Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 2:1 ירושלמי בבא קמא ב׳:א׳

MISHNAH: How is the foot notorious to break anything in its way¹This refers to Mishnah 1:4; cf. Chapter 1, Note 158.? An animal is notorious to break anything in its way. If it was kicking²When it was not known to do that habitually. or if pebbles were ricocheting from under its feet and breaking vessels, he pays half of the damage³Since this is unforseeable damage.. If it stepped on a vessel and broke it⁴When the shepherd should have taken care not to lead his animals to a place where a vessel could legitimately stand in his animal’s way. when [the pieces] fell on another vessel and broke that, for the first he pays full damages⁵He violated his duty of due diligence. and half damages for the last⁶The second vessel was broken by the shards of the first; that is an unforeseeable circumstance..

HALAKHAH: “How is the foot notorious,” etc. Does not an animal usually make pebbles ricochet⁷Then an animal should be watched lest it cause stones to ricochet with all damages paid in full.? Rebbi Immi said, if the vessel was held by a human⁸It was not lying in the street. Then it is an uncommon outcome; the shepherd is not obligated to watch for it; one pays half damages.. But if it was lying in the public domain⁹A thoroughfare., since it was rightfully lying there and [the animal] was rightfully walking there, he is free¹⁰Since a shepherd has the right to lead his flock on a public road, anybody who puts a vessel into the public domain, even if it creates no nuisance, must assume that it will be broken. Therefore, nothing is due.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if there were two roads. On one there are grasses and pebbles¹¹A badly maintained road which becomes overgrown and its surface loosened., on the other there are no grasses or pebbles¹²A well-maintained street; one may assume that all passers-by are going to use it.. It¹³The animal, which has no need to be anywhere at a fixed time, went after the grasses growing on the decaying street. disregarded the one with no grasses or pebbles and went on that with grasses and pebbles; even though it was in the public domain he is free¹⁴The expression (אַף עַל פִּי) אע״פ “even though” is difficult to understand. Since even a badly maintained road is a road and built for use, animals, not only humans, are allowed to use it and, therefore, to trample on anything lying on the road. It seems that one should rather read מִפְּנֵי “because of”, meaning that there are no squatters’ rights on an unused part of a public road.
R. Abba bar Mamal does not comment on the Mishnah but on R. Immi’s explanation with which he disagrees; he holds that an animal on a public road never causes claimable damage by simply walking there.. Rebbi Eleazar¹⁵In the Babli, 19b: R. Joḥanan. said, in anything not concerning its body¹⁶Not by any of the actions specified in Mishnah 1:4., the Sages made no difference between private and public domain in the matter of half damages¹⁷Clearly nobody can claim damages if he put vessels in a roadway and they are broken, but he can claim damages if vessels on his own property are broken by pebbles ricocheting from the public road. Therefore, he also can claim damages if his vessels were on the unpaved side of the public domain. This supports R. Immi..

Is it subject to a declaration of notoriety in a matter extraneous to its body¹⁸The verse makes a clear distinction between “harmless” cattle, which are not known to gore humans, and “notorious” cattle which have a history of such attacks. If a “harmless” animal kills a human, it must be killed (Ex.21:28). If a “notorious” animal kills, it must be stoned and the owners have to pay weregilt (Ex. 21:29–30). Since there is a difference in legal status, the notoriety of an animal must be based on a judicial finding. Now these rules apply to all attacks which are classified as “horn”, i. e., those enumerated in Mishnah 1:4. The question is whether the rules extend to damages caused by “tooth” and “foot”; e. g., whether an animal can be declared dangerous because it has a way to send pebbles flying wherever it walks, which would make its owner liable for full damages in all cases.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one accepts. Rebbi Illa said, one does not accept. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with him: An ox which rubs itself against a wall¹⁹If the animal pushed against the wall the way it would push an unfriendly other animal, that clearly would be a “hit” as defined by Mishnah 1:4 and be classified as “horn”, or, in the language of the baraita, “by its body”. But here it is assumed that the animal rubs to free itself from fleas or otherwise for its comfort, not in any agressive way. Cf. Mishnah 4:7 (Tosephta 4:5); Babli 44a. which fell on a human and killed him is obligated for weregilt but free from death²⁰This does not agree with any case of “horn”; cf. Note 18.. Does there exist weregilt for a harmless animal²¹Since weregilt is only required for killings by notorious animals, the baraita accepts that declarations of notoriety are possible for behavior not classified as “horn”.? But it does not disagree with Rebbi Illa²²Since an animal causing death of a human has to be killed, whether harmless or notorious, it is clear that the statement of the baraita cannot be derived from the rules of “horn”. But then the previous argument about weregilt does not apply.. Why is it free from death if it was notorious to destroy walls? When it destroyed it, no human was there²³Even if the animal attacked the wall as if it were a hostile animal, and the incident has to be classified as “horn”, it cannot be killed if its attack only weakened the wall which collapsed at some later time, when the attacking animal already had stopped pushing.
Also in the Babli, 18b, the question is decided in R. Illa’s sense..

