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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 24, 2016 | 讬状讞 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 24

How does an animal become a shor muad 聽Do the occurances need to be on separate days or can they be all in the same day? 聽How can we go back to determining that he is no longer dangerous and can be considered聽as a shor tam.聽According to one opinion the instances need to be on 3 separate days. 聽If so, is the purpose to show that the animal is prone to dangerous behavior or is it for the purposes of letting the owner know that he should watch his animal? 聽The gemara attempts to answer this question. 聽If one entices a dog and the dog bites him, Rava says that the owner is not responsible because the enticer instigated him. 聽The next mishna discusses the argument between Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis in a case where the animal did damages in the property of the one who was damaged. 聽Does the owner of the animal pay full damages or only half?


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

专讬讞拽 谞讙讬讞讜转讬讜 讞讬讬讘 拽讬专讘 谞讙讬讞讜转讬讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讘讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖专讬讞拽讛 专讗讬讜转讬讛 讟诪讗讛 拽讬专讘讛 专讗讬讜转讬讛 讟讛讜专讛

When the ox performs its gorings at intervals, its owner is liable; if it performs its gorings successively, is it not all the more so that its owner is liable? They said to Rabbi Meir: The halakha with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava] will prove that your a fortiori inference is invalid: If her sightings occur at intervals, i.e., if she sees a flow of uterine blood on three consecutive days, she becomes ritually impure; while if her sightings were consecutive, for example if all three occurred on the same day, she remains pure.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讝讗转 转讛讬讛 讟诪讗转讜 讘讝讜讘讜 转诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讝讘 讘专讗讬讜转 讜讗转 讛讝讘讛 讘讬诪讬诐

Rabbi Meir said to them: The case of the zava does not disprove my opinion, because the verse states in reference to the parallel halakha of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]: 鈥淎nd this shall be his ritual impurity when he has a discharge鈥 (Leviticus 15:3). The word 鈥渢his鈥 emphasizes that in this matter the halakha requires following the instructions of the verse precisely as they were recorded, and in this case the verse associates the impurity of the zav with the number of sightings of discharges the man observed, and it associates the impurity of the zava with the number of days during which she experienced sightings of blood, as it says: 鈥淢any days鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). By contrast, with regard to the goring ox, the a fortiori inference remains in place.

诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讜讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讝讘讛 诪专讗讬讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讝讘 诪讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诪拽讬砖 讝讻专 诇谞拽讘讛 诪讛 谞拽讘讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讗祝 讝讻专 讘讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks about this interpretation: From where is it determined that this additional phrase: 鈥淎nd this,鈥 serves to exclude a zava from having her status determined by individual sightings of blood, associating it instead with the number of days on which she experienced bleeding? Say instead that it serves to exclude the zav from having his status determined by sightings on separate days, indicating that he will be rendered a zav only if he experienced three discharges on a single day and not on separate days. The Gemara answers: The verse states elsewhere: 鈥淎nd one who has a discharge, whether it be a man or a woman鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). The verse juxtaposes the ritual impurity of a male to that of a female to teach that just as the female鈥檚 ritual impurity is caused by sightings on multiple days, so too the ritual impurity of a male can be caused by sightings on multiple days.

讜诇拽讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 诪讛 讝讻专 讘专讗讬讜转 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 讘专讗讬讜转 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜讝讗转

The Gemara asks: The derivation from the verse could just as easily lead to the opposite conclusion. But let him compare the female to the male; just as a male becomes ritually impure based on the number of sightings, even if they all occur on the same day, so too should a female become ritually impure based on the number of sightings, even on the same day. The Gemara answers: But the Merciful One excluded this possibility by making use of the term 鈥渁nd this.鈥

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 拽讗讬 讘专讗讬讜转 诪诪注讟 专讗讬讜转 拽讗讬 讘专讗讬讜转 诪诪注讟 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to make you exclude associating the ritual impurity of women with the number of sightings, rather than excluding associating the ritual impu-rity of men with the number of days? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that this is so, as the context of the verse deals with sightings, and therefore an additional phrase serves to exclude sightings, but can you say that in a context where it deals with sightings it excludes days? The exclusionary term 鈥渁nd this鈥 appears in the section discussing the halakhot of the zav, in the context of which it mentions sightings and not days, and therefore when it excludes something from these halakhot and limits them to specific cases, it will exclude it from being associated with sightings.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讜注讚 讻诇 砖讛注讬讚讜 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜转诐 砖讬讛讜 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讙讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讜注讚 讻诇 砖讛注讬讚讜 讘讜 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讞讝专讛 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara returns to the subject of classifying an ox as innocuous or forewarned: The Sages taught in a baraita: Which type of ox is deemed forewarned? Any animal about which witnesses testified that it gored on three days is forewarned. And it reverts to its former innocuous status if children pet it and nevertheless it does not gore; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: A forewarned ox is any ox about which witnesses testified that it gored three times, and the Sages spoke about three days only with regard to reversals, meaning that in order for an ox to revert to innocuous status, the ox must refrain from goring on three separate days. Each of these additional views on this subject combine aspects of both of the opinions mentioned in the mishna, those of Rabbi Yehuda and those of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讜注讚 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘转诐 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛 诇讜

