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 dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
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 dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
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.
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
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
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
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
New York, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
New York, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
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.
