Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 16, 2016 | 讬壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 16

Study Guide Bava Kamma 16. The mishna lists 5 cases of a shor tam and 5 cases of muad and a list of animals who are always considered muad. 聽 There are various problems in the simple reading of the mishna which leads to 4 different interpretations offered in the gemara for understanding it. 聽A lion is considered muad for certain behaviors and not for others according to Shmuel. 聽This assumption of his is questioned as it seems to contradict a tannatic source.

讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 讘讞爪专 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇驻讬专讜转 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 诇砖讜专讬诐 讚诇讙讘讬 砖谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜诇讙讘讬 拽专谉 讛讜讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon; the first part of the latter clause is stated with regard to a jointly owned courtyard, which under the terms of their partnership is designated for the use of one of them, i.e., the injured party, to keep his produce there, and for this one and for that one to keep their oxen there. Accordingly, with regard to damage of the category of Eating caused by one partner鈥檚 ox to the injured party鈥檚 produce in that courtyard, it is equivalent to the case of a courtyard owned exclusively by the injured party, and the ox鈥檚 owner is liable for all the damage. But with regard to damage of the category of Goring, since they are both allowed to keep oxen there, the courtyard is equivalent to a public domain, and if one鈥檚 innocuous ox causes damage there, one is liable for only half the cost of the damage.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛拽转谞讬 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 专讗讜讬 诇讛 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讛 诇讗

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching of Rabbi Elazar before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃, and he said to me: Are you really able to interpret that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach: Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. This indicates that only if what it eats is fitting for it, then yes, one is liable for the full cost of the damage, but if it eats something that is not fitting for it, the owner would not be liable for the full cost of the damage, but only for half the cost of the damage.

讜讗讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐

Rav Kahana explains his difficulty: And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, the owner should be liable to pay the full cost of the damage even if his animal ate something not fitting for it, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Tarfon say: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage even if the ox is innocuous.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉

Rather, Rav Kahana said: Actually it must be that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The opening clause should be understood as saying: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times, with regard to the five acts they are considered forewarned, i.e., the mishna is not referring to two different sets of damages, five acts for which the animal is considered innocuous and five for which it is considered forewarned. Rather, both statements in the initial clause of the mishna are referring to the same five acts of Goring, and they teach that although the animal is initially considered innocuous with regard to these five acts, it can become forewarned.

讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讛讬讻谉 讛注讚转谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽

The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset. The next two items in the mishna: A forewarned ox and an ox that causes damage on the property of the injured party, should be understood as a question and an answer: And where does their forewarned status with regard to these acts apply? It applies in the courtyard of the injured party. According to Rav Kahana鈥檚 explanation, the statement: In the courtyard of the injured party, refers only to cases of Eating or Trampling, not to acts classified as Goring, and therefore it is true even according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讻讬爪讚 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讬专讬 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬爪讚 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗讬讬专讬 讘讛 诪讗讬 讻讬爪讚

Ravina objects to this explanation: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna below (24b) teach: With regard to the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party on the property of the injured party, stated in the mishna here (15b), how so, i.e., what are the circumstances in which one is liable to pay the full cost of the damage? The mishna below (24b) proceeds to list acts of damage classified as Goring. Ravina states his objection: Granted, if you say that the mishna here (15b) discusses that case, i.e., that it is referring to Goring, it is due to that ruling that the mishna below teaches: How so, and proceeds to discuss one鈥檚 liability for Goring, as it is elucidating the case mentioned in the mishna here. But if you say, as Rav Zevid suggests, that the mishna here (15b) does not discuss Goring, what is the meaning of the mishna below when it asks: How so, and then proceeds to discuss one鈥檚 liability for Goring?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉

Rather, Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned.

讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬砖 诪讜注讚讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讜讛讚讜讘 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛谞讞砖

The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬砖 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖

The Gemara notes: This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讜 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 诪讜注讚讬诐 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛讝讗讘 讛讗专讬 讜讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖

There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction and through doing so arrived at the same conclusions, as follows: We learned in the opening clause of the mishna: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, and there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned. With regard to this, one can ask: But is there nothing else? But aren鈥檛 there the cases mentioned in the continuation of the mishna: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake? These are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before.

讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬砖 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖

And they resolve the contradiction through that which Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

讜诇讗 诇专讘讜抓 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻讻讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讘诇 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. Rabbi Elazar says: They taught this only with regard to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, and therefore the act is classified as a subcategory of Goring. But if the animal cr0uched upon small vessels, since that is its typical manner of behavior, it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, for which the animal is considered forewarned from the outset.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讘讛诪讛 诪讜注讚转 诇讛诇讱 讻讚专讻讛 讜诇砖讘专 讜诇诪注讱 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels. The baraita indicates that an animal鈥檚 typical manner is to crush vessels, presumably by crouching down upon them. This would seem to contradict the mishna that states that such behavior is atypical. It would appear the only resolution to this contradiction is if one accepts the distinction made by Rabbi Elazar that the mishna concerns large vessels and the baraita concerns small vessels.

讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the baraita concerns a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall, but it does not concern a case where it crouched upon them.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 驻讻讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

There are those who say a different version of this discussion, as follows: Rabbi Elazar says: Do not say that the mishna鈥檚 ruling refers only to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, but if the animal crouched upon small vessels, that is its typical manner and for that type of damage the animal is considered forewarned. Rather, the mishna refers even to small vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜诇诪注讱 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚

Rabbi Elazar said: Perhaps the baraita concerns only a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜抓 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇诪注讱 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘驻讻讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻讗谉 讘驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐

There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction: We learned in the mishna: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels? In order to resolve this contradiction, Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult; here, in the mishna, the reference is to large vessels, while there, in the baraita, the reference is to small vessels.

讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讘专讚诇住 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻专讝讗 诪讗讬 谞驻专讝讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讗

搂 The mishna teaches: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake; these are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before. The Gemara asks: What is a bardelas? Rav Yehuda said: It is a nafreza. The Gemara asks: What is a nafreza? Rav Yosef said: It is an appa.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛爪讘讜注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讞砖 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 爪讘讜注 讝讜 讗驻讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena [tzavo鈥檃]. Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. And Rav Yosef said in explanation of the baraita: The hyena mentioned by Rabbi Meir, this is the animal called an appa. If Rav Yosef understands a hyena to be an appa, how could he also claim, above, that it is a bardelas?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘爪讘讜注 讝讻专 讻讗谉 讘爪讘讜注 谞拽讬讘讛

The Gemara explains: It is not difficult: Here, in the baraita, Rabbi Meir is referring to a male hyena, and there, in the mishna, the reference is to a female hyena.

讚转谞讬讗 爪讘讜注 讝讻专 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 注讟诇祝 注讟诇祝 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 注专驻讚 注专驻讚 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 拽讬诪讜砖 拽讬诪讜砖 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 讞讜讞 讞讜讞 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 砖讚 砖讚专讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 谞讞砖 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗 讻专注 讘诪讜讚讬诐

And it is apparent that a male hyena is distinct from a female one, as it is taught in a baraita: A male hyena after seven years metamorphoses into an insectivorous bat [atalef ]; an insectivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a herbivorous bat [arpad]; a herbivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a thistle [kimosh]; a thistle after seven years metamorphoses into a briar [岣鈥檃岣]; and a briar after seven years metamorphoses into a demon. Similarly, a person鈥檚 spine, seven years after his death, metamorphoses into a snake. The Gemara qualifies the last statement: And this matter applies only to a case where that person did not bow during the blessing of thanksgiving, the eighteenth blessing of the Amida prayer.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛爪讘讜注

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says above: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讞砖 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 转专讘讜转 讗讬谞谉 诪讜注讚讬诐 讜讛谞讞砖 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐

Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. By using the term also, Rabbi Elazar suggests he considers a snake to be forewarned to the same extent as the other animals in the mishna鈥檚 list, which, according to his opinion, are not considered to be forewarned if they are domesticated. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered to be forewarned, but the snake is always considered forewarned?

转谞讬 谞讞砖

The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying that Rabbi Elazar says: A snake, instead of saying: Also a snake. Accordingly, the baraita is teaching that he holds that only a snake is considered to be forewarned under all circumstances because he holds that even if it is domesticated it is still prone to caused damage.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚专住 讜讗讻诇 驻讟讜专 讟专祝 讜讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘

搂 The Gemara considers cases of damage caused by a lion: Shmuel says: With regard to a lion that kills an animal in the public domain, if it clawed its prey and ate it, the lion鈥檚 owner is exempt from liability. But if it first tore apart its prey with its teeth in order to kill it, and only then ate it, the owner is liable for the damage.

