Search

Bava Kamma 3

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00



podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00



Summary

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in loving memory of her father, David Malik, David ben Aharon Tzvi Hersh v’Shayndel. “It is so fitting that we are also having the Siyum for Masechet Kiddushin & Seder Nashim on this day, because it was in my dad’s honor that I made the commitment to participate in this Daf Yomi cycle, while I was saying kaddish for him in 5780/2019-2020. The daily spiritual practice of Daf Yomi, which initially overlapped with my aveilut period, continues to keep my father’s memory alive. Thank you, Rabbanit Michelle, for your meaningful inspirational presence in my daily life- during times of personal and communal grief.”

What are the toladot, sub-categories, of each av, main category, of damages? Which one is the one that Rav Papa was referring to when he said that the toladot are not as strict as the avot. In the end, after going through all the possibilities, the conclusion is that he was referring to rocks that a kicked by the animal as he walks that caused damage – in that situation, one pays only half damages. Rav and Shmuel have two basic debates – one regarding an item left in the public domain – under what circumstances is it considered/not considered like a pit (bor)? Another debate is what is meant by mav’e mentioned in the Mishna.

Bava Kamma 3

הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״.

the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10).

אָמַר מָר: ״וְשִׁלַּח״ זוֹ הָרֶגֶל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ?

The Master said in the baraita just cited: “And he sends forth,” this is a reference to the category of Trampling, and likewise it says: “Happy are you that sow beside all waters that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase: “And he sends forth,” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Trampling is that the Merciful One writes: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what would you have interpreted that phrase?

אִי קֶרֶן – כְּתִיב! אִי שֵׁן – כְּתִיב!

If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Goring, that cannot be, as Goring is written in a different verse. If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Eating, that too cannot be, as Eating is written in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Trampling, and the baraita had no need to prove this from the phrase: “That send forth the feet.”

אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַשֵּׁן, וְהָא דְּמִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, הָא דְּלָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the baraita to cite the verse: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey,” as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: “And he sends forth,” and that phrase: “And it consumed,” are referring to the primary category of Eating, and that phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is completely destroyed, and this phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is not completely destroyed. Therefore, the verse “that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” teaches us that the phrase “and he sends forth,” is referring to Trampling.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא אַרֶגֶל, שֵׁן דְּלָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא – מְנָלַן?

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase “and he sends forth” is referring to Trampling, from where do we derive that one is liable with regard to acts categorized as Eating in a case where the object damaged is not completely destroyed? The primary category of Eating is derived from the phrase “and it consumed.” The connotation of that phrase is damage in which the object is completely destroyed.

דּוּמְיָא דְרֶגֶל, מָה רֶגֶל – לָא שְׁנָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא; אַף שֵׁן – לָא שְׁנָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא.

The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Eating is juxtaposed to and therefore similar to the category of Trampling: Just as with regard to liability for the category of Trampling, it is no different if the object damaged is completely destroyed and it is no different if the object damaged is not completely destroyed; so too, with regard to liability for the category of Eating, it is no different whether the object damaged is completely destroyed and it is no different whether the object damaged is not completely destroyed.

אָמַר מָר: ״וּבִעֵר״ זוֹ הַשֵּׁן, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְנָא לַהּ?

The Master said in that baraita: When the verse states: “And it consumed” (Exodus 22:4), this is a reference to the category of Eating. And likewise it states: “And I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase “and it consumed” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Eating is that the Merciful One writes: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what case would you have interpreted that phrase?

אִי קֶרֶן – כְּתִיב! אִי רֶגֶל – כְּתִיב! אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַרֶגֶל, הָא דְּאָזֵיל מִמֵּילָא, הָא דְּשַׁלַּח שַׁלּוֹחֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Goring, that cannot be, as Goring is written in a different verse. And if you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Trampling, that too cannot be, as Trampling, is written in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Eating. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the baraita to cite the verse: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone,” as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: “And it consumed,” and that phrase: “And he sends forth,” are referring to the primary category of Trampling, and this phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, and that phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage. Therefore, the verse “as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” teaches us that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring to Eating.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקֵי אַשֵּׁן, רֶגֶל דְּאָזְלָה מִמֵּילָא – מְנָלַן?

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring to Eating, from where do we derive that one is liable with regard to actions categorized as Trampling in a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own? The primary category of Trampling is derived from the phrase “and he sends forth.” The connotation of that phrase is a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage.

דּוּמְיָא דְשֵׁן, מָה שֵׁן – לָא שְׁנָא שַׁלְּחַהּ שַׁלּוֹחֵי, לָא שְׁנָא דְּאָזֵל מִמֵּילָא; אַף רֶגֶל – לָא שְׁנָא שַׁלְּחַהּ שַׁלּוֹחֵי, לָא שְׁנָא אָזְלָה מִמֵּילָא.