Rav Na岣an says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda concerning the criteria for deeming an animal forewarned, as Rabbi Yosei concedes to his opinion on this issue, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir concerning the criteria for reverting the status of an animal to innocuous, as Rabbi Yosei concedes to his opinion on that issue.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜注讚 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转诐 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬诪讜拽讜 注诪讜

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say the reverse, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir concerning the criteria for deeming an animal forewarned, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to his opinion on this issue and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda concerning the criteria for reverting the status of an ox to innocuous, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to his opinion on that issue. Rav Na岣an replied to Rava: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 analysis [nimmuko] is with him, i.e., it is sound.

讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 讗讜 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 讙讘专讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: The three days that the mishna teaches in the context of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to the testimony needed to assign the status of forewarned to an ox, are they needed in order to render the ox forewarned, or are they needed in order to forewarn the man who owns the ox, to inform him that he needs to take precautions to keep it from causing further harm?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗转讜 转诇转讗 讻讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讘讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 诪讬讬注讚 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 诪讬讬注讚 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽诪住讛讚讜 讘讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two possibilities? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is in a case where three groups of witnesses came to the court on one day, each testifying about a separate instance of goring caused by the ox on three separate days. If you say that their testimony serves to render the ox forewarned by determining that it gored on three separate days, then in this case the animal has been classified as forewarned on the basis of their testimony. But if you say that their testimony serves to forewarn the man, the ox has not been classified as forewarned on the basis of this testimony since the owner heard all of the testimony on a single day. This enables him to say: It is only now that they testified against me; and therefore his ox will not be deemed forewarned until he has been issued warnings over the course of three separate days. What, then, is the solution to the dilemma raised above?

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 讛砖讜专 谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛注讬讚讜 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution from a baraita (Tosefta 2:3): An ox does not become forewarned until witnesses testify against it in the presence of its owner and in the presence of a court. If they testified against it in the presence of a court but not in the presence of its owner, or in the presence of its owner but not in the presence of a court, it does not become forewarned until they testify against it in the presence of a court and in the presence of its owner.

讛注讬讚讜讛讜 砖谞讬诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

Furthermore, if two witnesses testified against the ox concerning its first incident of goring, and two other witnesses testified against it concerning the second incident, and two other witnesses testified against it concerning the third incident, there are three separate testimonies here, but they are considered as one with regard to rendering their statements as conspiring testimony.

谞诪爪讗转 讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讝讜诪诪转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖转讬 注讚讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讛谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 谞诪爪讗转 讻转 砖谞讬讛 讝讜诪诪转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 讜讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讛谉 驻讟讜专讬诐

Therefore, if the first set of witnesses is determined to be conspiring witnesses, there are two testimonies remaining here that claim that the ox gored, and the owner must pay for half the cost of the damage in each case. But the owner of the ox is exempt from having to pay the full cost of the damage, and the conspiring witnesses are exempt from paying the owner what he would have had to pay were their testimony accepted and his ox deemed forewarned, as they testified only concerning the first incident of goring, and the ox would not have been deemed forewarned on the basis of this testimony alone. And similarly, if the second set of witnesses was also determined to be conspiring witnesses, there is one testimony remaining here that claims that the ox gored, the third. At this point too, the owner of the ox is exempt from having to pay the full cost of the damage and the conspiring witnesses are exempt from having to pay the owner the full cost of the damage.

谞诪爪讗转 讻转 砖诇讬砖讬转 讝讜诪诪转 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讜讙讜壮

If the third group of witnesses was also determined to be conspiring witnesses, all the witnesses become liable. The third group is liable to pay the owner of the animal the payment for half the cost of the damage they tried to make him pay for the third incident of goring, and all three groups must share in the payment of the other half of the damage for the final incident that they tried to charge him for by classifying his ox as forewarned. And concerning this it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do unto him as he had conspired to do unto his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19).

讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 砖驻讬专

The Gemara clarifies: If you say that the purpose of the testimony is to render the ox forewarned, the halakha presented in this baraita works out well, as according to this opinion it can be said that all of the witnesses came on the same day at the behest of the alleged victim of the third incident, and therefore they were all certainly aware of each other鈥檚 testimony. Consequently, the first set of witnesses shares in the responsibility for the testimony of the last group, as they are all co-witnesses in the effort to have the ox rendered forewarned.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讬诪专讜 讛谞讱 拽诪讗讬 讗谞谉 诪讬 讛讜讛 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讘转专 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讗转讜 讛谞讬 讜诪讬讬注讚讬 诇讬讛

But if you say that the witnesses came to forewarn the man, to caution him to safeguard his animal from causing harm, then they must have come on three separate days. And if so, let these first witnesses say: Did we know that after three days these other witnesses were going to come to testify about the animal? Therefore, it must be that the case in the baraita is one where the three groups of witnesses all came on the same day, and if that is so, the purpose of the testimony must be to render the ox forewarned.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讜诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 讜诇讬诪专讜 讛谞讱 讘转专讗讬 讗谞谉 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讻诇 讚拽讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讘转讜专讗 拽讗转讜 讗谞谉 诇讞讬讜讘讬 讙讘专讗 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 讗转讬谞谉

Rav Ashi said: I recited this halakha before Rav Kahana and he replied to me in response to this proof: And does it work out well to say that they are coming to render the ox forewarned? Even in a case where all of the witnesses arrive in court on the same day, let these last witnesses say: From where were we to know that all those standing in court came to testify about the ox? We came to make this person liable to pay for half the cost of the damage his animal allegedly caused, but we are not responsible for the attempt to make him pay the full cost of the damage for the third incident.

讚拽诪专诪讝讬 专诪讜讝讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻砖讘讗讜 专爪讜驻讬诐

The Gemara answers: It must be that the case concerns a situation where the different groups of witnesses were observed signaling to each other, and therefore it is clear that they were aware of each other鈥檚 testimony and that they came to the court for this purpose. Rav Ashi said: The case is one where they all came in succession, one following the other, and therefore it is clear that the latter witnesses are aware of the former.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诪讻讬专讬谉 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜专

Ravina said: In this case the witnesses said that they were acquainted with the owner of the goring ox but they were not familiar with the ox itself. This indicates that they were coming to court to render the ox forewarned, as the witnesses are not able to identify the goring ox and they would not be able to hold its owner liable to pay for half the cost of the damage, as this payment is paid only from the proceeds of the sale of the animal. Therefore, the only purpose of their testimony would be to hold the owner liable to pay the full cost of the damage for the third incident, as this payment is made from the owner鈥檚 superior-quality land.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬注讚讬 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 转讜专讗 谞讙讞谞讗 讗讬转 诇讱 讘讘拽专讱 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇谞讟讜专讬 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讘拽专讗

The Gemara asks: But if they were not familiar with the ox, how could they render it forewarned? The Gemara answers: They said to the animal鈥檚 owner: You have a goring ox among your cattle, and therefore you need to safeguard all of the cattle.

讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诪砖住讛 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪讛讜 诪砖住讛 讜讚讗讬 驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讻诇讘 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注转 讘讻诇讘讱 讚诪砖住讬 诇讬讛 讜诪砖转住讬 诇讗 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗砖讛讜讬讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who incites another鈥檚 dog against another, i.e., a third person, and he is injured, what is the halakha? The one who incited the animal against him is certainly exempt, since he did not cause the damage directly and neither did his property; but what is the halakha with regard to the owner of the dog? The Gemara explains the different sides of the question: Do we say that the owner of the dog can say to the injured party: What did I do to the dog? Or perhaps we say to him: Since you were aware that if others incite your dog it is prone to being affected by the incitement and attacking, you ought not to have kept it in your possession. Since you did, you are liable for the damage and the injuries it causes.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜转诐 砖讬讛讜 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讙讞 讛讗 谞讜讙讞 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 谞讙讞 讞讬讬讘 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞讙讞 诇讗 讛讜讬 转诐 讜讘讛讛讬讗 谞讙讬讞讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a solution from the baraita: And an ox reverts to its former innocuous status if children pet it and nevertheless it does not gore. It can be inferred from this that if it gores when the children pet it, the owner would be liable to pay for the damage. An ox that gores because children pet it can be likened to one that gores because it was incited to do so, and nevertheless the mishna holds the owner liable. Abaye said: Is it taught in the baraita that if it gored the owner is liable? Perhaps that is not what the baraita means. It merely means that if it gored it does not revert to innocuous status; but the owner is not liable for any of the damage caused by that goring because the children incited the animal to do so, and therefore nothing can be conclusively demonstrated from the baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讬住讛 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讘 砖讬住讛 讘讜 谞讞砖 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 诪砖住讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讻诇讘 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 驻讟讜专 讗祝 诪砖住讛