讚专住 讜讗讻诇 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讚专住 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讜 砖讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讜讬专拽讜转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 讟专祝 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara elucidates: If it clawed its prey and ate it, the owner is exempt, since it is its typical manner to claw its prey and eat it, and it is therefore equivalent to the case of an animal that eats fruit and vegetables belonging to someone else. Therefore, it is classified as Eating done in a public domain, and the owner of the lion is exempt. But if the lion first tore apart its prey to kill it, since this is not its typical manner, the act is classified as Goring, for which an owner is liable even in a public thoroughfare.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讟专讬驻讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗专讬讛 讟专祝 讘讚讬 讙专讜转讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讙讜专讜转讬讜 讜诪讞谞拽 诇诇讘讗转讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讘讗讜转讬讜 讜讬诪诇讗 讟专祝 讞专讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讞讜专讬讜 讜诪注谞转讬讜 讟专驻讛 讘砖讘讬诇 诪注讜谞讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that tearing apart its prey is not the typical manner of a lion? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he lion tears apart for its young, and it strangles for its lionesses, and it fills its caves with prey, and its den with that which was torn apart鈥 (Nahum 2:13). The description in the verse clearly indicates that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart its prey. The Gemara answers that each phrase of this verse is referring not to a situation where the lion catches prey for its own immediate use, but to one where it provides food for its young, as it says: 鈥淭he lion tears apart for its young鈥; to provide food for its lionesses: 鈥淎nd it strangles for its lionesses鈥; to provide food for the young cubs in its lair: 鈥淎nd it filled its lair with prey鈥; and to provide food for the young cubs in its den: 鈥淎nd its den with that which was torn apart.鈥 Therefore, we cannot learn from this verse that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart prey for its own immediate use.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讞讬讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讟专驻讛 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘砖专 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita concerning acts classified as Eating: And similarly, in the case of a wild animal, including a lion, that entered the courtyard of the injured party and tore apart the courtyard owner鈥檚 animal and ate its meat, the owner of the wild animal pays the full cost of the damage.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讟专驻讛 诇讛谞讬讞 讛讗 讗讻诇讛 拽转谞讬 讘砖谞诪诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where it tore apart the animal in order to leave it for later consumption. Since this is typical behavior for a lion, the lion is considered forewarned with regard to it. The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: And ate its meat? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the lion initially killed the animal to leave it for later consumption but then reconsidered and ate it.

诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara questions this understanding: How can we know what the animal鈥檚 initial intentions were? And furthermore, if one accepts this claim, then the ruling of Shmuel is also called into question, as perhaps the case he ruled on is a case like this, where the lion initially intended to leave the prey he killed for later consumption, and therefore the owner should be exempt. The Gemara therefore rejects this understanding.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 砖讟专驻讛 诇讛谞讬讞 讗讜 讚专住讛 讜讗讻诇讛 诪砖诇诪转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The baraita teaches two cases disjunctively and should be understood as teaching two halakhot: With regard to a lion that tore apart an animal in order to leave it for later consumption, or a lion that clawed its prey and ate it, since each acted in the typical manner of a lion, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗专讬 转专讘讜转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

Ravina said: It is the typical manner of a wild lion to kill its prey and then eat it, and therefore such damage is classified as Eating. Accordingly, if the damage was done in the public domain, the lion鈥檚 owner is exempt from any liability. When Shmuel says that an owner is liable if his lion does so, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack. Accordingly, the act is classified as being of the category of Goring, for which one is liable even in a public thoroughfare.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专住讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: If so, then even when the lion clawed its prey and ate it, the owner should be liable for any damage it causes in a public domain, since according to Rabbi Elazar such behavior is atypical for a domesticated lion. Why then does Shmuel rule that in such a case the owner is exempt?

讗诇讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讗砖诪讜讗诇 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 讗诪转谞讬转讗 讻讬 转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讗专讬 转专讘讜转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara concedes that its presentation of Ravina鈥檚 opinion is untenable: Rather, Ravina鈥檚 explanation was not stated in reference to Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, but rather in reference to the baraita, cited above, that discusses a case where a lion causes damage in the courtyard of the injured party. Accordingly, Ravina鈥檚 statement should be understood as follows: When the baraita teaches that one is liable if one鈥檚 lion tore apart an animal and ate it, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚讗讬讬注讚

The Gemara asks: If that is so, since the act is atypical behavior for a lion, it should be classified as Goring, and the owner should be required to pay for only half the cost of the damage. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the lion was forewarned.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讙讘讬 转讜诇讚讛 讚拽专谉 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara questions further: If that is so, what is the reason that the baraita teaches this among the subcategories of Eating? It should have taught it among the subcategories of Goring. The Gemara concedes: This is a difficulty with this explanation.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讛 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

MISHNA: What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is considered innocuous and the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is forewarned?

