Chapter 1 · Arba'ah Avot

Liability in a Partnership Courtyard

Lesson 5 of 50 25 min

The sugya examines when a shared courtyard qualifies as 'another's field' to trigger liability for Tooth and Foot damages.

Lesson goals

01Restate the source in your own words.
02Identify the central distinction and explain its significance.
03Apply the distinction in the exercise without adding a ruling absent from the source.

Source and decoding - Bava Kamma 14a

Bava Kamma 14a

כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּחָצֵר מְיוּחֶדֶת לָזֶה וְלָזֶה בֵּין לְפֵירוֹת בֵּין לִשְׁווֹרִים. הָהִיא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף – בְּחָצֵר מְיוּחֶדֶת לְפֵירוֹת, וְאֵינָהּ מְיוּחֶדֶת לִשְׁווֹרִים; דִּלְגַבֵּי שֵׁן – הָוְיָא לַהּ חֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק.

When that baraita teaches exemption, it refers to a courtyard designated for both partners for both fruit and oxen. That teaching of Rav Yosef which holds liable refers to a courtyard designated for fruit, but not designated for oxen; thus, regarding Tooth damage, it is deemed the courtyard of the injured party.

The Gemara resolves an apparent contradiction between two Tannaitic sources concerning Tooth and Foot damages in a jointly owned courtyard. The resolution hinges on the specific permitted uses established between the partners. If the courtyard was designated exclusively for storing produce and not for housing animals, an ox brought inside has no right to be there, rendering the location 'another's field' relative to the damaged produce. Conversely, if both partners retained the right to introduce oxen, the courtyard lacks the exclusive status required to generate liability for Tooth and Foot.

Terms to decode

מיוחדת

designated or allocated for a specific use

פירות

agricultural produce or stored goods

לגבי

with respect to or regarding

Before moving on

Insight

This lesson is a study framework, not a halachic ruling. Check everything in the sources, and bring practical questions to a rabbi.

The sugya's flow - from Mishnah to conclusion

01·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Kamma 14a
כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּחָצֵר מְיוּחֶדֶת לָזֶה וְלָזֶה בֵּין לְפֵירוֹת בֵּין לִשְׁווֹרִים.
A baraita cited by Rav Yosef rules that one is liable for Tooth and Foot in a partnership courtyard.
02·Kushya
A baraita of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explicitly exempts Tooth and Foot in a shared domain.
03·Terutz
The Gemara distinguishes: exemption applies when designated for oxen and fruit, liability when designated only for fruit.
04·Kushya
Rabbi Zeira challenges: since both own the yard, how does this satisfy the verse 'and burn in another's field'?
05·Terutz
Abaye answers: because it is not designated for oxen, entering the ox is an unauthorized deviation, making it 'another's field'.
06·Conclusion of the sugya
Liability for Tooth and Foot in a shared courtyard depends on agreed usage: exceeding authorization imposes full liability.

Practice

Analyze a business partnership sharing a storage facility and define the pre-agreed uses, determining whether internal damage constitutes damage in the victim's domain.

Lesson wrap-up

Domain classification in torts is defined by the scope of authorized usage rather than mere title of ownership. Exceeding agreed usage patterns converts the property into 'another's field', triggering liability for Tooth and Foot.

Check your understanding

Test yourself before marking the lesson complete.

Question 1 of 4

What contradiction did the Gemara present between the baraitot regarding a shared courtyard?

Previous lessonAppraising Remains: Damages, Theft, and Borrowing

Next lessonChapter Keitzad HaRegel: Defining Foot Damage, Kicking, and Pebbles