The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Trampling is juxtaposed to and therefore similar to the category of Eating: Just as with regard to liability for the category of Eating, it is no different if the owner sent the animal to cause damage and it is no different if the animal went and caused damage on its own, so too, with regard to liability for the category of Trampling, it is no different if the owner sent the animal to cause damage and it is no different if the animal went and caused damage on its own.

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְשִׁלַּח״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״וּבִעֵר״; דְּמַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן – מַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל, דִּכְתִיב: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״; וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁן בְּהֵמֹת אֲשַׁלַּח בָּם״!

The Gemara suggests: And let the Merciful One write only the first phrase, “and he sends forth,” and there would be no need to write the second phrase, “and it consumed,” as the phrase “and he sends forth” connotes Trampling and connotes Eating. It connotes Trampling, as it is written: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20), and it connotes Eating, as it is written: “And the teeth of animals I will send forth against them” (Deuteronomy 32:24).

אִי לָאו קְרָא יַתִּירָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אוֹ הָא אוֹ הָא – אוֹ רֶגֶל דְּהֶזֵּיקוֹ מָצוּי, אוֹ שֵׁן דְּיֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ.

The Gemara answers: If not for the additional phrase in the verse, “and it consumed,” I would say that the verse refers either to this category of damage or to that category of damage: It refers either to Trampling, where its damage is commonplace, or to Eating, where there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage.

מִכְּדֵי שְׁקוּלִין הֵן, וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם – דְּהֵי מִנַּיְיהוּ מַפְּקַתְּ? אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכִי דְּשַׁלַּח שַׁלּוֹחֵי, אֲבָל אָזְלָא מִמֵּילָא – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Since both interpretations are of equal validity, let both of them come and be derived from the verse, as which of them will you exclude? Since there is no reason to prefer one category over the other, perforce both are derived, and the phrase “and it consumed” is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: The additional phrase is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter of liability applies only in a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage, but in a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, the owner would not be liable for the damage. Therefore, the phrase “and it consumed” teaches us that the owner is liable even in a case where the ox went and caused damage on its own.

תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן מַאי הִיא? נִתְחַכְּכָה בְּכוֹתֶל לַהֲנָאָתָהּ, וְטִינְּפָה פֵּירוֹת לַהֲנָאָתָהּ.

Having clarified the sources for the primary categories of Eating and Trampling, the Gemara proceeds to identify their subcategories and to determine whether it was with regard to these primary categories of damage that Rav Pappa said: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them. What is a subcategory of Eating? It is a case where, for example, an animal rubbed against a wall for its pleasure and damaged the wall, or where it sullied produce by rolling on it for its pleasure.

מַאי שְׁנָא שֵׁן – דְּיֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – יֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקָן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן כְּשֵׁן, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל.

If so, what is different about Eating that it is defined as a unique primary category? What is different is that there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing 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 Eating, as well, there is pleasure for the animals in the course of the damage that they cause and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent your oxen from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Therefore, the subcategories of Eating are not dissimilar to the primary category. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a sub-category of Eating is like that of the primary category of Eating, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Trampling.

תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל מַאי הִיא? הִזִּיקָה בְּגוּפָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ, בִּשְׂעָרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ, בִּשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ.

The Gemara asks: What is a subcategory of Trampling? The classification is applied in a case where, for example, an animal caused damage with its body, not its legs, in the course of its walking; or caused damage with its hair that became entangled with an object in the course of its walking; or caused damage with a rope that is upon it; or caused damage with a bit [bifrumbiya] that is in its mouth; or caused damage with a bell that is around its neck.

מַאי שְׁנָא רֶגֶל – דְּהֶזֵּיקוֹ מָצוּי, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – הֶזֵּיקָן מָצוּי, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל כְּרֶגֶל, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר.

If so, what is different about Trampling that it is defined as a unique category? What is different is that its damage is commonplace, and the animal is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you, its owner. In these subcategories of Trampling, as well, their damage is commonplace, and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Therefore, the subcategories of Trampling are not dissimilar to the primary category. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Trampling is like that of the primary category of Trampling, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Pit.

תּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא אָב – עֲשָׂרָה, וְתוֹלָדָה – תִּשְׁעָה; לָא תִּשְׁעָה כְּתִיבִי, וְלָא עֲשָׂרָה כְּתִיבִי!

The Gemara examines that assertion: What is a subcategory of Pit? If we say that the primary category of Pit applies when, in the public domain, one leaves an uncovered pit that is ten handbreadths deep, and that is the pit mentioned in the Torah, and a subcategory of Pit applies when one leaves an uncovered pit that is nine handbreadths deep, there is no basis for that distinction, as neither nine handbreadths are written in the Torah, nor are ten handbreadths written in the Torah.