The Gemara attempts to prove this point from another source: Come and hear a solution from a mishna (Sanhedrin 76b): If one incited a dog against another person, or incited a snake against another person, he is exempt. What, is it not that the one who incited the dog against him is exempt, but the owner of the dog is liable? The Gemara rejects this: No, say that even the one who incited the animal against him is exempt, as well as the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛诪砖住讛 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 讞讬讬讘 砖讬住讛讜 讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜砖讬谞讛 讘讜 驻讟讜专

Rava said: Even if you say that one who incites the dog of another against yet another person is liable, nevertheless if he incited the dog against himself, i.e., the dog bit the one who was inciting it to attack, he is exempt. What is the reason for this? Due to the principle that with regard to anyone who deviates from normative behavior in his actions, if another came along afterward and deviates from the norm with regard to the action the first has done and thereby causes damage to him, the one who causes the damage is exempt from liability. Since this individual deviated from the normative behavior and incited the dog against himself, the owner of the dog is not responsible for any damage the dog causes to him as a result, although generally speaking any time a dog bites it is in and of itself a deviation from its typical behavior and something for which its owner would normally be held liable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讜讜转讬讱 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖转讬 驻专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讞转 专讘讜爪讛 讜讗讞转 诪讛诇讻转 讜讘注讟讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专讘讜爪讛 驻讟讜专讛 专讘讜爪讛 讘诪讛诇讻转 讞讬讬讘转

Rav Pappa said to Rava: It was stated in the name of Reish Lakish in accordance with your opinion, that if anyone deviates from normative behavior in his actions, if another came along afterward and deviates from the norm with regard to the action the first has done and thereby causes damage to him, the one who causes the damage is exempt from liability. As Reish Lakish says: If there were two cows in the public domain, one prone in the street and the other one walking, if the walking cow kicked the prone cow, its owner is exempt from liability. But if the prone cow kicked the walking cow, its owner is liable. The rationale for this is that since it is typical behavior for cows to walk in the public domain and the prone cow deviated from this behavior, even if the walking cow also acted atypically and kicked the prone cow, the owner is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讛讛讬讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘谞讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗 诇住讙讜讬讬 注诇讬 诇讘注讜讟讬 讘讬 诇讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗

Rava said back to Rav Pappa: That is not in accordance with my opinion, as I would have held the owner of the walking cow liable in that case, because in my opinion we say to him on behalf of the prone cow: It is true that you have the right to tread on me in the public domain but you do not have the right to kick me, and therefore Rava鈥檚 and Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinions are not exactly the same.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讻讬爪讚 谞讙讞 谞讙祝 谞砖讱 专讘抓 讘注讟 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

MISHNA: And what is the case of the ox that causes damage while on the property of the injured party, mentioned in an earlier mishna (15b) that listed animals that are forewarned? If the animal gored, pushed, bit, squatted upon, or kicked another animal in the public domain, the owner is liable to pay half the cost of the damage if the ox was innocuous, but if it acted while on the property of the injured party, Rabbi Tarfon says: He must pay the full cost of the damage, and the Rabbis say: He must pay half the cost of the damage, as in any other case classified as Goring.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛拽诇 注诇 讛砖谉 讜注诇 讛专讙诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛谉 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诇砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞诪讬专 注诇 讛拽专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诇砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

Rabbi Tarfon said to the Rabbis: If in a place where the Torah was lenient with regard to damage classified as Eating and with regard to Trampling, specifically in the public domain, as the owner is exempt from liability, nevertheless the Torah was strict with regard to these forms of damage if they occurred on the property of the injured party, requiring him to pay the full cost of the damage, then in a place where the Torah was strict with regard to cases of damage classified as Goring, specifically in the public domain, requiring the owner liable to pay for half the cost of the damage, is it not right that we should be strict with regard to this form of damage if it occurs on the property of the injured party to likewise require the owner of the animal to pay the full cost of the damage?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉 诪讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗祝 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