讗诇讗 砖讛转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The only differences are that for damage caused by an innocuous ox, the owner pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox, and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage from his higher property.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪注讜诇讛 砖讘谞讻住讬讜

GEMARA: What does the mishna mean by saying he pays from his higher [aliyya] property? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that he pays with the superior-quality [bame鈥檜lla] items of his property.

讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬砖讻讘 讞讝拽讬讛讜 注诐 讗讘转讬讜 讜讬拽讘专讛讜 讘诪注诇讛 拽讘专讬 讘谞讬 讚讜讬讚 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪注诇讛 讗爪诇 诪注讜诇讬诐 砖讘诪砖驻讞讛 讜诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛

And similarly, the fact that the word aliyya is referring to superior-quality property is indicated by the verse that states: 鈥淎nd Hezekiah lay with his ancestors, and they buried him in the best [bema鈥檃le] of the sepulchers of the descendants of David鈥 (II聽Chronicles 32:33), and Rabbi Elazar says: The term bema鈥檃le means beside the best of the family. And who are they? David and Solomon.

讜讬拽讘专讛讜 讘拽讘专转讬讜 讗砖专 讻专讛 诇讜 讘注讬专 讚讜讬讚 讜讬砖讻讬讘讛讜 讘诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 诪诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讝谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讝谞讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讝讬谞讬 讝讬谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讘砖诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讛诪专讬讞 讘讛谉 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讝讬诪讛

The Gemara offers an interpretation of another verse about the burial of a king of Judea, King Asa: 鈥淎nd they buried him in his own sepulchers, which he had hewn out for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the resting place, which was filled with perfumes and spices [zenim] prepared by the perfumers鈥 art鈥 (II聽Chronicles 16:14). What is meant by 鈥減erfumes and spices鈥? Rabbi Elazar says: It means many different types [zinei] of perfumes. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: The word zenim sounds similar to the word zenut, licentiousness, and should therefore be understood about types of perfumes that anyone who smells them is led to licentiousness.

讻讬 讻专讜 砖讜讞讛 诇诇讻讚谞讬 讜驻讞讬诐 讟诪谞讜 诇专讙诇讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讝讜谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖

The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani: Jeremiah requested of God to punish those who hounded him: 鈥淔or they have dug a pit to trap me and they have set snares for my feet鈥 (Jeremiah 18:22). In what way did they dig a pit to trap him? Rabbi Elazar says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a woman who had engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona]. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讝讜谞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 砖讜讞讛 注诪拽讛 讝讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 砖讜讞讛 讗讟讜 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讻诇诇 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, this is because the word 鈥減it鈥 is used as a metaphor for a zona, as it is written: 鈥淔or a zona is a deep pit鈥 (Proverbs 23:27). But according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, for what reason did Jeremiah use the word 鈥減it鈥? The Gemara answers: Due to the fact that she is a married woman, should she be excluded from the category of a zona? If she commits adultery she is also termed a zona, and the term 鈥減it鈥 can justifiably be applied to her.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转讛 讛壮 讬讚注转 讗转 讻诇 注爪转诐 注诇讬 诇诪讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讝讜谞讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讜转 砖讛砖诇讬讻讜讛讜 诇讘讗专 讟讬讟

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, this is consistent with that which is written: 鈥淵ou, Lord, know all their plans to kill me鈥 (Jeremiah 18:23). By claiming he engaged in intercourse with a married woman, they implicated him in a prohibition punishable by the death penalty. But according to the one who says that they suspected him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, what did he mean by saying 鈥渢o kill me鈥 when there is no court-imposed capital punishment for doing so? The Gemara answers: Jeremiah was referring to the fact that they cast him into a pit of mire.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讛讬讜 诪讻砖诇讬诐 诇驻谞讬讱 讘注转 讗驻讱 注砖讛 讘讛诐 讗诪专 讬专诪讬讛 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注讛 砖注讜砖讬谉 爪讚拽讛 讛讻砖讬诇诐 讘讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讛讜讙谞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽讘诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻专

Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淟et them be made to stumble before You; deal with them in the time of Your anger鈥 (Jeremiah 18:23)? It means that Jeremiah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even at a time when they try to perform acts of charity, make them stumble by ensuring that they do so with people who are unworthy of charity in order that they should not receive the reward for helping them.

