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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 2, 2016 | 讻状讛 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Kamma 2

Study Guide Bava Kamma 2. The mishna sets up 4 main categories of damages – an ox, a pit, maveh (acording to the gemara either man or the teeth of an animal) and fire. 聽The mishna makes a few distinctions between the categories. 聽The gemara then compares it to the laws of shabbat and impurities where there are also main categories and sub categories and tries to determine whether the categories and subcategories of damages are treated the same by law or different. 聽Rav Paapa answers that some are the same and some are different. 聽The gemara then attempts to determine what he meant by that statement (whcih are which).


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讗讘讜转 谞讝讬拽讬谉 讛砖讜专 讜讛讘讜专 讜讛诪讘注讛 讜讛讛讘注专

MISHNA: There are four primary categories of damage: The category of Ox; and the category of Pit; and the category of Maveh, which, based on a discussion in the Gemara refers either to the tooth of an animal that causes damage or to a person who causes damage; and the category of Fire.

诇讗 讛专讬 讛砖讜专 讻讛专讬 讛诪讘注讛 讜诇讗 讛专讬 讛诪讘注讛 讻讛专讬 讛砖讜专 讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讻讛专讬 讛讗砖 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐

Each of these categories is unique; therefore, the halakhot of one cannot be derived from another. The defining characteristic of the primary category of Ox is not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Maveh, and the defining characteristic of the primary category of Maveh is not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Ox. And the defining characteristics of this category of Ox and that category of Maveh, in which there is a living spirit that causes damage, are not similar to the defining characteristic of the category of Fire, in which there is no living spirit.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讝讬拽 讻讛专讬 讛讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讝讬拽

The mishna continues: And the defining characteristics of this primary category of Ox and Maveh and that primary category of Fire, in which the typical manner of their components is to proceed from one place to another and cause damage, are not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Pit, in which the typical manner of its components is not to proceed from one place to another and cause damage; rather, it remains in place and the damage is caused by the injured party proceeding and encountering the obstacle.

讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇讛讝讬拽 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 讘诪讬讟讘 讛讗专抓

The common denominator of the components in all of these primary categories is that it is their typical manner to cause damage, and the responsibility for their safeguarding to prevent them from causing damage is incumbent upon you, the owner of the animal or generator of the fire or the pit. And when a component of any of these categories causes damage, the owner or generator of the component that caused the damage is obligated to pay restitution for damage with best-quality land.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches its ruling employing the term: Primary categories, by inference, there are subcategories of those primary categories. The Gemara asks: Are their subcategories similar to them, i.e., to their respective primary categories, so that the same halakhot apply to them, or are they dissimilar to them?

讙讘讬 砖讘转 转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转

The Gemara cites additional areas of halakha where there are primary categories and subcategories and considers the relationship between them: With regard to Shabbat we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 73a): The primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat number forty-less-one. There too, from the fact that the mishna teaches its ruling employing the term: Primary categories, by inference, there are also subcategories.

转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘 讞讟讗转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 讞讟讗转 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘 住拽讬诇讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 住拽讬诇讛

With regard to the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, their subcategories are similar to them, as it is no different if one unwittingly performed labor that is a primary category, for which he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and it is no different if one unwittingly performed labor that is a subcategory, for which he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Likewise, it is no different if one intentionally performed labor that is a primary category, for which he is liable to be executed by stoning, and it is no different if one intentionally performed labor that is a subcategory, for which he is liable to be executed by stoning.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讗讘 诇转讜诇讚讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬诇讜 注讘讬讚 砖转讬 讗讘讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讘讬讚 讗讘 讜转讜诇讚讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

And what difference is there between a primary category and a subcategory? The Gemara explains: The practical difference is that if one unwittingly performs two labors classified as different primary categories together, during a single lapse of awareness, or, alternatively, if one unwittingly performs two labors classified as subcategories of two different primary categories together, during a single lapse of awareness, one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every labor that he performed. Each primary category of labor is an independent transgression. While if one unwittingly performs a labor that is a primary category and another labor classified as its subcategory during a single lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讛讱 讚讛讜讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘 讛讱 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, who deems one liable to bring two sin-offerings even if one performs a labor classified as a subcategory together with a labor that is its primary category, why is one labor characterized as a primary category and why is the other labor characterized as a subcategory? The Gemara explains: Of the labors prohibited on Shabbat, that which was a significant labor in the Tabernacle, the Sages characterized it as a primary category, and that which was not a significant labor in the Tabernacle, the Sages characterized it as a subcategory. The labors prohibited on Shabbat are derived from the labors employed in the construction of the Tabernacle; therefore, their classification is also based on their significance in its construction.

讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讜转 转谞谉 讗讘讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讛砖专抓 讜讛砖讻讘转 讝专注

With regard to ritual impurities, we learned in the mishna (Kelim 1:1): The primary categories of ritual impurity are as follows: Any of the eight species of the creeping animal enumerated in the Torah (Leviticus 11:29鈥30), and semen,

讜讟诪讗 诪转 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗讘 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗

and one who is impure with impurity imparted by a human corpse. A person, a vessel, or food that is rendered impure through contact with an item classified as a primary category of ritual impurity is characterized as a subcategory. In that domain, their subcategories are dissimilar to them, as any person or item classified as a primary category of ritual impurity impurifies a person and impurifies any vessels with which it comes into contact, while a person or item classified as a subcategory of ritual impurity impurifies food or drink, but does not impurify a person or vessels.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

After determining that there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is like that of primary categories, e.g., Shabbat, and there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is dissimilar to that of primary categories, e.g., ritual impurity, the Gemara asks: Here, with regard to the laws of damages, what is the relationship between the primary categories and their subcategories? Rav Pappa said: There are, among the primary categories of damage, some whose subcategories are similar to them, and there are, among them, some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讘讜转 谞讗诪专讜 讘砖讜专 讛拽专谉 讜讛砖谉 讜讛专讙诇

搂 Seeking to clarify Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement, the Gemara cites a baraita that delineates the primary categories of damage. The Sages taught in a baraita: Three primary categories of damage were stated in the Torah with regard to an ox. An ox causes damage in three ways, and each is classified as a distinct primary category of damage represented by a part of the body of the ox: There is the category of Goring [keren], literally, horn. This is referring to an ox goring a person or an animal and causing damage. And there is the category of Eating [shen], literally, tooth. This is referring to one鈥檚 ox causing damage by consuming another person鈥檚 produce. And there is the category of Trampling [regel], literally, foot. This is referring to an ox trampling another person鈥檚 belongings and causing damage. These are classified as primary categories because they are mentioned explicitly in the Torah.

拽专谉 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讬讙讞 讗讬谉 谞讙讬讞讛 讗诇讗 拽专谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖 诇讜 爪讚拽讬讛 讘谉 讻谞注谞讛 拽专谞讬 讘专讝诇 讜讬讗诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讘讗诇讛 转谞讙讞 讗转 讗专诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讗讜诪专 讘讻讜专 砖讜专讜 讛讚专 诇讜 讜拽专谞讬 专讗诐 拽专谞讬讜 讘讛诐 注诪讬诐 讬谞讙讞

The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive the primary category of Goring? The source is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:28); and goring is performed only with a horn, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, made himself horns of iron, and said: So says the Lord: With these shall you gore the Arameans, until they are consumed鈥 (I聽Kings 22:11). And the verse also states: 鈥淗is firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:17).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 转讗 砖诪注 讘讻讜专 砖讜专讜 讛讚专 诇讜

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse also states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse cited is not a legitimate source as it is a verse from the Prophets, and we do not derive Torah matters from the texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings, come and hear proof from the Torah: 鈥淗is firstborn bull, majesty is his.鈥

讜讛讗讬 诪讬诇祝 讛讜讗 讙讬诇讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞讙讬讞讛 讘拽专谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects the possibility that the reason a second verse was cited is that the primary category of Goring cannot be derived from a verse in the Prophets: But is this a halakhic derivation? It is a mere disclosure of the matter, that goring is performed with a horn. A verse in the Prophets can certainly serve as a source for that disclosure.