The Rabbis said to him: Although there is an a fortiori inference being applied here, still it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, meaning that the halakha cannot be stricter with the inference than it is with the case that serves as the source of the inference. Therefore, just as one is liable to pay half the cost of the damage classified as Goring in the public domain, so too, for damage classified as Goring on the property of the injured party he is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 讗谞讬

Rabbi Tarfon said to them: If that is your opinion, then I as well

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 24

专讬讞拽 谞讙讬讞讜转讬讜 讞讬讬讘 拽讬专讘 谞讙讬讞讜转讬讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讘讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖专讬讞拽讛 专讗讬讜转讬讛 讟诪讗讛 拽讬专讘讛 专讗讬讜转讬讛 讟讛讜专讛

When the ox performs its gorings at intervals, its owner is liable; if it performs its gorings successively, is it not all the more so that its owner is liable? They said to Rabbi Meir: The halakha with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava] will prove that your a fortiori inference is invalid: If her sightings occur at intervals, i.e., if she sees a flow of uterine blood on three consecutive days, she becomes ritually impure; while if her sightings were consecutive, for example if all three occurred on the same day, she remains pure.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讝讗转 转讛讬讛 讟诪讗转讜 讘讝讜讘讜 转诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讝讘 讘专讗讬讜转 讜讗转 讛讝讘讛 讘讬诪讬诐

Rabbi Meir said to them: The case of the zava does not disprove my opinion, because the verse states in reference to the parallel halakha of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]: 鈥淎nd this shall be his ritual impurity when he has a discharge鈥 (Leviticus 15:3). The word 鈥渢his鈥 emphasizes that in this matter the halakha requires following the instructions of the verse precisely as they were recorded, and in this case the verse associates the impurity of the zav with the number of sightings of discharges the man observed, and it associates the impurity of the zava with the number of days during which she experienced sightings of blood, as it says: 鈥淢any days鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). By contrast, with regard to the goring ox, the a fortiori inference remains in place.

诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讜讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讝讘讛 诪专讗讬讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讝讘 诪讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诪拽讬砖 讝讻专 诇谞拽讘讛 诪讛 谞拽讘讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讗祝 讝讻专 讘讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks about this interpretation: From where is it determined that this additional phrase: 鈥淎nd this,鈥 serves to exclude a zava from having her status determined by individual sightings of blood, associating it instead with the number of days on which she experienced bleeding? Say instead that it serves to exclude the zav from having his status determined by sightings on separate days, indicating that he will be rendered a zav only if he experienced three discharges on a single day and not on separate days. The Gemara answers: The verse states elsewhere: 鈥淎nd one who has a discharge, whether it be a man or a woman鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). The verse juxtaposes the ritual impurity of a male to that of a female to teach that just as the female鈥檚 ritual impurity is caused by sightings on multiple days, so too the ritual impurity of a male can be caused by sightings on multiple days.

讜诇拽讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 诪讛 讝讻专 讘专讗讬讜转 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 讘专讗讬讜转 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜讝讗转

The Gemara asks: The derivation from the verse could just as easily lead to the opposite conclusion. But let him compare the female to the male; just as a male becomes ritually impure based on the number of sightings, even if they all occur on the same day, so too should a female become ritually impure based on the number of sightings, even on the same day. The Gemara answers: But the Merciful One excluded this possibility by making use of the term 鈥渁nd this.鈥

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 拽讗讬 讘专讗讬讜转 诪诪注讟 专讗讬讜转 拽讗讬 讘专讗讬讜转 诪诪注讟 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to make you exclude associating the ritual impurity of women with the number of sightings, rather than excluding associating the ritual impu-rity of men with the number of days? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that this is so, as the context of the verse deals with sightings, and therefore an additional phrase serves to exclude sightings, but can you say that in a context where it deals with sightings it excludes days? The exclusionary term 鈥渁nd this鈥 appears in the section discussing the halakhot of the zav, in the context of which it mentions sightings and not days, and therefore when it excludes something from these halakhot and limits them to specific cases, it will exclude it from being associated with sightings.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讜注讚 讻诇 砖讛注讬讚讜 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜转诐 砖讬讛讜 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讙讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讜注讚 讻诇 砖讛注讬讚讜 讘讜 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讞讝专讛 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara returns to the subject of classifying an ox as innocuous or forewarned: The Sages taught in a baraita: Which type of ox is deemed forewarned? Any animal about which witnesses testified that it gored on three days is forewarned. And it reverts to its former innocuous status if children pet it and nevertheless it does not gore; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: A forewarned ox is any ox about which witnesses testified that it gored three times, and the Sages spoke about three days only with regard to reversals, meaning that in order for an ox to revert to innocuous status, the ox must refrain from goring on three separate days. Each of these additional views on this subject combine aspects of both of the opinions mentioned in the mishna, those of Rabbi Yehuda and those of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讜注讚 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘转诐 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛 诇讜