讜讻讘讜讚 注砖讜 诇讜 讘诪讜转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讜砖讬讘讜 讬砖讬讘讛 注诇 拽讘专讜

The Gemara, above, cited a verse concerning King Hezekiah鈥檚 burial. The Gemara cites the continuation of that verse: 鈥淎nd they afforded him honor in his death鈥 (II聽Chronicles 32:33). This teaches that they established a yeshiva at his grave to study Torah there.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛

Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this yeshiva: One said: They studied there for three days.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 16

讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 讘讞爪专 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇驻讬专讜转 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 诇砖讜专讬诐 讚诇讙讘讬 砖谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜诇讙讘讬 拽专谉 讛讜讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon; the first part of the latter clause is stated with regard to a jointly owned courtyard, which under the terms of their partnership is designated for the use of one of them, i.e., the injured party, to keep his produce there, and for this one and for that one to keep their oxen there. Accordingly, with regard to damage of the category of Eating caused by one partner鈥檚 ox to the injured party鈥檚 produce in that courtyard, it is equivalent to the case of a courtyard owned exclusively by the injured party, and the ox鈥檚 owner is liable for all the damage. But with regard to damage of the category of Goring, since they are both allowed to keep oxen there, the courtyard is equivalent to a public domain, and if one鈥檚 innocuous ox causes damage there, one is liable for only half the cost of the damage.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛拽转谞讬 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 专讗讜讬 诇讛 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讛 诇讗

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching of Rabbi Elazar before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃, and he said to me: Are you really able to interpret that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach: Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. This indicates that only if what it eats is fitting for it, then yes, one is liable for the full cost of the damage, but if it eats something that is not fitting for it, the owner would not be liable for the full cost of the damage, but only for half the cost of the damage.

讜讗讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐

Rav Kahana explains his difficulty: And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, the owner should be liable to pay the full cost of the damage even if his animal ate something not fitting for it, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Tarfon say: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage even if the ox is innocuous.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉

Rather, Rav Kahana said: Actually it must be that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The opening clause should be understood as saying: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times, with regard to the five acts they are considered forewarned, i.e., the mishna is not referring to two different sets of damages, five acts for which the animal is considered innocuous and five for which it is considered forewarned. Rather, both statements in the initial clause of the mishna are referring to the same five acts of Goring, and they teach that although the animal is initially considered innocuous with regard to these five acts, it can become forewarned.

讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讛讬讻谉 讛注讚转谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽

The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset. The next two items in the mishna: A forewarned ox and an ox that causes damage on the property of the injured party, should be understood as a question and an answer: And where does their forewarned status with regard to these acts apply? It applies in the courtyard of the injured party. According to Rav Kahana鈥檚 explanation, the statement: In the courtyard of the injured party, refers only to cases of Eating or Trampling, not to acts classified as Goring, and therefore it is true even according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讻讬爪讚 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讬专讬 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬爪讚 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗讬讬专讬 讘讛 诪讗讬 讻讬爪讚

Ravina objects to this explanation: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna below (24b) teach: With regard to the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party on the property of the injured party, stated in the mishna here (15b), how so, i.e., what are the circumstances in which one is liable to pay the full cost of the damage? The mishna below (24b) proceeds to list acts of damage classified as Goring. Ravina states his objection: Granted, if you say that the mishna here (15b) discusses that case, i.e., that it is referring to Goring, it is due to that ruling that the mishna below teaches: How so, and proceeds to discuss one鈥檚 liability for Goring, as it is elucidating the case mentioned in the mishna here. But if you say, as Rav Zevid suggests, that the mishna here (15b) does not discuss Goring, what is the meaning of the mishna below when it asks: How so, and then proceeds to discuss one鈥檚 liability for Goring?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉

Rather, Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned.

讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬砖 诪讜注讚讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讜讛讚讜讘 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛谞讞砖

The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬砖 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖

The Gemara notes: This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讜 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 诪讜注讚讬诐 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛讝讗讘 讛讗专讬 讜讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖

There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction and through doing so arrived at the same conclusions, as follows: We learned in the opening clause of the mishna: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, and there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned. With regard to this, one can ask: But is there nothing else? But aren鈥檛 there the cases mentioned in the continuation of the mishna: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake? These are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before.

讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讜注讚讜 讞诪砖转谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜砖谉 讜专讙诇 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬砖 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖

And they resolve the contradiction through that which Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

讜诇讗 诇专讘讜抓 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻讻讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讘诇 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. Rabbi Elazar says: They taught this only with regard to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, and therefore the act is classified as a subcategory of Goring. But if the animal cr0uched upon small vessels, since that is its typical manner of behavior, it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, for which the animal is considered forewarned from the outset.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讘讛诪讛 诪讜注讚转 诇讛诇讱 讻讚专讻讛 讜诇砖讘专 讜诇诪注讱 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels. The baraita indicates that an animal鈥檚 typical manner is to crush vessels, presumably by crouching down upon them. This would seem to contradict the mishna that states that such behavior is atypical. It would appear the only resolution to this contradiction is if one accepts the distinction made by Rabbi Elazar that the mishna concerns large vessels and the baraita concerns small vessels.

讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the baraita concerns a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall, but it does not concern a case where it crouched upon them.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 驻讻讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

There are those who say a different version of this discussion, as follows: Rabbi Elazar says: Do not say that the mishna鈥檚 ruling refers only to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, but if the animal crouched upon small vessels, that is its typical manner and for that type of damage the animal is considered forewarned. Rather, the mishna refers even to small vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜诇诪注讱 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚

Rabbi Elazar said: Perhaps the baraita concerns only a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜抓 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇诪注讱 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘驻讻讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻讗谉 讘驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐

There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction: We learned in the mishna: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels? In order to resolve this contradiction, Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult; here, in the mishna, the reference is to large vessels, while there, in the baraita, the reference is to small vessels.

讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讘专讚诇住 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻专讝讗 诪讗讬 谞驻专讝讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讗

搂 The mishna teaches: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake; these are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before. The Gemara asks: What is a bardelas? Rav Yehuda said: It is a nafreza. The Gemara asks: What is a nafreza? Rav Yosef said: It is an appa.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛爪讘讜注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讞砖 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 爪讘讜注 讝讜 讗驻讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena [tzavo鈥檃]. Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. And Rav Yosef said in explanation of the baraita: The hyena mentioned by Rabbi Meir, this is the animal called an appa. If Rav Yosef understands a hyena to be an appa, how could he also claim, above, that it is a bardelas?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘爪讘讜注 讝讻专 讻讗谉 讘爪讘讜注 谞拽讬讘讛

The Gemara explains: It is not difficult: Here, in the baraita, Rabbi Meir is referring to a male hyena, and there, in the mishna, the reference is to a female hyena.

讚转谞讬讗 爪讘讜注 讝讻专 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 注讟诇祝 注讟诇祝 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 注专驻讚 注专驻讚 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 拽讬诪讜砖 拽讬诪讜砖 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 讞讜讞 讞讜讞 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 砖讚 砖讚专讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诇讗讞专 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞注砖讛 谞讞砖 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗 讻专注 讘诪讜讚讬诐

And it is apparent that a male hyena is distinct from a female one, as it is taught in a baraita: A male hyena after seven years metamorphoses into an insectivorous bat [atalef ]; an insectivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a herbivorous bat [arpad]; a herbivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a thistle [kimosh]; a thistle after seven years metamorphoses into a briar [岣鈥檃岣]; and a briar after seven years metamorphoses into a demon. Similarly, a person鈥檚 spine, seven years after his death, metamorphoses into a snake. The Gemara qualifies the last statement: And this matter applies only to a case where that person did not bow during the blessing of thanksgiving, the eighteenth blessing of the Amida prayer.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛爪讘讜注

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says above: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讞砖 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 转专讘讜转 讗讬谞谉 诪讜注讚讬诐 讜讛谞讞砖 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐

Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. By using the term also, Rabbi Elazar suggests he considers a snake to be forewarned to the same extent as the other animals in the mishna鈥檚 list, which, according to his opinion, are not considered to be forewarned if they are domesticated. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered to be forewarned, but the snake is always considered forewarned?

转谞讬 谞讞砖

The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying that Rabbi Elazar says: A snake, instead of saying: Also a snake. Accordingly, the baraita is teaching that he holds that only a snake is considered to be forewarned under all circumstances because he holds that even if it is domesticated it is still prone to caused damage.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚专住 讜讗讻诇 驻讟讜专 讟专祝 讜讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘

搂 The Gemara considers cases of damage caused by a lion: Shmuel says: With regard to a lion that kills an animal in the public domain, if it clawed its prey and ate it, the lion鈥檚 owner is exempt from liability. But if it first tore apart its prey with its teeth in order to kill it, and only then ate it, the owner is liable for the damage.