Rebbi Eleazar said: If it produced dung, one pays full damages. For if it were not so, what would we say? He has to have a receptacle handy? That is to say, if it does not do so habitually. But if it does so habitually, he has to have a receptacle handy²⁴As often in Neziqin, the text seems to be a note jotted down in preparation of a lecture, not fully developed. In the Babli, 18a, one reads: “If [an animal] laid dung into dough, R. Jehudah says, [the owner] pays full damages, but R. Eleazar says, half damages.” If this is a parallel, then R. Eleazar mentioned here is the Tanna, ben Shamua, not the Amora, bar Pada.
Now it is clear that cattle will always produce dung. Therefore, cow dung in a place open to cattle, such as a grazing area or a public road, cannnot be a cause for damage claims. This is the statement missing in the text, to which the note “for if it were not so” refers. The question remains whether in using a road, e. g., passing through a market place, the herder has to make sure that his animals are safely away from any merchandise. If there is an animal whose preferred place for defecating is near edibles, its owner is required to follow it, bucket in hand, to avoid having to pay full damages..

Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder and Rebbi Jehudah Neśia were sitting. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal came to them and asked: If it wagged its tail²⁵It wagged its tail excessively and caused damage close to a place where it legally can pass; the situation is parallel to that discussed in the preceding paragraph. as those mules do, what are the rules? They did not tell him. Later, Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder told him, for if it were not so, what would we say? Does he have to grab its tail? That is, if it does not usually do it. But if it usually does it, he has to grab its tail²⁶To avoid damage; cf. Note 24, end.. What is obvious to us? The problem of full damages²⁷That no full damages are due.. What is problematic for us? Half damages²⁸And it remains undecided in the Babli, 19b..

New Paragraph. “If it stepped on a vessel and broke it.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it stepped on a skin full of oil²⁹Not in the public domain nor in its owner’s., he pays full damages for the skin³⁰Damages by “foot” not in an authorized domain. and half damages for the oil³¹For indirectly caused damages even in the domain of a person sustaining the damage one only pays half damages. The Babli agrees, 19a.. If there was a table lying there and glass on top of it. If it stepped on the table²⁹Not in the public domain nor in its owner’s. and by that the glass broke³⁰Damages by “foot” not in an authorized domain.. He pays full damages fort the table and half damages for the glass. If there were two tables on top of one another²⁹Not in the public domain nor in its owner’s.. If it stepped on the upper one and the lower one was broken³⁰Damages by “foot” not in an authorized domain.. He pays full damages fort the upper table and half damages for the lower. If the table was lying in the public domain³²Where one has the right to lead one’s animals and payment for damages by “foot” are excluded., [the animal] stepped on it and it ricocheted, went and broke into a private domain³³Where full payment is due for damages.. What do you follow, the stepping or its breaking? If you say, after stepping³⁴Substitution of עַל by prothetic אַ is Babylonian usage., he is free [from paying] for its stepping on it; if you say, after its breaking, then he is guilty for the breaking³⁵The Babli, 17b/18a, after a lengthy discussion decides that in case of damage caused by a chain of events, the location of the trigger event determines liabilities. It also notes that rules of payment of less than full damages for events not classified as “horn” are traditional, rather than biblical..