What was unique about the respect given to Chizkiyahu upon his death? What is more important – learning Torah or keeping mitzvot? Learning Torah or teaching Torah? What rewards are given to those who learn Torah and do acts of kindness, chesed? What are the details of the main category called regel? Where and how is one liable? What are the subcategories? If the animal kicks up pebbles while walking and the pebbles damage something, that is called tzrorot. The rabbis had a tradition that one only pays half damages for tzrorot. However, Sumchus did not have that tradition and held that the owner pay full damages. All these rules apply to chickens as well, not only animals. The first two sentences in the Mishna seem to be saying the same thing. The same phenomenon happens in the next Mishna regarding shen, damage through eating. How is each Mishna explained? Rava compared indirect damages of tzrorot to laws of impurity for a zav. If a zav would move something and it would be impure, laws of damages would apply as well. If it would not be impure by that movement, the owner would be liable for half the damages for that type of movement. This is understood to be referring to a wagon pulled by an animal.
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Bava Kamma 17
וְחַד אָמַר שִׁבְעָה. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: שְׁלֹשִׁים.
And the other one said: They studied there for seven days. And some say they studied there for thirty days.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכָבוֹד עָשׂוּ לוֹ בְמוֹתוֹ״ – זֶה חִזְקִיָּה מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה אֶלֶף חֲלוּצֵי כָתֵף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Sages taught a baraita that offers another interpretation of the verse cited: “And afforded him [lo] honor in his death” (II Chronicles 32:33). This is referring to the honor given to Hezekiah, king of Judea, that at his burial 36,000 men with bared shoulders went out before him. They removed their robes from their shoulders as a sign of mourning. The number 36,000 is alluded to by the numerical value of the word lo, which is thirty-six. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: וַהֲלֹא לִפְנֵי אַחְאָב עָשׂוּ כֵּן!
Rabbi Neḥemya said to him: But didn’t they also do this before Ahab? Apparently, if they did this for the wicked king Ahab, it is an honor shown to all kings, and it is was not a unique show of honor for the righteous Hezekiah.
אֶלָּא שֶׁהִנִּיחוּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עַל מִטָּתוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ: קִיֵּים זֶה מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּזֶה.
Rather, the honor that was done for Hezekiah was that they laid a Torah scroll upon his bier and they said: This one, i.e., Hezekiah, fulfilled that which is written in this, i.e., the Torah scroll.
וְהָאִידָּנָא נָמֵי עָבְדִינַן הָכִי! אַפּוֹקֵי מַפְּקִינַן, אַנּוֹחֵי לָא מַנְּחִינַן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַנּוֹחֵי נָמֵי מַנְּחִינַן, ״קִיֵּים״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: But nowadays as well, we do this for any great Torah scholar that dies, so what is unique about what was done to honor Hezekiah? The Gemara answers: Nowadays, we take a Torah scroll out but we do not lay it on the bier of the deceased. And if you wish, say instead that nowadays we also lay a Torah scroll on the bier of the deceased; but we do not say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: הֲוָה אָזֵילְנָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְמִשְׁאַל שְׁמַעְתָּא, כִּי הֲוָה עָיֵיל לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא וַהֲוָה בָּעֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ מִלְּתָא, לָא פָּשֵׁיט לַן עַד דְּמָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ וּמַנַּח תְּפִילִּין וּמְבָרֵךְ, וַהֲדַר אֲמַר לַן: אֲפִילּוּ ״קִיֵּים״ אָמְרִינַן; ״לִימֵּד״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I was once walking together with Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask him about this statement. Whenever he would enter a lavatory, upon his exit I would ask him to explain a matter, and he would not answer us until he had washed his hands and donned his phylacteries and made the blessing, and only then would he answer us. With regard to the honor given to King Hezekiah, he said: Nowadays, we even say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this, but we do not say: He taught that which is written in this, which was a unique honor performed at the burial of the righteous King Hezekiah.
וְהָאָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, שֶׁהַתַּלְמוּד מֵבִיא לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא לְמִיגְמַר, הָא לְאַגְמוֹרֵי.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t the Master say: Torah study is great because the study of Torah leads to one’s performance of the mitzvot? This indicates that the performance of mitzvot is considered of greater value than Torah study. If so, once Hezekiah had been praised with the fact that he fulfilled the mitzvot of the Torah, why mention that he studied it? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: This statement of the Master is about studying the Torah for one’s own knowledge, and that unique praise given to King Hezekiah was about teaching the Torah to others.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אַשְׁרֵיכֶם זֹרְעֵי עַל כׇּל מָיִם, מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״? כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, זוֹכֶה לְנַחֲלַת שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים.
§ A verse that was cited at the beginning of this chapter (2b) as part of a halakhic exposition is now explained homiletically: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Happy are you that sow beside all waters, that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20)? It teaches that whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes, Joseph and Issachar.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵיכֶם זֹרְעֵי״ – וְאֵין ״זְרִיעָה״ אֶלָּא צְדָקָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זִרְעוּ לָכֶם לִצְדָקָה וְקִצְרוּ לְפִי חֶסֶד״; וְאֵין ״מַיִם״ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹי כׇּל צָמֵא לְכוּ לַמַּיִם״.
The Gemara explains how this is derived from the verse: As it is stated: “Happy are you that sow.” And the reference to sowing refers only to acts of charity, as it is stated: “Sow for yourselves for charity, reap according to kindness” (Hosea 10:12). And the reference to water refers only to the study of Torah, as it is stated with regard to Torah study: “Ho, all who are thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1).
וְזוֹכֶה לְנַחֲלַת שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים – זוֹכֶה לְכִילָה כְּיוֹסֵף, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף, בָּנוֹת צָעֲדָה עֲלֵי שׁוּר״; וְזוֹכֶה לְנַחֲלַת יִשָּׂשכָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״יִשָּׂשכָר חֲמֹר גָּרֶם״.
And the fact that he merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes is derived as follows: The reference to the ox in the verse is an allusion to Joseph, who is described as an ox (Deuteronomy 33:17), and one’s reward is that he merits to receive a canopy of honor, as did Joseph, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain; its branches run over the wall.” The branches over the wall in this verse allude to the canopy. And the reference to the donkey is an allusion to the fact that he merits to receive the portion of Issachar, who is described as a donkey, as it is stated: “Issachar is a large-boned donkey” (Genesis 49:14).
אִית דְּאָמְרִי: אוֹיְבָיו נוֹפְלִים לְפָנָיו כְּיוֹסֵף – דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּהֶם עַמִּים יְנַגַּח יַחְדָּו אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ״; וְזוֹכֶה לְבִינָה כְּיִשָּׂשכָר – דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים, לָדַעַת מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל״.
There are some who say that the comparison should be understood in a different manner. His enemies will fall before him just like in the blessing given by Moses to the tribe of Joseph, as it is written in the blessing bestowed by Moses to the tribe of Joseph: “His horns are the horns of the wild-ox; with them he shall gore the nations, even to the ends of the earth” (Deuteronomy 33:17). And he merits the understanding of Issachar, as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do” (I Chronicles 12:33).
הֲדַרַן עֲלָיךְ אַרְבָּעָה אָבוֹת
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד הָרֶגֶל מוּעֶדֶת? לִשְׁבֹּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּלְשַׁבֵּר.
MISHNA: The mishna in the previous chapter (15b) teaches that the owner of an animal is always forewarned with regard to the category of Trampling. The mishna elaborates: For what damage caused with the hoof is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking. An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, by doing so, breaking objects as it proceeds.
הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ – וְשָׁבְרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וּשְׁבָרַתּוּ, וְנָפַל עַל כְּלִי וּשְׁבָרוֹ – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
By contrast, if the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it transpired that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, cases of that kind do not fit precisely into the primary category of Trampling. In both of these cases the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel, as the damage caused by the shard is tantamount to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal.
הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין מוּעָדִין לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּן וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיָה דְּלִיל קָשׁוּר בְּרַגְלָיו, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְהַדֵּס וּמְשַׁבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects, and therefore, the owner of a chicken pays the full restitution for the damage done to any objects broken by his chicken. If there was a string [delil] tied to a chicken’s leg as an indication of ownership and it wrapped around a vessel and broke it, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: הַיְינוּ רֶגֶל הַיְינוּ בְּהֵמָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנָא אָבוֹת, וְקָתָנֵי תּוֹלָדוֹת.
GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Ravina said to Rava: In the context of the category of Trampling, damage caused by an animal trampling an object with its foot is the same as damage caused by an animal breaking an object with its body. Why does the mishna repeat the same halakha twice? Rava said to him: First, the tanna teaches the primary categories of damage, namely the category of Trampling with an animal’s foot, which is mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and then he teaches the subcategories of those primary categories, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to causing damage with other parts of its body in the course of its walking.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת״ ״הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת״, מַאי אָבוֹת וּמַאי תּוֹלָדוֹת אִיכָּא? הֲוָה קָמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ בִּבְדִיחוּתָא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא שַׁנַּאי חֲדָא, וְאַתְּ שַׁנִּי חֲדָא.
Ravina challenges this explanation: If that is so, the latter clause of the mishna (19b), which teaches, concerning the primary category of Eating: For what damage caused by Eating is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. Ravina asks: What primary categories and what subcategories are there in that context? No subcategories of Eating are enumerated there, and nevertheless, the phrase: The animal is deemed forewarned, is repeated. Rava responded to Ravina with a humorous response and said to him: I resolved the difficulty in one mishna, now you resolve the difficulty in one mishna.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: תַּנָּא שֵׁן דְּחַיָּה, וְקָתָנֵי שֵׁן דִּבְהֵמָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה״ כְּתִיב, בְּהֵמָה – אִין, חַיָּה – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּחַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה.
And what is the reason for the apparent redundancy in the mishna with regard to Eating? Rav Ashi said: First the tanna teaches the halakha of Eating by an undomesticated animal and then he teaches the halakha of Eating by a domesticated animal. And it was necessary to state both, as it enters your mind to say that since it is written: “And he set his animal loose” (Exodus 22:4), with regard to domesticated animals, yes, the primary category of Eating applies, but with regard to undomesticated animals, no, the primary category of Eating does not apply. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that undomesticated animals are included in the category of domesticated animals in this regard and the owner of an undomesticated animal is liable for damage caused by his animal eating another person’s produce.
אִי הָכִי, הָא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי בְּרֵישָׁא! הַאי דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא – חֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, the tanna should have taught the halakha with regard to a domesticated animal first and only afterward taught the halakha with regard to an undomesticated animal, as the latter is included in the category of the former. The Gemara answers: On the contrary, that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him, and therefore the tanna preferred to begin with the derived halakha and only then proceed to the explicit halakha.
אִי הָכִי, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי – לִיתְנֵי הָהִיא דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בְּרֵישָׁא! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אָבוֹת נִינְהוּ, הָךְ דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא – חֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ. הָכָא – שָׁבֵיק אָב, וְתָנֵי תּוֹלָדָה?!
The Gemara asks: If so, then with regard to the first clause, in this mishna too, let the tanna teach that which is not explicitly written first, as that which is derived from an interpretation is dear to him. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: How can they be compared? There, with regard to Eating, this damage caused by a domesticated animal and that damage caused by an undomesticated animal are primary categories of damage; therefore, the tanna taught first that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him. But here, with regard to Trampling, would he leave aside the primary category of Trampling, done with the animal’s foot, and teach a subcategory first?
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַיְּידֵי דְּסָלֵיק מֵרֶגֶל, פָּתַח בָּרֶגֶל.
If you wish, say instead that the reason that in this mishna the tanna begins with that which is written explicitly in the Torah and only then proceeds to teach that which is derived through an interpretation is as follows: Since the tanna concluded the discussion in the final mishna in the previous chapter (15b) with the primary category of Trampling by teaching the clause: The foot of an animal is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking, therefore, he began the first mishna in the second chapter with the primary category of Trampling.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּלְשַׁבֵּר. כֵּיצַד? בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק – וְהִזִּיקָה בְּגוּפָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ; בָּאוּכָּף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, וּבְזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ; וַחֲמוֹר בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: צְרוֹרוֹת, וַחֲזִיר שֶׁהָיָה נוֹבֵר בָּאַשְׁפָּה וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
§ The Sages taught: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, while doing so, breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or if it caused damage with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag [shalif ] that is on it; or with the halter in its mouth; or with the bell [zog] around its neck; or if it was a donkey that caused damage with its burden; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: In the case of pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, or in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and caused damage, the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage.