讗诇讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转诇讜砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讞讜讘专转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 诪讜注讚转 讛讬讗

Rather, the reason the baraita cites a second verse is lest you say, based on the first verse, that when the Merciful One distinguishes between liability for damage caused by an innocuous ox, for which the owner is liable to pay half of the damages for the first three times that it gores, and liability for damage caused by a forewarned ox, which already gored three times and whose owner was cautioned to prevent the ox from goring, for which he is liable to pay the full damages, that statement applies only to damage caused with a detached horn, like the horn of Zedekiah described in the verse, e.g., if an animal held a detached horn in its mouth and caused damage with it; but for damage that an ox caused with a horn attached to its head, say that in all cases the legal status of the ox is that of a forewarned ox and its owner is liable to pay for all of the damage.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讻讜专 砖讜专讜 讛讚专 诇讜 讜讙讜壮

Therefore, the baraita says: Come and hear a proof from another verse: 鈥淗is firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations,鈥 where the reference is to a horn attached to the ox鈥檚 head. Evidently, when an ox gores with its own horns there is a distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.

转讜诇讚讛 讚拽专谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 谞讙讬驻讛 谞砖讬讻讛 专讘讬爪讛 讜讘注讬讟讛

The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: What is a subcategory of Goring? It includes any action that an ox performs with its body with the objective of inflicting damage: Pushing [negifa], biting, crouching upon items with the objective of inflicting damage, and kicking.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 谞讙讬讞讛 讚拽专讬 诇讛 讗讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙讞 谞讙讬驻讛 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙祝 讛讗讬 谞讙讬驻讛 谞讙讬讞讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 驻转讞 讘谞讙讬驻讛 讜住讬讬诐 讘谞讙讬讞讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讙讬驻讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讙讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is different about goring that it is characterized as a primary category of damage, as it is written explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:28); accordingly, negifa should also be characterized as a primary category, as it is written: 鈥淚f one man鈥檚 ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another鈥 (Exodus 21:35)? The Gemara answers: This negifa mentioned in the verse, is actually a reference to goring, as it is taught in a baraita that the verses states: 鈥淎nd if one man鈥檚 ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another鈥r if it is known that the ox was a goring ox in time past鈥 (Exodus 21:35鈥36). The verse began its description of the case with the term negifa and it concluded with the term goring to say to you that in this context the two terms describe the same action: This action is negifa and this same action is goring.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙讞 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙祝

The Gemara asks: If the two terms are interchangeable, what is different with regard to an ox goring a person that it is written: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:28), and what is different with regard to an ox goring an animal that it is written: 鈥淚f one man鈥檚 ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another鈥 (Exodus 21:35)?

讗讚诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讝诇讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙讞 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝诇讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙祝

The Gemara explains: With regard to a person, who has the ingenuity to defend himself and is not easily injured, it is written: 鈥淚f an ox gores,鈥 a term indicating an attack of greater force. With regard to an animal, which does not have the ingenuity to defend itself and is more easily injured, it is written: 鈥淚f an ox hurts [yiggof ],鈥 a term indicating an attack of lesser force. The term yiggof is related to the term magefa, meaning plague. The Torah employs that term with regard to the goring of an animal to indicate that when an animal is gored, regardless of the force of the blow, it will likely result in its death.

讜诪诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讜注讚 诇讗讚诐 讛讜讬 诪讜注讚 诇讘讛诪讛 讜诪讜注讚 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜注讚 诇讗讚诐

And the Torah鈥檚 use of these terms teaches us a matter in passing: Because the effort required for the ox to gore a person to death is greater than the effort required for the ox to gore an animal to death, the halakha is that an ox that is forewarned with regard to goring a person is also forewarned with regard to an animal. But an ox that is forewarned with regard to an animal is not forewarned with regard to a person.

谞砖讬讻讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谉 讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讛

The Gemara questions the classification in the baraita of biting, crouching, and kicking as subcategories of Goring: Isn鈥檛 biting a subcategory of Eating, as the animal both eats and bites with its teeth? The Gemara answers: No, in cases included in the primary category of Eating, there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage. In this case of damage caused by biting, there is no intrinsic pleasure for the animal in the course of the damage that it causes, as when the ox bites forcefully, the exclusive objective of the action is to cause damage.