讚专住 讜讗讻诇 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讚专住 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讜 砖讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讜讬专拽讜转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 讟专祝 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara elucidates: If it clawed its prey and ate it, the owner is exempt, since it is its typical manner to claw its prey and eat it, and it is therefore equivalent to the case of an animal that eats fruit and vegetables belonging to someone else. Therefore, it is classified as Eating done in a public domain, and the owner of the lion is exempt. But if the lion first tore apart its prey to kill it, since this is not its typical manner, the act is classified as Goring, for which an owner is liable even in a public thoroughfare.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讟专讬驻讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗专讬讛 讟专祝 讘讚讬 讙专讜转讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讙讜专讜转讬讜 讜诪讞谞拽 诇诇讘讗转讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讘讗讜转讬讜 讜讬诪诇讗 讟专祝 讞专讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讞讜专讬讜 讜诪注谞转讬讜 讟专驻讛 讘砖讘讬诇 诪注讜谞讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that tearing apart its prey is not the typical manner of a lion? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he lion tears apart for its young, and it strangles for its lionesses, and it fills its caves with prey, and its den with that which was torn apart鈥 (Nahum 2:13). The description in the verse clearly indicates that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart its prey. The Gemara answers that each phrase of this verse is referring not to a situation where the lion catches prey for its own immediate use, but to one where it provides food for its young, as it says: 鈥淭he lion tears apart for its young鈥; to provide food for its lionesses: 鈥淎nd it strangles for its lionesses鈥; to provide food for the young cubs in its lair: 鈥淎nd it filled its lair with prey鈥; and to provide food for the young cubs in its den: 鈥淎nd its den with that which was torn apart.鈥 Therefore, we cannot learn from this verse that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart prey for its own immediate use.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讞讬讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讟专驻讛 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘砖专 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita concerning acts classified as Eating: And similarly, in the case of a wild animal, including a lion, that entered the courtyard of the injured party and tore apart the courtyard owner鈥檚 animal and ate its meat, the owner of the wild animal pays the full cost of the damage.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讟专驻讛 诇讛谞讬讞 讛讗 讗讻诇讛 拽转谞讬 讘砖谞诪诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where it tore apart the animal in order to leave it for later consumption. Since this is typical behavior for a lion, the lion is considered forewarned with regard to it. The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: And ate its meat? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the lion initially killed the animal to leave it for later consumption but then reconsidered and ate it.

诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara questions this understanding: How can we know what the animal鈥檚 initial intentions were? And furthermore, if one accepts this claim, then the ruling of Shmuel is also called into question, as perhaps the case he ruled on is a case like this, where the lion initially intended to leave the prey he killed for later consumption, and therefore the owner should be exempt. The Gemara therefore rejects this understanding.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 砖讟专驻讛 诇讛谞讬讞 讗讜 讚专住讛 讜讗讻诇讛 诪砖诇诪转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The baraita teaches two cases disjunctively and should be understood as teaching two halakhot: With regard to a lion that tore apart an animal in order to leave it for later consumption, or a lion that clawed its prey and ate it, since each acted in the typical manner of a lion, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗专讬 转专讘讜转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

Ravina said: It is the typical manner of a wild lion to kill its prey and then eat it, and therefore such damage is classified as Eating. Accordingly, if the damage was done in the public domain, the lion鈥檚 owner is exempt from any liability. When Shmuel says that an owner is liable if his lion does so, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack. Accordingly, the act is classified as being of the category of Goring, for which one is liable even in a public thoroughfare.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专住讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: If so, then even when the lion clawed its prey and ate it, the owner should be liable for any damage it causes in a public domain, since according to Rabbi Elazar such behavior is atypical for a domesticated lion. Why then does Shmuel rule that in such a case the owner is exempt?

讗诇讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讗砖诪讜讗诇 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 讗诪转谞讬转讗 讻讬 转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讗专讬 转专讘讜转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara concedes that its presentation of Ravina鈥檚 opinion is untenable: Rather, Ravina鈥檚 explanation was not stated in reference to Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, but rather in reference to the baraita, cited above, that discusses a case where a lion causes damage in the courtyard of the injured party. Accordingly, Ravina鈥檚 statement should be understood as follows: When the baraita teaches that one is liable if one鈥檚 lion tore apart an animal and ate it, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚讗讬讬注讚

The Gemara asks: If that is so, since the act is atypical behavior for a lion, it should be classified as Goring, and the owner should be required to pay for only half the cost of the damage. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the lion was forewarned.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讙讘讬 转讜诇讚讛 讚拽专谉 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara questions further: If that is so, what is the reason that the baraita teaches this among the subcategories of Eating? It should have taught it among the subcategories of Goring. The Gemara concedes: This is a difficulty with this explanation.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讛 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

MISHNA: What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is considered innocuous and the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is forewarned?

讗诇讗 砖讛转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The only differences are that for damage caused by an innocuous ox, the owner pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox, and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage from his higher property.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪注讜诇讛 砖讘谞讻住讬讜

GEMARA: What does the mishna mean by saying he pays from his higher [aliyya] property? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that he pays with the superior-quality [bame鈥檜lla] items of his property.

讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬砖讻讘 讞讝拽讬讛讜 注诐 讗讘转讬讜 讜讬拽讘专讛讜 讘诪注诇讛 拽讘专讬 讘谞讬 讚讜讬讚 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪注诇讛 讗爪诇 诪注讜诇讬诐 砖讘诪砖驻讞讛 讜诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛

And similarly, the fact that the word aliyya is referring to superior-quality property is indicated by the verse that states: 鈥淎nd Hezekiah lay with his ancestors, and they buried him in the best [bema鈥檃le] of the sepulchers of the descendants of David鈥 (II聽Chronicles 32:33), and Rabbi Elazar says: The term bema鈥檃le means beside the best of the family. And who are they? David and Solomon.

讜讬拽讘专讛讜 讘拽讘专转讬讜 讗砖专 讻专讛 诇讜 讘注讬专 讚讜讬讚 讜讬砖讻讬讘讛讜 讘诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 诪诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讝谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讝谞讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讝讬谞讬 讝讬谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讘砖诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讛诪专讬讞 讘讛谉 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讝讬诪讛

The Gemara offers an interpretation of another verse about the burial of a king of Judea, King Asa: 鈥淎nd they buried him in his own sepulchers, which he had hewn out for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the resting place, which was filled with perfumes and spices [zenim] prepared by the perfumers鈥 art鈥 (II聽Chronicles 16:14). What is meant by 鈥減erfumes and spices鈥? Rabbi Elazar says: It means many different types [zinei] of perfumes. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: The word zenim sounds similar to the word zenut, licentiousness, and should therefore be understood about types of perfumes that anyone who smells them is led to licentiousness.

讻讬 讻专讜 砖讜讞讛 诇诇讻讚谞讬 讜驻讞讬诐 讟诪谞讜 诇专讙诇讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讝讜谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖

The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani: Jeremiah requested of God to punish those who hounded him: 鈥淔or they have dug a pit to trap me and they have set snares for my feet鈥 (Jeremiah 18:22). In what way did they dig a pit to trap him? Rabbi Elazar says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a woman who had engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona]. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讝讜谞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 砖讜讞讛 注诪拽讛 讝讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 砖讜讞讛 讗讟讜 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讻诇诇 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, this is because the word 鈥減it鈥 is used as a metaphor for a zona, as it is written: 鈥淔or a zona is a deep pit鈥 (Proverbs 23:27). But according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, for what reason did Jeremiah use the word 鈥減it鈥? The Gemara answers: Due to the fact that she is a married woman, should she be excluded from the category of a zona? If she commits adultery she is also termed a zona, and the term 鈥減it鈥 can justifiably be applied to her.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转讛 讛壮 讬讚注转 讗转 讻诇 注爪转诐 注诇讬 诇诪讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞砖讚讜讛讜 诪讝讜谞讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讜转 砖讛砖诇讬讻讜讛讜 诇讘讗专 讟讬讟

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, this is consistent with that which is written: 鈥淵ou, Lord, know all their plans to kill me鈥 (Jeremiah 18:23). By claiming he engaged in intercourse with a married woman, they implicated him in a prohibition punishable by the death penalty. But according to the one who says that they suspected him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, what did he mean by saying 鈥渢o kill me鈥 when there is no court-imposed capital punishment for doing so? The Gemara answers: Jeremiah was referring to the fact that they cast him into a pit of mire.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讛讬讜 诪讻砖诇讬诐 诇驻谞讬讱 讘注转 讗驻讱 注砖讛 讘讛诐 讗诪专 讬专诪讬讛 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注讛 砖注讜砖讬谉 爪讚拽讛 讛讻砖讬诇诐 讘讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讛讜讙谞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽讘诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻专

Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淟et them be made to stumble before You; deal with them in the time of Your anger鈥 (Jeremiah 18:23)? It means that Jeremiah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even at a time when they try to perform acts of charity, make them stumble by ensuring that they do so with people who are unworthy of charity in order that they should not receive the reward for helping them.

讜讻讘讜讚 注砖讜 诇讜 讘诪讜转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讜砖讬讘讜 讬砖讬讘讛 注诇 拽讘专讜

The Gemara, above, cited a verse concerning King Hezekiah鈥檚 burial. The Gemara cites the continuation of that verse: 鈥淎nd they afforded him honor in his death鈥 (II聽Chronicles 32:33). This teaches that they established a yeshiva at his grave to study Torah there.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛

Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this yeshiva: One said: They studied there for three days.

Scroll To Top