הִזִּיק – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הִתִּיז וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
The Gemara asks: If a pig caused damage, it is obvious that its owner must pay the full cost of the damage. What novel element is Sumakhos introducing? The Gemara answers: Rather, say: If it propelled pebbles and thereby caused damage, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
צְרוֹרוֹת מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַיְהוּ? חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: צְרוֹרוֹת כִּי אוֹרְחַיְיהוּ – חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וַחֲזִיר שֶׁהָיָה נוֹבֵר בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וְהִתִּיז וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: צְרוֹרוֹת, וַחֲזִיר שֶׁהָיָה נוֹבֵר בָּאַשְׁפָּה וְהִתִּיז וְהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
The Gemara asks: Pebbles, who mentioned anything about it? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For damage caused by pebbles that were propelled by animals walking in their typical manner, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, and for damage caused by a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and that damaged an object, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: Both in the case of pebbles that were propelled and in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and damaged an object, the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos does not accept the halakha that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, i.e., in its typical manner. He holds that since the damage results from the animal’s typical behavior, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מַפְרִיחִין מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְשָׁבְרוּ כֵּלִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶן – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. בְּרוּחַ שֶׁבְּכַנְפֵיהֶן – מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַדְּסִין עַל גַּבֵּי עִיסָּה וְעַל גַּבֵּי פֵּירוֹת, וְטִינְּפוּ אוֹ נִיקְּרוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. הֶעֱלוּ עָפָר אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת – מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:1): If chickens were flying from place to place and broke vessels with their wings, their owner pays the full cost of the damage as this is a subcategory of Trampling. By contrast, if the damage was caused by the wind generated by their wings, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, in accordance with the halakha in the case of pebbles. Sumakhos says: The owner pays the full cost of the damage. It is taught in another baraita: If chickens were hopping upon dough or upon produce and they sullied it with their feet, or if they pecked at it and caused damage, their owner pays the full cost of the damage. If in the course of their hopping they stirred up dust or propelled pebbles, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: He pays the full cost of the damage.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: תַּרְנְגוֹל שֶׁהָיָה מַפְרִיחַ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְיָצְתָה רוּחַ מִתַּחַת כְּנָפָיו וְשִׁיבְּרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. סְתָמָא כְּרַבָּנַן.
It is taught in another baraita: If a chicken was flying from place to place and wind emerged from beneath its wings and the wind caused vessels to break, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. The Gemara notes: This unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that the owner pays half the cost of the damage in these cases, just as he does in the case of pebbles propelled by the feet of an animal.
אָמַר רָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא סוֹמְכוֹס – קָסָבַר: כֹּחוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן, אִי כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי – כּוּלֵּיהּ נֶזֶק בָּעֵי לְשַׁלֵּם; וְאִי לָאו כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי, חֲצִי נֶזֶק נָמֵי לָא לְשַׁלֵּם!
Rava analyzed the baraita and said: Granted, the opinion of Sumakhos is understood, as he holds that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and therefore the owner pays the full cost of the damage in both cases. But the opinion of the Rabbis is difficult, as if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is not like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and is not attributed to the animal, then the owner should not be required to pay even half the cost of the damage.
הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי, וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת – הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.
Then Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and in principle the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And the liability to pay for half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is because the Rabbis learned this halakha through tradition, and it does not correspond to the standard halakhot of damages.
אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁבַּזָּב טָמֵא – בְּנִזָּקִין מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. כֹּל שֶׁבַּזָּב טָהוֹר – בְּנִזָּקִין מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
§ Rava says: With regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he renders it ritually impure, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. Conversely, with regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he leaves it ritually pure, e.g., where the contact is indirect, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.
