Study Bava Kamma folio 21B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
that usually, if one digs a pit within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is exempt, as he dug the pit when the property was his. But here it is different, because here the owner of the animal can say to the owner of the produce: It is not all in your power to b
And Shmuel can say: Usually, if one digs a pit or creates an obstacle that can cause damage within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is liable for any damage that is caused by the pit. As with regard to the pit, granted, it is possible to say that he was not awa
The Talmud suggests: Let us say that actually, the amoraic dispute about an animal that turns its head and eats produce at the side of the road is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: If an animal ate produce from the public square, the owner of the animal pays f
Initially, the Talmud understands R' Yosei’s opinion as also referring to a situation in which the animal eats from the sides of the public square, and since this is so, it seems that the opinion of R' Yosei is the same as that of the first tanna, R' Meir, and the Mishnah presents their opinions as
The Talmud rejects this: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees about the halakha in the case of an animal that turns its head, either in accordance with the opinion of Rav or in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And here they disagree about the exemption inferred from the verse: “It c