Rav Na岣an says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda concerning the criteria for deeming an animal forewarned, as Rabbi Yosei concedes to his opinion on this issue, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir concerning the criteria for reverting the status of an animal to innocuous, as Rabbi Yosei concedes to his opinion on that issue.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜注讚 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转诐 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬诪讜拽讜 注诪讜

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say the reverse, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir concerning the criteria for deeming an animal forewarned, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to his opinion on this issue and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda concerning the criteria for reverting the status of an ox to innocuous, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to his opinion on that issue. Rav Na岣an replied to Rava: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 analysis [nimmuko] is with him, i.e., it is sound.

讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 讗讜 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 讙讘专讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: The three days that the mishna teaches in the context of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to the testimony needed to assign the status of forewarned to an ox, are they needed in order to render the ox forewarned, or are they needed in order to forewarn the man who owns the ox, to inform him that he needs to take precautions to keep it from causing further harm?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗转讜 转诇转讗 讻讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讘讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 诪讬讬注讚 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 诪讬讬注讚 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽诪住讛讚讜 讘讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two possibilities? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is in a case where three groups of witnesses came to the court on one day, each testifying about a separate instance of goring caused by the ox on three separate days. If you say that their testimony serves to render the ox forewarned by determining that it gored on three separate days, then in this case the animal has been classified as forewarned on the basis of their testimony. But if you say that their testimony serves to forewarn the man, the ox has not been classified as forewarned on the basis of this testimony since the owner heard all of the testimony on a single day. This enables him to say: It is only now that they testified against me; and therefore his ox will not be deemed forewarned until he has been issued warnings over the course of three separate days. What, then, is the solution to the dilemma raised above?

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 讛砖讜专 谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛注讬讚讜 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution from a baraita (Tosefta 2:3): An ox does not become forewarned until witnesses testify against it in the presence of its owner and in the presence of a court. If they testified against it in the presence of a court but not in the presence of its owner, or in the presence of its owner but not in the presence of a court, it does not become forewarned until they testify against it in the presence of a court and in the presence of its owner.

讛注讬讚讜讛讜 砖谞讬诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

Furthermore, if two witnesses testified against the ox concerning its first incident of goring, and two other witnesses testified against it concerning the second incident, and two other witnesses testified against it concerning the third incident, there are three separate testimonies here, but they are considered as one with regard to rendering their statements as conspiring testimony.

谞诪爪讗转 讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讝讜诪诪转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖转讬 注讚讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讛谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 谞诪爪讗转 讻转 砖谞讬讛 讝讜诪诪转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 讜讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讛谉 驻讟讜专讬诐

Therefore, if the first set of witnesses is determined to be conspiring witnesses, there are two testimonies remaining here that claim that the ox gored, and the owner must pay for half the cost of the damage in each case. But the owner of the ox is exempt from having to pay the full cost of the damage, and the conspiring witnesses are exempt from paying the owner what he would have had to pay were their testimony accepted and his ox deemed forewarned, as they testified only concerning the first incident of goring, and the ox would not have been deemed forewarned on the basis of this testimony alone. And similarly, if the second set of witnesses was also determined to be conspiring witnesses, there is one testimony remaining here that claims that the ox gored, the third. At this point too, the owner of the ox is exempt from having to pay the full cost of the damage and the conspiring witnesses are exempt from having to pay the owner the full cost of the damage.

谞诪爪讗转 讻转 砖诇讬砖讬转 讝讜诪诪转 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讜讙讜壮

If the third group of witnesses was also determined to be conspiring witnesses, all the witnesses become liable. The third group is liable to pay the owner of the animal the payment for half the cost of the damage they tried to make him pay for the third incident of goring, and all three groups must share in the payment of the other half of the damage for the final incident that they tried to charge him for by classifying his ox as forewarned. And concerning this it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do unto him as he had conspired to do unto his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19).

讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 砖驻讬专

The Gemara clarifies: If you say that the purpose of the testimony is to render the ox forewarned, the halakha presented in this baraita works out well, as according to this opinion it can be said that all of the witnesses came on the same day at the behest of the alleged victim of the third incident, and therefore they were all certainly aware of each other鈥檚 testimony. Consequently, the first set of witnesses shares in the responsibility for the testimony of the last group, as they are all co-witnesses in the effort to have the ox rendered forewarned.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讬注讜讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讬诪专讜 讛谞讱 拽诪讗讬 讗谞谉 诪讬 讛讜讛 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讘转专 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讗转讜 讛谞讬 讜诪讬讬注讚讬 诇讬讛

But if you say that the witnesses came to forewarn the man, to caution him to safeguard his animal from causing harm, then they must have come on three separate days. And if so, let these first witnesses say: Did we know that after three days these other witnesses were going to come to testify about the animal? Therefore, it must be that the case in the baraita is one where the three groups of witnesses all came on the same day, and if that is so, the purpose of the testimony must be to render the ox forewarned.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讜诇讬讬注讜讚讬 转讜专讗 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 讜诇讬诪专讜 讛谞讱 讘转专讗讬 讗谞谉 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讻诇 讚拽讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讘转讜专讗 拽讗转讜 讗谞谉 诇讞讬讜讘讬 讙讘专讗 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 讗转讬谞谉

Rav Ashi said: I recited this halakha before Rav Kahana and he replied to me in response to this proof: And does it work out well to say that they are coming to render the ox forewarned? Even in a case where all of the witnesses arrive in court on the same day, let these last witnesses say: From where were we to know that all those standing in court came to testify about the ox? We came to make this person liable to pay for half the cost of the damage his animal allegedly caused, but we are not responsible for the attempt to make him pay the full cost of the damage for the third incident.

讚拽诪专诪讝讬 专诪讜讝讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻砖讘讗讜 专爪讜驻讬诐

The Gemara answers: It must be that the case concerns a situation where the different groups of witnesses were observed signaling to each other, and therefore it is clear that they were aware of each other鈥檚 testimony and that they came to the court for this purpose. Rav Ashi said: The case is one where they all came in succession, one following the other, and therefore it is clear that the latter witnesses are aware of the former.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诪讻讬专讬谉 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜专

Ravina said: In this case the witnesses said that they were acquainted with the owner of the goring ox but they were not familiar with the ox itself. This indicates that they were coming to court to render the ox forewarned, as the witnesses are not able to identify the goring ox and they would not be able to hold its owner liable to pay for half the cost of the damage, as this payment is paid only from the proceeds of the sale of the animal. Therefore, the only purpose of their testimony would be to hold the owner liable to pay the full cost of the damage for the third incident, as this payment is made from the owner鈥檚 superior-quality land.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬注讚讬 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 转讜专讗 谞讙讞谞讗 讗讬转 诇讱 讘讘拽专讱 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇谞讟讜专讬 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讘拽专讗

The Gemara asks: But if they were not familiar with the ox, how could they render it forewarned? The Gemara answers: They said to the animal鈥檚 owner: You have a goring ox among your cattle, and therefore you need to safeguard all of the cattle.

讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诪砖住讛 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪讛讜 诪砖住讛 讜讚讗讬 驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讻诇讘 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注转 讘讻诇讘讱 讚诪砖住讬 诇讬讛 讜诪砖转住讬 诇讗 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗砖讛讜讬讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who incites another鈥檚 dog against another, i.e., a third person, and he is injured, what is the halakha? The one who incited the animal against him is certainly exempt, since he did not cause the damage directly and neither did his property; but what is the halakha with regard to the owner of the dog? The Gemara explains the different sides of the question: Do we say that the owner of the dog can say to the injured party: What did I do to the dog? Or perhaps we say to him: Since you were aware that if others incite your dog it is prone to being affected by the incitement and attacking, you ought not to have kept it in your possession. Since you did, you are liable for the damage and the injuries it causes.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜转诐 砖讬讛讜 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讙讞 讛讗 谞讜讙讞 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 谞讙讞 讞讬讬讘 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞讙讞 诇讗 讛讜讬 转诐 讜讘讛讛讬讗 谞讙讬讞讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a solution from the baraita: And an ox reverts to its former innocuous status if children pet it and nevertheless it does not gore. It can be inferred from this that if it gores when the children pet it, the owner would be liable to pay for the damage. An ox that gores because children pet it can be likened to one that gores because it was incited to do so, and nevertheless the mishna holds the owner liable. Abaye said: Is it taught in the baraita that if it gored the owner is liable? Perhaps that is not what the baraita means. It merely means that if it gored it does not revert to innocuous status; but the owner is not liable for any of the damage caused by that goring because the children incited the animal to do so, and therefore nothing can be conclusively demonstrated from the baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讬住讛 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讘 砖讬住讛 讘讜 谞讞砖 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 诪砖住讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讻诇讘 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 驻讟讜专 讗祝 诪砖住讛