וְרָבָא, צְרוֹרוֹת אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?! לֹא; רָבָא – עֶגְלָה מוֹשֶׁכֶת בַּקָּרוֹן קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And Rava, did he come to teach us the halakha of pebbles? The substance of Rava’s statement is that for damage caused by the indirect action of an animal, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. That is identical to the halakha of pebbles articulated in the baraitot cited earlier. The Gemara answers: No, Rava teaches us the halakha in the case of a calf pulling a cart [karon]. Just as with regard to a zav, the status of a vessel that a zav moves is like that of a vessel with which he came into contact, so too, the status of damage caused by the cart pulled by the animal is like that of damage caused by the animal’s body, and it is not considered indirect damage like in the case of pebbles.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְשַׁבֵּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ. כֵּיצַד? בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק – וְהִזִּיקָה בְּגוּפָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ; בָּאוּכָּף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, וּבִפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, וּבְזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ; וַחֲמוֹר בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ, וְעֶגְלָה מוֹשֶׁכֶת בְּקָרוֹן – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party, and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag that is on it; or with the halter that is in its mouth; or with the bell that is around its neck; or if a donkey caused damage with its burden; or if a calf caused damage while pulling a cart; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תַּרְנְגוֹלִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְחַטְּטִין בְּחֶבֶל דְּלִי, וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנִשְׁבַּר הַדְּלִי – מְשַׁלְּמִין נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
§ The Sages taught: In a case where chickens were pecking at the rope tied to a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket fell and broke, their owner pays the full cost of the damage.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: דָּרְסָה עַל כְּלִי וְלֹא שְׁבָרַתּוּ, וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְנִשְׁבַּר, מַהוּ? בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן – וְגוּפֵיהּ הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּתַר תְּבַר מָנָא אָזְלִינָא – וּצְרוֹרוֹת נִינְהוּ?
Rava raises a dilemma: If an animal trod upon a vessel but did not break it and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there, what is the halakha? Rava elaborates: In determining one’s liability for causing damage, do we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage and this case is regarded as damage caused by the animal itself? Accordingly, the owner would pay the full cost of the damage as he would in any case classified under the primary category of Trampling. Or perhaps do we follow the breaking of the vessel and therefore this case is regarded as similar to the case of pebbles propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, since the vessel was not broken by a direct action of the animal, but rather, as an indirect result of the animal’s action?
תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבָּה – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק כְּלִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וּבָא אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ בְּמַקֵּל – פָּטוּר; דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: מָנָא תְּבִירָא תְּבַר! לְרַבָּה – פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, לְרָבָא – מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Resolve Rava’s dilemma from the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: If one threw a vessel from a roof and another came and broke it with a stick as it was falling, the one who hit it with the stick is exempt from all liability as we say to him that he broke a broken vessel. From the moment the vessel was tossed from the roof it was inevitable that it would break. Consequently, breaking it with a stick as it was falling had no real effect. Apparently, the initial action is the decisive factor in determining liability for damages. The same should be the halakha in a case where a vessel was trod upon by an animal but it did not break, and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there. The liability should be determined based on the initial action that caused the damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The halakha in this case is clear to Rabba, who ruled as he did, but it remains a dilemma to Rava. One cannot prove the opinion of one amora from the opinion of another.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הִידּוּס – אֵינוֹ מוּעָד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution of this dilemma from a baraita: With regard to hopping, a chicken is not deemed forewarned. And some say that it is forewarned.
הִידּוּס סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא לָאו הִידּוּס וְהִתִּיז, וּבְהָא קָמִפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: בָּתַר תְּבַר מְנָא אָזְלִינַן?
The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Does it enter your mind to raise the possibility that a chicken is not forewarned with regard to hopping? Hopping is the typical manner of movement for chickens. Rather, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken was hopping and the hopping propelled the vessel to roll to another place, and the vessel was broken there? And they disagree with regard to this: One Sage holds that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage, and since hopping is typical manner of movement for a chicken, its owner is responsible for any damage that resulted from its hopping. And one Sage holds: We follow the breaking of the vessel, and since there was an additional factor that broke the vessel, the owner of the chicken is not liable.
לָא;
The Gemara rejects the parallel between the dispute and the dilemma: No, the dispute in the baraita can be explained differently.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Bava Kamma 17
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ: Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
And the other one said: They studied there for seven days. And some say they studied there for thirty days.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ£ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ£, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
The Sages taught a baraita that offers another interpretation of the verse cited: βAnd afforded him [lo] honor in his deathβ (IIΒ Chronicles 32:33). This is referring to the honor given to Hezekiah, king of Judea, that at his burial 36,000 men with bared shoulders went out before him. They removed their robes from their shoulders as a sign of mourning. The number 36,000 is alluded to by the numerical value of the word lo, which is thirty-six. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ!
Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya said to him: But didnβt they also do this before Ahab? Apparently, if they did this for the wicked king Ahab, it is an honor shown to all kings, and it is was not a unique show of honor for the righteous Hezekiah.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ: Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ.
Rather, the honor that was done for Hezekiah was that they laid a Torah scroll upon his bier and they said: This one, i.e., Hezekiah, fulfilled that which is written in this, i.e., the Torah scroll.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ! ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, Χ΄Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: But nowadays as well, we do this for any great Torah scholar that dies, so what is unique about what was done to honor Hezekiah? The Gemara answers: Nowadays, we take a Torah scroll out but we do not lay it on the bier of the deceased. And if you wish, say instead that nowadays we also lay a Torah scroll on the bier of the deceased; but we do not say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΦ°, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ΄Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ; Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana said: I was once walking together with Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan to ask him about this statement. Whenever he would enter a lavatory, upon his exit I would ask him to explain a matter, and he would not answer us until he had washed his hands and donned his phylacteries and made the blessing, and only then would he answer us. With regard to the honor given to King Hezekiah, he said: Nowadays, we even say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this, but we do not say: He taught that which is written in this, which was a unique honor performed at the burial of the righteous King Hezekiah.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ! ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ.
The Gemara asks: But didnβt the Master say: Torah study is great because the study of Torah leads to oneβs performance of the mitzvot? This indicates that the performance of mitzvot is considered of greater value than Torah study. If so, once Hezekiah had been praised with the fact that he fulfilled the mitzvot of the Torah, why mention that he studied it? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: This statement of the Master is about studying the Torah for oneβs own knowledge, and that unique praise given to King Hezekiah was about teaching the Torah to others.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Χ΄? ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Β§ A verse that was cited at the beginning of this chapter (2b) as part of a halakhic exposition is now explained homiletically: Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben YoαΈ₯ai: What is the meaning of that which is written: βHappy are you that sow beside all waters, that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkeyβ (Isaiah 32:20)? It teaches that whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes, Joseph and Issachar.
Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧΧ΄; ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄.
The Gemara explains how this is derived from the verse: As it is stated: βHappy are you that sow.β And the reference to sowing refers only to acts of charity, as it is stated: βSow for yourselves for charity, reap according to kindnessβ (Hosea 10:12). And the reference to water refers only to the study of Torah, as it is stated with regard to Torah study: βHo, all who are thirsty, go to waterβ (Isaiah 55:1).
ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£, ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ¦ΦΈΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Χ΄; ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧ΄.
And the fact that he merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes is derived as follows: The reference to the ox in the verse is an allusion to Joseph, who is described as an ox (Deuteronomy 33:17), and oneβs reward is that he merits to receive a canopy of honor, as did Joseph, as it is written: βJoseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain; its branches run over the wall.β The branches over the wall in this verse allude to the canopy. And the reference to the donkey is an allusion to the fact that he merits to receive the portion of Issachar, who is described as a donkey, as it is stated: βIssachar is a large-boned donkeyβ (Genesis 49:14).
ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯Χ΄; ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄.
There are some who say that the comparison should be understood in a different manner. His enemies will fall before him just like in the blessing given by Moses to the tribe of Joseph, as it is written in the blessing bestowed by Moses to the tribe of Joseph: βHis horns are the horns of the wild-ox; with them he shall gore the nations, even to the ends of the earthβ (Deuteronomy 33:17). And he merits the understanding of Issachar, as it is written: βAnd of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to doβ (IΒ Chronicles 12:33).
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ? ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨.
MISHNA: The mishna in the previous chapter (15b) teaches that the owner of an animal is always forewarned with regard to the category of Trampling. The mishna elaborates: For what damage caused with the hoof is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking. An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, by doing so, breaking objects as it proceeds.
ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§. ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ·Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ β Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§.
By contrast, if the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it transpired that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, cases of that kind do not fit precisely into the primary category of Trampling. In both of these cases the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel, as the damage caused by the shard is tantamount to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ‘ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§.
Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects, and therefore, the owner of a chicken pays the full restitution for the damage done to any objects broken by his chicken. If there was a string [delil] tied to a chickenβs leg as an indication of ownership and it wrapped around a vessel and broke it, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Ravina said to Rava: In the context of the category of Trampling, damage caused by an animal trampling an object with its foot is the same as damage caused by an animal breaking an object with its body. Why does the mishna repeat the same halakha twice? Rava said to him: First, the tanna teaches the primary categories of damage, namely the category of Trampling with an animalβs foot, which is mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and then he teaches the subcategories of those primary categories, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to causing damage with other parts of its body in the course of its walking.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧͺΧ΄ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧͺΧ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ©ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ.
Ravina challenges this explanation: If that is so, the latter clause of the mishna (19b), which teaches, concerning the primary category of Eating: For what damage caused by Eating is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. Ravina asks: What primary categories and what subcategories are there in that context? No subcategories of Eating are enumerated there, and nevertheless, the phrase: The animal is deemed forewarned, is repeated. Rava responded to Ravina with a humorous response and said to him: I resolved the difficulty in one mishna, now you resolve the difficulty in one mishna.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ. Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ; Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ.
And what is the reason for the apparent redundancy in the mishna with regard to Eating? Rav Ashi said: First the tanna teaches the halakha of Eating by an undomesticated animal and then he teaches the halakha of Eating by a domesticated animal. And it was necessary to state both, as it enters your mind to say that since it is written: βAnd he set his animal looseβ (Exodus 22:4), with regard to domesticated animals, yes, the primary category of Eating applies, but with regard to undomesticated animals, no, the primary category of Eating does not apply. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that undomesticated animals are included in the category of domesticated animals in this regard and the owner of an undomesticated animal is liable for damage caused by his animal eating another personβs produce.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara asks: If so, the tanna should have taught the halakha with regard to a domesticated animal first and only afterward taught the halakha with regard to an undomesticated animal, as the latter is included in the category of the former. The Gemara answers: On the contrary, that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him, and therefore the tanna preferred to begin with the derived halakha and only then proceed to the explicit halakha.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ?! ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ?!
The Gemara asks: If so, then with regard to the first clause, in this mishna too, let the tanna teach that which is not explicitly written first, as that which is derived from an interpretation is dear to him. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: How can they be compared? There, with regard to Eating, this damage caused by a domesticated animal and that damage caused by an undomesticated animal are primary categories of damage; therefore, the tanna taught first that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him. But here, with regard to Trampling, would he leave aside the primary category of Trampling, done with the animalβs foot, and teach a subcategory first?
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ, Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ.
If you wish, say instead that the reason that in this mishna the tanna begins with that which is written explicitly in the Torah and only then proceeds to teach that which is derived through an interpretation is as follows: Since the tanna concluded the discussion in the final mishna in the previous chapter (15b) with the primary category of Trampling by teaching the clause: The foot of an animal is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking, therefore, he began the first mishna in the second chapter with the primary category of Trampling.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨. ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ; ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ£ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ£ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ¦Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ; ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
Β§ The Sages taught: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, while doing so, breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or if it caused damage with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag [shalif ] that is on it; or with the halter in its mouth; or with the bell [zog] around its neck; or if it was a donkey that caused damage with its burden; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: In the case of pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, or in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and caused damage, the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara asks: If a pig caused damage, it is obvious that its owner must pay the full cost of the damage. What novel element is Sumakhos introducing? The Gemara answers: Rather, say: If it propelled pebbles and thereby caused damage, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§. Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara asks: Pebbles, who mentioned anything about it? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For damage caused by pebbles that were propelled by animals walking in their typical manner, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, and for damage caused by a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and that damaged an object, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: Both in the case of pebbles that were propelled and in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and damaged an object, the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos does not accept the halakha that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, i.e., in its typical manner. He holds that since the damage results from the animalβs typical behavior, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ°Χ€Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ°Χ€Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§. Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°: ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§. Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:1): If chickens were flying from place to place and broke vessels with their wings, their owner pays the full cost of the damage as this is a subcategory of Trampling. By contrast, if the damage was caused by the wind generated by their wings, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, in accordance with the halakha in the case of pebbles. Sumakhos says: The owner pays the full cost of the damage. It is taught in another baraita: If chickens were hopping upon dough or upon produce and they sullied it with their feet, or if they pecked at it and caused damage, their owner pays the full cost of the damage. If in the course of their hopping they stirred up dust or propelled pebbles, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: He pays the full cost of the damage.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°: ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ€ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§. Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ.