专讘讬爪讛 讜讘注讬讟讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讙诇 讛讝讬拽讛 诪爪讜讬 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讛讝讬拽谉 诪爪讜讬

The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 crouching upon items and kicking items in order to damage them each a subcategory of Trampling, as the animal crouches by bending its legs and kicks with its feet? The Gemara answers: No, in cases included in the primary category of Trampling, the damage is commonplace, as it is caused in the course of the animal鈥檚 walking; in these cases of crouching and kicking, the damage is not commonplace, as animals do not typically kick or crouch upon utensils.

讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讛讬讬讗

After citing the subcategories listed in the baraita, the Gemara resumes its analysis of the statement of Rav Pappa: But with regard to the statement that Rav Pappa said: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, to which primary category was Rav Pappa referring?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讛谞讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽专谉 讚讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讜讜谞转谉 诇讛讝讬拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱

If we say that his reference was to these subcategories of Goring, what is different about Goring that defines it as a unique primary category? What is different is that the objective of the ox鈥檚 action is to cause damage, and the ox is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you, its owner. In these subcategories of Goring, i.e., pushing [negifa], biting, crouching, and kicking, as well, the objective of the oxen鈥檚 actions is to cause damage, and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent your oxen from causing damage, is incumbent upon you.

讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚拽专谉 讻拽专谉 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗砖谉 讜专讙诇

Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Goring is like that of the primary category of Goring, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he was referring to Eating and Trampling.

砖谉 讜专讙诇 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诇讞 讝讛 讛专讙诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专

The Gemara asks: Where are Eating and Trampling written in the Torah that led them to be classified as primary categories? The Gemara answers: The source is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he sends forth his animal, and it consumed in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4). The two parts of the verse are referring to different categories: 鈥淎nd he sends forth,鈥 this is a reference to the primary category of Trampling, as sending forth results in the animal trampling another鈥檚 produce and damaging it, and likewise it states: 鈥淗appy are you that sow beside all waters that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey鈥 (Isaiah 32:20). Clearly the term 鈥渟end forth鈥 is a reference to trampling by the feet of the animal.

讜讘注专 讝讜 讛砖谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专

鈥淎nd it consumed,鈥 this is a reference to the primary category of Eating, and likewise it states: 鈥淎nd I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as one consumes with

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Kamma 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 2

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讗讘讜转 谞讝讬拽讬谉 讛砖讜专 讜讛讘讜专 讜讛诪讘注讛 讜讛讛讘注专

MISHNA: There are four primary categories of damage: The category of Ox; and the category of Pit; and the category of Maveh, which, based on a discussion in the Gemara refers either to the tooth of an animal that causes damage or to a person who causes damage; and the category of Fire.

诇讗 讛专讬 讛砖讜专 讻讛专讬 讛诪讘注讛 讜诇讗 讛专讬 讛诪讘注讛 讻讛专讬 讛砖讜专 讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讻讛专讬 讛讗砖 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐

Each of these categories is unique; therefore, the halakhot of one cannot be derived from another. The defining characteristic of the primary category of Ox is not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Maveh, and the defining characteristic of the primary category of Maveh is not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Ox. And the defining characteristics of this category of Ox and that category of Maveh, in which there is a living spirit that causes damage, are not similar to the defining characteristic of the category of Fire, in which there is no living spirit.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讝讬拽 讻讛专讬 讛讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讝讬拽

The mishna continues: And the defining characteristics of this primary category of Ox and Maveh and that primary category of Fire, in which the typical manner of their components is to proceed from one place to another and cause damage, are not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Pit, in which the typical manner of its components is not to proceed from one place to another and cause damage; rather, it remains in place and the damage is caused by the injured party proceeding and encountering the obstacle.

讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇讛讝讬拽 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 讘诪讬讟讘 讛讗专抓

The common denominator of the components in all of these primary categories is that it is their typical manner to cause damage, and the responsibility for their safeguarding to prevent them from causing damage is incumbent upon you, the owner of the animal or generator of the fire or the pit. And when a component of any of these categories causes damage, the owner or generator of the component that caused the damage is obligated to pay restitution for damage with best-quality land.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches its ruling employing the term: Primary categories, by inference, there are subcategories of those primary categories. The Gemara asks: Are their subcategories similar to them, i.e., to their respective primary categories, so that the same halakhot apply to them, or are they dissimilar to them?

