Bava Kamma

if [on the other hand] they were not abandoned, then, according to Samuel, who maintains that all public nuisances come within the scope of the law applicable to Pit, they would be included in Pit, whereas according to Rab, who maintains that in such circumstances they rather partake of the nature of Ox, they are equivalent in law to Ox. [And even according to Samuel] why should [the derivatives of Pit] be different? Just as Pit is from its very inception a source of injury, and, being your possession, is under your control, so is the case with these [derivatives] which from their very inception [as nuisances] also are sources of injury and being your possession, are under your control! — The derivative of Pit is therefore equal to Pit, and R. Papa's statement [to the contrary] refers to the derivative of 'Spoliator'. But what is it? If we are to follow Samuel, who takes 'Spoliator' to denote Tooth,  behold we have [already] established that the derivative of Tooth equals Tooth;  if on the other hand Rab's view is accepted, identifying 'Spoliator' With Man,  what Principals and what derivatives could there be in him? You could hardly suggest that Man [doing damage] while awake is Principal, but becomes derivative [when causing damage] while asleep, for have we not learnt:  'Man is in all circumstances Mu'ad,  whether awake or asleep'? — Hence [R. Papa's statement  will] refer to phlegm  [expectorated from mouth or nostrils]. But in what circumstances? If it did damage while in motion, it is [man's] direct agency! If [on the other hand] damage resulted after it was at rest, it would be included, according to both Rab and Samuel,  in the category of Pit! — The derivative of 'Spoliator' is therefore equal to 'Spoliator'; and R. Papa's statement [to the contrary]  refers to the derivative of Fire. What is the derivative of Fire? Shall I say it is a stone, a knife and luggage which having been placed upon the top of one's roof were thrown down by a normal wind and did damage? Then in what circumstances? If they did damage while in motion, they are equivalent to Fire; and why should they be different? Just as Fire is aided by an external force, and, being your possession, is under your control, so also is the case with these [derivatives] which are aided by an external force, and, being your possession, are under your control! — The derivative of Fire is therefore equal to Fire; and R. Papa's statement [to the contrary]  refers to the derivative of Foot. 'Foot'! Have we not established that the derivative of Foot is equal to Foot?  — There is the payment of half damages done by pebbles [kicked from under an animal's feet] — a payment established by tradition.  On account of what [legal] consequence is it designated 'derivative of Foot'?  So that the payment should likewise be enforced [even] from the best of the defendant's possessions.  But did not Raba question whether the half-damage of Pebbles is collected only from the body of the animal or from any of the defendant's possessions?  — This was doubtful [only] to Raba, whereas R. Papa was [almost] certain about it [that the latter is the case]. But according to Raba, who remained doubtful [on this point], on account of what [legal] consequence is it termed 'derivative of Foot'?  — So that it may also enjoy exemption [where the damage was done] on public ground. THE SPOLIATOR [MAB'EH] AND THE FIRE etc. What is [meant by] MAB'EH? — Rab said: MAB'EH denotes Man [doing damage], but Samuel said: MAB'EH signifies Tooth [of trespassing cattle]. Rab maintains that MAB'EH denotes Man,  for it is written: The watchman said: The morning cometh, and also the night — if ye will enquire, enquire ye.  Samuel [on the other hand] holds that MAB'EH signifies Tooth, for it is written: How is Esau searched out! How are his hidden places sought out!  But how is this deduced?  As rendered by R. Joseph:  How was Esau ransacked? How were his hidden treasures exposed? Why did not Rab agree with [the interpretation of] Samuel? — He may object: Does the Mishnah employ the term NIB'EH  [which could denote anything 'exposed']? Why [on the other hand] did not Samuel follow [the inter pretation of] Rab? — He may object: Does the Mishnah employ the term BO'EH  [which could denote 'an enquirer']? But in fact the Scriptural quotations could hardly bear out the interpretation of either of them. Why then did not Rab agree with Samuel? — THE OX [in the Mishnah] covers all kinds of damage done by ox.  How then will Samuel explain the fact that ox has already been dealt with? — Rab Judah explained: THE OX [in the Mishnah] denotes Horn, while MAB'EH stands for Tooth; and this is the sequence in the Mishnah: The aspects of Horn, which does not afford gratification from the injury [are not of such order of gravity] as those of Tooth which does afford gratification from the damage;