Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 2:3 ירושלמי בבא קמא ב׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: How is the tooth notorious to eat what is fitting for it? A domesticated animal⁵¹Cattle, sheep, or goats. is notorious for eating fruits and vegetables. If it ate a garment or vessels, he pays half damages⁵²This leaves open the question of the owner’s responsibility if a plant eating animal eats meat.. When has this been said? In the domain of the person sustaining the damage. But on public property¹⁰Since 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. he is free; but if it benefited, he pays what it benefited⁵³This is a general principle, applicable to all kinds of damages..

HALAKHAH: “How is the tooth notorious,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁵⁴The abbreviation Resh Laqish for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is Babylonian; in the Yerushalmi it is a sign of an intrusion of Babylonian spelling. said, it⁵⁵The animal’s owner does not have to pay if his animal ate food in the public domain. If it ate vessels or garments, the damage is classified as “horn” and the owner has to pay half damages unless the animal has been certified as a notorious eater of vessels or garments, when full damages are due. In the Babli, 20a, this opinion is attributed to Samuel and R. Joḥanan. Since in money matters the Babli recognizes Samuel and R. Joḥanan as authorities, the Babli endorses this opinion. refers to the first part. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it refers to all⁵⁶Even for vessels and garments no payment is due if they were left exposed on a public thoroughfare. In the Babli, this is the opinion of Rav and R. Simeon ben Laqish. Since the Yerushalmi recognizes R. Joḥanan over R. Simeon ben Laqish, it endorses this opinion.. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it⁵⁷In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. is responsible⁵⁸R. Simeon ben Laqish should have qualified his statement; even animals feeding in the public domain will cost their owners if their behavior deviates from the norm.. And here, he says so? They said, there in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; but here, in his own name. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s word implies that if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down⁵⁹Babli 20a; for an animal to lie down and ruminate on a thoroughfare is deviant behavior., is it⁵⁷In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. free [from payment]. Rebbi Joḥanan’s word implies that if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, it⁵⁷In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. is obligated⁶⁰He rejects the notion that deviant behavior of one party justifies the other. In the Babli, R. Joḥanan is presumed to agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish in this case.. Not only if the walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down or one which is lying down kicks the walking one. If a walking [animal] kicks a walking one? Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, it⁵⁷In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. is free [from payment]. But in the case of one lying down against one walking or one who was walking against one walking, it⁵⁷In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. is obligated⁵⁹Babli 20a; for an animal to lie down and ruminate on a thoroughfare is deviant behavior.. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: It⁵⁷In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. always is free. What is Rebbi Hoshaia’s reason; is there no “horn” in the public domain⁶⁰He rejects the notion that deviant behavior of one party justifies the other. In the Babli, R. Joḥanan is presumed to agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish in this case.? Rav said, if it stood still and ate from heaped produce, [it is obligated]⁶¹The addition is the reading common to E and the Rome fragment edited by A. H. Freimann (Tarbiz 6, 56–63). Rav (and Ilfai, quoted later in the paragraph) hold that the exemption for “tooth” granted in the public domain only holds if the road is used as road, not as place for grazing. If the shepherd allows the animals of his herd to stand for grazing, he is responsible for any damage done. “Heaped produce” is grain arranged in an orderly heap, a sign of illegal use of the public domain for private use.. Since the leniency for “tooth” is in case it ate walking from the standing⁶²If cattle, sheep, or goats are driven as a herd, they may eat from what was stored in the public domain.; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the one standing still⁶³Even though the herder of the animal standing still should have driven it away.. Ilfai said: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it⁵⁷In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. is obligated. Since the leniency for “tooth” is that it ate walking {from the standing}⁶⁴E and Vatican mss. read: מְהַלֶּכֶת מִן הַמְהַלֶּכֶת “the walking animal ate from another walking animal”. This refers to Ilfai’s statement in the Babli, 20a: “An animal in the public domain which stretched out its neck and ate from upon another animal is obligated;” a statement explained away in the Babli. The change has to be rejected as an attempt to harmonize the Yerushalmi with the Babli. [from the walking]; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the walking one⁶⁵While Ilfai agrees with Rav on the rules of “tooth”, he disagrees with him on “horn” and holds that for “horn” injuries the owner of the agressive animal always has to pay..