讙讘讬 砖讘转 转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转

The Gemara cites additional areas of halakha where there are primary categories and subcategories and considers the relationship between them: With regard to Shabbat we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 73a): The primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat number forty-less-one. There too, from the fact that the mishna teaches its ruling employing the term: Primary categories, by inference, there are also subcategories.

转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘 讞讟讗转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 讞讟讗转 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘 住拽讬诇讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 住拽讬诇讛

With regard to the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, their subcategories are similar to them, as it is no different if one unwittingly performed labor that is a primary category, for which he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and it is no different if one unwittingly performed labor that is a subcategory, for which he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Likewise, it is no different if one intentionally performed labor that is a primary category, for which he is liable to be executed by stoning, and it is no different if one intentionally performed labor that is a subcategory, for which he is liable to be executed by stoning.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讗讘 诇转讜诇讚讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬诇讜 注讘讬讚 砖转讬 讗讘讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讘讬讚 讗讘 讜转讜诇讚讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

And what difference is there between a primary category and a subcategory? The Gemara explains: The practical difference is that if one unwittingly performs two labors classified as different primary categories together, during a single lapse of awareness, or, alternatively, if one unwittingly performs two labors classified as subcategories of two different primary categories together, during a single lapse of awareness, one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every labor that he performed. Each primary category of labor is an independent transgression. While if one unwittingly performs a labor that is a primary category and another labor classified as its subcategory during a single lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讛讱 讚讛讜讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘 讛讱 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, who deems one liable to bring two sin-offerings even if one performs a labor classified as a subcategory together with a labor that is its primary category, why is one labor characterized as a primary category and why is the other labor characterized as a subcategory? The Gemara explains: Of the labors prohibited on Shabbat, that which was a significant labor in the Tabernacle, the Sages characterized it as a primary category, and that which was not a significant labor in the Tabernacle, the Sages characterized it as a subcategory. The labors prohibited on Shabbat are derived from the labors employed in the construction of the Tabernacle; therefore, their classification is also based on their significance in its construction.

讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讜转 转谞谉 讗讘讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讛砖专抓 讜讛砖讻讘转 讝专注

With regard to ritual impurities, we learned in the mishna (Kelim 1:1): The primary categories of ritual impurity are as follows: Any of the eight species of the creeping animal enumerated in the Torah (Leviticus 11:29鈥30), and semen,

讜讟诪讗 诪转 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗讘 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗

and one who is impure with impurity imparted by a human corpse. A person, a vessel, or food that is rendered impure through contact with an item classified as a primary category of ritual impurity is characterized as a subcategory. In that domain, their subcategories are dissimilar to them, as any person or item classified as a primary category of ritual impurity impurifies a person and impurifies any vessels with which it comes into contact, while a person or item classified as a subcategory of ritual impurity impurifies food or drink, but does not impurify a person or vessels.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

After determining that there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is like that of primary categories, e.g., Shabbat, and there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is dissimilar to that of primary categories, e.g., ritual impurity, the Gemara asks: Here, with regard to the laws of damages, what is the relationship between the primary categories and their subcategories? Rav Pappa said: There are, among the primary categories of damage, some whose subcategories are similar to them, and there are, among them, some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讘讜转 谞讗诪专讜 讘砖讜专 讛拽专谉 讜讛砖谉 讜讛专讙诇

搂 Seeking to clarify Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement, the Gemara cites a baraita that delineates the primary categories of damage. The Sages taught in a baraita: Three primary categories of damage were stated in the Torah with regard to an ox. An ox causes damage in three ways, and each is classified as a distinct primary category of damage represented by a part of the body of the ox: There is the category of Goring [keren], literally, horn. This is referring to an ox goring a person or an animal and causing damage. And there is the category of Eating [shen], literally, tooth. This is referring to one鈥檚 ox causing damage by consuming another person鈥檚 produce. And there is the category of Trampling [regel], literally, foot. This is referring to an ox trampling another person鈥檚 belongings and causing damage. These are classified as primary categories because they are mentioned explicitly in the Torah.