The Gemara attempts to prove this point from another source: Come and hear a solution from a mishna (Sanhedrin 76b): If one incited a dog against another person, or incited a snake against another person, he is exempt. What, is it not that the one who incited the dog against him is exempt, but the owner of the dog is liable? The Gemara rejects this: No, say that even the one who incited the animal against him is exempt, as well as the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛诪砖住讛 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 讞讬讬讘 砖讬住讛讜 讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜砖讬谞讛 讘讜 驻讟讜专

Rava said: Even if you say that one who incites the dog of another against yet another person is liable, nevertheless if he incited the dog against himself, i.e., the dog bit the one who was inciting it to attack, he is exempt. What is the reason for this? Due to the principle that with regard to anyone who deviates from normative behavior in his actions, if another came along afterward and deviates from the norm with regard to the action the first has done and thereby causes damage to him, the one who causes the damage is exempt from liability. Since this individual deviated from the normative behavior and incited the dog against himself, the owner of the dog is not responsible for any damage the dog causes to him as a result, although generally speaking any time a dog bites it is in and of itself a deviation from its typical behavior and something for which its owner would normally be held liable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讜讜转讬讱 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖转讬 驻专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讞转 专讘讜爪讛 讜讗讞转 诪讛诇讻转 讜讘注讟讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专讘讜爪讛 驻讟讜专讛 专讘讜爪讛 讘诪讛诇讻转 讞讬讬讘转

Rav Pappa said to Rava: It was stated in the name of Reish Lakish in accordance with your opinion, that if anyone deviates from normative behavior in his actions, if another came along afterward and deviates from the norm with regard to the action the first has done and thereby causes damage to him, the one who causes the damage is exempt from liability. As Reish Lakish says: If there were two cows in the public domain, one prone in the street and the other one walking, if the walking cow kicked the prone cow, its owner is exempt from liability. But if the prone cow kicked the walking cow, its owner is liable. The rationale for this is that since it is typical behavior for cows to walk in the public domain and the prone cow deviated from this behavior, even if the walking cow also acted atypically and kicked the prone cow, the owner is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讛讛讬讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘谞讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗 诇住讙讜讬讬 注诇讬 诇讘注讜讟讬 讘讬 诇讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗

Rava said back to Rav Pappa: That is not in accordance with my opinion, as I would have held the owner of the walking cow liable in that case, because in my opinion we say to him on behalf of the prone cow: It is true that you have the right to tread on me in the public domain but you do not have the right to kick me, and therefore Rava鈥檚 and Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinions are not exactly the same.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讻讬爪讚 谞讙讞 谞讙祝 谞砖讱 专讘抓 讘注讟 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

MISHNA: And what is the case of the ox that causes damage while on the property of the injured party, mentioned in an earlier mishna (15b) that listed animals that are forewarned? If the animal gored, pushed, bit, squatted upon, or kicked another animal in the public domain, the owner is liable to pay half the cost of the damage if the ox was innocuous, but if it acted while on the property of the injured party, Rabbi Tarfon says: He must pay the full cost of the damage, and the Rabbis say: He must pay half the cost of the damage, as in any other case classified as Goring.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛拽诇 注诇 讛砖谉 讜注诇 讛专讙诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛谉 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诇砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞诪讬专 注诇 讛拽专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诇砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

Rabbi Tarfon said to the Rabbis: If in a place where the Torah was lenient with regard to damage classified as Eating and with regard to Trampling, specifically in the public domain, as the owner is exempt from liability, nevertheless the Torah was strict with regard to these forms of damage if they occurred on the property of the injured party, requiring him to pay the full cost of the damage, then in a place where the Torah was strict with regard to cases of damage classified as Goring, specifically in the public domain, requiring the owner liable to pay for half the cost of the damage, is it not right that we should be strict with regard to this form of damage if it occurs on the property of the injured party to likewise require the owner of the animal to pay the full cost of the damage?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉 诪讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗祝 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

The Rabbis said to him: Although there is an a fortiori inference being applied here, still it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, meaning that the halakha cannot be stricter with the inference than it is with the case that serves as the source of the inference. Therefore, just as one is liable to pay half the cost of the damage classified as Goring in the public domain, so too, for damage classified as Goring on the property of the injured party he is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 讗谞讬

Rabbi Tarfon said to them: If that is your opinion, then I as well

Scroll To Top