well with [the view of] Symmachus who maintains that [damage done by an animal's] force  falls under the law applicable to [damage done by its] body;  but what about the Rabbis? If they too maintain that [damage done by an animal's] force is subject to the same law that is applicable to [damage done by its] body, why then not pay in full? If on the other hand it is not subject to the law of damage done by a body, why pay even half damages? — Raba [in answer] said: It may indeed be subject to the law applicable to damage done by a body, yet the payment of half damages in the case of Pebbles is a halachic principle based on a special tradition. Raba said: Whatever would involve defilement in [the activities of] a zab  will in the case of damage involve full payment, whereas that which in [the activities of] a zab would not involve defilement,  will in the case-of damage involve only half damages. Was Raba's sole intention to intimate to us [the law of] Pebbles?  — No, Raba meant to tell us the law regarding cattle  drawing a waggon [over utensils which were thus broken].  It has indeed been taught in accordance with [the view expressed by] Raba: An animal is Mu'ad to break [things] in the course of walking. How is that? In the case of an animal entering into the plaintiff's premises and doing damage either with its body while in motion, or with its hair while in motion, or with the saddle [which was] upon it, or with the load [which was] upon it, or with the bit in its mouth, or with the bell on its neck, similarly in the case of an ass [doing damage] with its load, or again, in the case of a calf drawing a waggon [over utensils which were thus broken], the payment must be in full. Our Rabbis taught: In the case of poultry picking at a cord attached to a pail so that the cord was snapped asunder and the bucket broken, the payment must be in full. Raba asked: In the case of [cattle] treading upon a utensil which has not been broken at once, but which was rolled away to some other place where it was then broken, what is the law? Shall we go by the original cause [of the damage in our determination of the law], which would thus amount to damage done by the body,  or shall only [the result, i.e.] the breaking of the utensil be the determining factor, amounting thus to Pebbles? — But why not solve the problem from a statement made by Rabbah?  For Rabbah said:  If a man threw [his fellow's] utensil from the top of a roof and another one came and and broke it with a stick [before it fell upon the ground. where it would in any case have been broken], the latter is under no liability to pay, as we say. 'It was only a broken utensil that was broken by him.' [Is not this the best proof that it is the cause of the damage which is the determining factor?]  — To Rabbah that was pretty certain, whereas to Raba it was doubtful. Come and hear: 'Hopping [with poultry] is not Mu'ad.  Some however say: It is Mu'ad.'  'Could 'hopping' [in itself] be thought [in any way not to be habitual with poultry]? Does it not therefore mean: 'Hopping that results in making [a utensil] fly [from one place to another so that it is broken] … 'so that the point at issue is this: The latter view maintains that the original cause [of the damage] is the determining factor  but the former maintains that only [the result, i.e.,] the breaking of the utensil is the determining factor?  — No,