拽专谉 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讬讙讞 讗讬谉 谞讙讬讞讛 讗诇讗 拽专谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖 诇讜 爪讚拽讬讛 讘谉 讻谞注谞讛 拽专谞讬 讘专讝诇 讜讬讗诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讘讗诇讛 转谞讙讞 讗转 讗专诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讗讜诪专 讘讻讜专 砖讜专讜 讛讚专 诇讜 讜拽专谞讬 专讗诐 拽专谞讬讜 讘讛诐 注诪讬诐 讬谞讙讞

The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive the primary category of Goring? The source is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:28); and goring is performed only with a horn, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, made himself horns of iron, and said: So says the Lord: With these shall you gore the Arameans, until they are consumed鈥 (I聽Kings 22:11). And the verse also states: 鈥淗is firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:17).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 转讗 砖诪注 讘讻讜专 砖讜专讜 讛讚专 诇讜

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse also states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse cited is not a legitimate source as it is a verse from the Prophets, and we do not derive Torah matters from the texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings, come and hear proof from the Torah: 鈥淗is firstborn bull, majesty is his.鈥

讜讛讗讬 诪讬诇祝 讛讜讗 讙讬诇讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞讙讬讞讛 讘拽专谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects the possibility that the reason a second verse was cited is that the primary category of Goring cannot be derived from a verse in the Prophets: But is this a halakhic derivation? It is a mere disclosure of the matter, that goring is performed with a horn. A verse in the Prophets can certainly serve as a source for that disclosure.

讗诇讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转诇讜砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讞讜讘专转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 诪讜注讚转 讛讬讗

Rather, the reason the baraita cites a second verse is lest you say, based on the first verse, that when the Merciful One distinguishes between liability for damage caused by an innocuous ox, for which the owner is liable to pay half of the damages for the first three times that it gores, and liability for damage caused by a forewarned ox, which already gored three times and whose owner was cautioned to prevent the ox from goring, for which he is liable to pay the full damages, that statement applies only to damage caused with a detached horn, like the horn of Zedekiah described in the verse, e.g., if an animal held a detached horn in its mouth and caused damage with it; but for damage that an ox caused with a horn attached to its head, say that in all cases the legal status of the ox is that of a forewarned ox and its owner is liable to pay for all of the damage.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讻讜专 砖讜专讜 讛讚专 诇讜 讜讙讜壮

Therefore, the baraita says: Come and hear a proof from another verse: 鈥淗is firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations,鈥 where the reference is to a horn attached to the ox鈥檚 head. Evidently, when an ox gores with its own horns there is a distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.

转讜诇讚讛 讚拽专谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 谞讙讬驻讛 谞砖讬讻讛 专讘讬爪讛 讜讘注讬讟讛

The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: What is a subcategory of Goring? It includes any action that an ox performs with its body with the objective of inflicting damage: Pushing [negifa], biting, crouching upon items with the objective of inflicting damage, and kicking.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 谞讙讬讞讛 讚拽专讬 诇讛 讗讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙讞 谞讙讬驻讛 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙祝 讛讗讬 谞讙讬驻讛 谞讙讬讞讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 驻转讞 讘谞讙讬驻讛 讜住讬讬诐 讘谞讙讬讞讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讙讬驻讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讙讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is different about goring that it is characterized as a primary category of damage, as it is written explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:28); accordingly, negifa should also be characterized as a primary category, as it is written: 鈥淚f one man鈥檚 ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another鈥 (Exodus 21:35)? The Gemara answers: This negifa mentioned in the verse, is actually a reference to goring, as it is taught in a baraita that the verses states: 鈥淎nd if one man鈥檚 ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another鈥r if it is known that the ox was a goring ox in time past鈥 (Exodus 21:35鈥36). The verse began its description of the case with the term negifa and it concluded with the term goring to say to you that in this context the two terms describe the same action: This action is negifa and this same action is goring.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙讞 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙祝

The Gemara asks: If the two terms are interchangeable, what is different with regard to an ox goring a person that it is written: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:28), and what is different with regard to an ox goring an animal that it is written: 鈥淚f one man鈥檚 ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another鈥 (Exodus 21:35)?

