Study Bava Kamma folio 23B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is like the courtyard of the injured party, i.e., it is not a separate domain from the place in which the animal is eating. As if the mouth of the animal were to be considered like the courtyard of the one responsible for the damage, let the owner of the dog say to the injured party: What is your br
The Talmud notes: The need for this type of inference arises from the fact that a dilemma was raised before the rabbis: Is the mouth of a cow like the courtyard of the injured party, or is it like the courtyard of the one responsible for the damage, i.e., the owner of the cow?
The Talmud asks: But if you say that the mouth of the cow is like the courtyard of the one responsible for the damage, how can you find a case of damage classified as Eating for which God holds the owner of the animal liable? The halakha is that one must pay for damage classified as Eating only if
Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: It is possible to describe a case of Eating that would render the animal’s owner liable according to the one who holds that the mouth of a cow is like the domain of its owner, for example, if the cow rubbed up against a wall for its pleasure and broke it, or if t
Mar Zutra objects to these examples of Eating: But in order to create liability under the halakhot of Eating, I require fulfillment of the verse: “As consumes the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10), meaning that the damaged item must be completely destroyed or consumed, and here that is not