It is taught in another baraita: If a chicken was flying from place to place and wind emerged from beneath its wings and the wind caused vessels to break, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. The Gemara notes: This unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that the owner pays half the cost of the damage in these cases, just as he does in the case of pebbles propelled by the feet of an animal.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘ β Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΉΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ; ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ!
Rava analyzed the baraita and said: Granted, the opinion of Sumakhos is understood, as he holds that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalβs action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and therefore the owner pays the full cost of the damage in both cases. But the opinion of the Rabbis is difficult, as if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalβs action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalβs action is not like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and is not attributed to the animal, then the owner should not be required to pay even half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ.
Then Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalβs action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and in principle the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And the liability to pay for half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is because the Rabbis learned this halakha through tradition, and it does not correspond to the standard halakhot of damages.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§.
Β§ Rava says: With regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he renders it ritually impure, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. Conversely, with regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he leaves it ritually pure, e.g., where the contact is indirect, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ?! ΧΦΉΧ; Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β Χ’ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: And Rava, did he come to teach us the halakha of pebbles? The substance of Ravaβs statement is that for damage caused by the indirect action of an animal, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. That is identical to the halakha of pebbles articulated in the baraitot cited earlier. The Gemara answers: No, Rava teaches us the halakha in the case of a calf pulling a cart [karon]. Just as with regard to a zav, the status of a vessel that a zav moves is like that of a vessel with which he came into contact, so too, the status of damage caused by the cart pulled by the animal is like that of damage caused by the animalβs body, and it is not considered indirect damage like in the case of pebbles.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ; ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ£ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ£ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ¦Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ; ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party, and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag that is on it; or with the halter that is in its mouth; or with the bell that is around its neck; or if a donkey caused damage with its burden; or if a calf caused damage while pulling a cart; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
Β§ The Sages taught: In a case where chickens were pecking at the rope tied to a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket fell and broke, their owner pays the full cost of the damage.
ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΧ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ?
Rava raises a dilemma: If an animal trod upon a vessel but did not break it and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there, what is the halakha? Rava elaborates: In determining oneβs liability for causing damage, do we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage and this case is regarded as damage caused by the animal itself? Accordingly, the owner would pay the full cost of the damage as he would in any case classified under the primary category of Trampling. Or perhaps do we follow the breaking of the vessel and therefore this case is regarded as similar to the case of pebbles propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, since the vessel was not broken by a direct action of the animal, but rather, as an indirect result of the animalβs action?
ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨; ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨! ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara suggests: Resolve Ravaβs dilemma from the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: If one threw a vessel from a roof and another came and broke it with a stick as it was falling, the one who hit it with the stick is exempt from all liability as we say to him that he broke a broken vessel. From the moment the vessel was tossed from the roof it was inevitable that it would break. Consequently, breaking it with a stick as it was falling had no real effect. Apparently, the initial action is the decisive factor in determining liability for damages. The same should be the halakha in a case where a vessel was trod upon by an animal but it did not break, and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there. The liability should be determined based on the initial action that caused the damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The halakha in this case is clear to Rabba, who ruled as he did, but it remains a dilemma to Rava. One cannot prove the opinion of one amora from the opinion of another.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution of this dilemma from a baraita: With regard to hopping, a chicken is not deemed forewarned. And some say that it is forewarned.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ°?! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ?
The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Does it enter your mind to raise the possibility that a chicken is not forewarned with regard to hopping? Hopping is the typical manner of movement for chickens. Rather, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken was hopping and the hopping propelled the vessel to roll to another place, and the vessel was broken there? And they disagree with regard to this: One Sage holds that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage, and since hopping is typical manner of movement for a chicken, its owner is responsible for any damage that resulted from its hopping. And one Sage holds: We follow the breaking of the vessel, and since there was an additional factor that broke the vessel, the owner of the chicken is not liable.
ΧΦΈΧ;
The Gemara rejects the parallel between the dispute and the dilemma: No, the dispute in the baraita can be explained differently.