讗讚诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讝诇讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙讞 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝诇讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讙祝

The Gemara explains: With regard to a person, who has the ingenuity to defend himself and is not easily injured, it is written: 鈥淚f an ox gores,鈥 a term indicating an attack of greater force. With regard to an animal, which does not have the ingenuity to defend itself and is more easily injured, it is written: 鈥淚f an ox hurts [yiggof ],鈥 a term indicating an attack of lesser force. The term yiggof is related to the term magefa, meaning plague. The Torah employs that term with regard to the goring of an animal to indicate that when an animal is gored, regardless of the force of the blow, it will likely result in its death.

讜诪诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讜注讚 诇讗讚诐 讛讜讬 诪讜注讚 诇讘讛诪讛 讜诪讜注讚 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜注讚 诇讗讚诐

And the Torah鈥檚 use of these terms teaches us a matter in passing: Because the effort required for the ox to gore a person to death is greater than the effort required for the ox to gore an animal to death, the halakha is that an ox that is forewarned with regard to goring a person is also forewarned with regard to an animal. But an ox that is forewarned with regard to an animal is not forewarned with regard to a person.

谞砖讬讻讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谉 讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讛

The Gemara questions the classification in the baraita of biting, crouching, and kicking as subcategories of Goring: Isn鈥檛 biting a subcategory of Eating, as the animal both eats and bites with its teeth? The Gemara answers: No, in cases included in the primary category of Eating, there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage. In this case of damage caused by biting, there is no intrinsic pleasure for the animal in the course of the damage that it causes, as when the ox bites forcefully, the exclusive objective of the action is to cause damage.

专讘讬爪讛 讜讘注讬讟讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讙诇 讛讝讬拽讛 诪爪讜讬 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讛讝讬拽谉 诪爪讜讬

The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 crouching upon items and kicking items in order to damage them each a subcategory of Trampling, as the animal crouches by bending its legs and kicks with its feet? The Gemara answers: No, in cases included in the primary category of Trampling, the damage is commonplace, as it is caused in the course of the animal鈥檚 walking; in these cases of crouching and kicking, the damage is not commonplace, as animals do not typically kick or crouch upon utensils.

讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讛讬讬讗

After citing the subcategories listed in the baraita, the Gemara resumes its analysis of the statement of Rav Pappa: But with regard to the statement that Rav Pappa said: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, to which primary category was Rav Pappa referring?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讛谞讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽专谉 讚讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讜讜谞转谉 诇讛讝讬拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱

If we say that his reference was to these subcategories of Goring, what is different about Goring that defines it as a unique primary category? What is different is that the objective of the ox鈥檚 action is to cause damage, and the ox is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you, its owner. In these subcategories of Goring, i.e., pushing [negifa], biting, crouching, and kicking, as well, the objective of the oxen鈥檚 actions is to cause damage, and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent your oxen from causing damage, is incumbent upon you.

讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚拽专谉 讻拽专谉 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗砖谉 讜专讙诇

Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Goring is like that of the primary category of Goring, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he was referring to Eating and Trampling.

砖谉 讜专讙诇 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诇讞 讝讛 讛专讙诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专

The Gemara asks: Where are Eating and Trampling written in the Torah that led them to be classified as primary categories? The Gemara answers: The source is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he sends forth his animal, and it consumed in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4). The two parts of the verse are referring to different categories: 鈥淎nd he sends forth,鈥 this is a reference to the primary category of Trampling, as sending forth results in the animal trampling another鈥檚 produce and damaging it, and likewise it states: 鈥淗appy are you that sow beside all waters that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey鈥 (Isaiah 32:20). Clearly the term 鈥渟end forth鈥 is a reference to trampling by the feet of the animal.

讜讘注专 讝讜 讛砖谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专

鈥淎nd it consumed,鈥 this is a reference to the primary category of Eating, and likewise it states: 鈥淎nd I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as one consumes with

Scroll To Top