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא; ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, עֲשָׂרָה – עָבְדָן מִיתָה, תִּשְׁעָה – נְזִיקִין עָבְדִי, מִיתָה לָא עָבְדִי.

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the carcass shall be for him” (Exodus 21:34), and the Sages have an accepted tradition that a pit ten handbreadths deep causes the death of an animal that falls into it, but a pit nine handbreadths deep causes damage to an animal that falls into it but does not cause death. Accordingly, the pit written in the Torah (Exodus 21:33), which mentions the death of the animal that fell therein, is ten handbreadths deep. This is classified as the primary category of Pit, and a pit nine handbreadths deep is its subcategory.

סוֹף סוֹף, זֶה אָב לְמִיתָה, וְזֶה אָב לִנְזָקִין!

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, this pit that is ten handbreadths deep is a primary category of damage with regard to death, and that pit that is nine handbreadths deep is a primary category with regard to damage.

אֶלָּא אַאַבְנוֹ, סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ.

Rather, Rav Pappa’s statement: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, was stated in reference to these subcategories of Pit: His stone, his knife, or his load, any of which he placed in a public domain as obstacles, and they caused damage when people stumbled upon them.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ – בֵּין לְרַב וּבֵין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where one is liable for damage caused by these obstacles? If it is a case where one declared these items ownerless, both according to the opinion of Rav and according to the opinion of Shmuel, cited later in the Gemara, these cases are a subcategory of Pit, as both Rav and Shmuel agree that any obstacle declared ownerless by its owner that causes damage in the public domain is a subcategory of Pit.

וְאִי דְּלָא אַפְקְרִינְהוּ – אִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִבּוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר; וְאִי לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ שׁוֹר!

And if it is a case where one did not declare them ownerless, there is still a difficulty. If Rav Pappa’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says: We learned that one is liable for damage caused by all obstacles that he places in a public domain, whether or not he declares them ownerless, from the halakhot with regard to one’s pit, these cases are a subcategory of Pit. And if Rav Pappa’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: We learned that one is liable for damage caused by all obstacles that he places in a public domain that he did not declare ownerless, from the halakhot with regard to one’s ox that gored another animal, these cases are a subcategory of Ox. With regard to the subcategories of Ox, the Gemara already established that their legal status is like that of the primary category of Ox.

מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן תְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – תְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתָן לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר כְּבוֹר, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְמַבְעֶה.

The Gemara asks concerning an obstacle that is a subcategory of Pit: What is different about Pit that it is defined it as a unique category? It is that its initial formation, i.e., the digging of the pit, is done in a manner that can result in damage, and it is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage to others, is incumbent upon you. In these subcategories of Pit, too, their initial formation, i.e., the placement of the obstacle in the public domain, is done in a manner that can result in damage, and they are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Pit is like that of the primary category of Pit, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Maveh.

מַאי נִיהוּ? אִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: מַבְעֶה זוֹ שֵׁן – הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן כְּשֵׁן. אִי לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם – מַאי אָבוֹת וּמַאי תּוֹלָדוֹת אִית בֵּיהּ?

The meaning of the term Maveh is not clear; therefore, the Gemara asks: What is the primary category of Maveh to whose subcategories the Gemara referred? If one suggests that Rav Pappa said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating, this cannot be Rav Pappa’s intent. But didn’t we already establish that the legal status of a subcategory of Eating is like that of the primary category of Eating? Clearly, Rav Pappa was not referring to subcategories of Maveh. And if one suggests that Rav Pappa said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: Maveh, this is the primary category of Man, which includes damage caused by a person, not by his property or animals, what primary categories and what subcategories are there in that category? The halakha is the same with regard to all damage that a person causes.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָב – נֵיעוֹר, תּוֹלָדָה – יָשֵׁן; וְהָתְנַן: אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין עֵר בֵּין יָשֵׁן!

And if you would say that there is a distinction: The primary category is a case where one causes damage while awake, and a subcategory is a case where one causes damage while asleep; but didn’t we learn in a mishna (26a): The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned, and he is liable for any damage that he causes, both when he is awake and when he is asleep? Accordingly, that is not the distinction between a primary category and a subcategory.

אֶלָּא אַכִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָזְלִי קָמַזְּקִי – כֹּחוֹ הָוֵה! אִי בָּתַר דְּנָיַיח – בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְמַבְעֶה כְּמַבְעֶה. וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, אַתּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ.

Rather, perhaps Rav Pappa was referring to cases where one causes damage with his phlegm or his spittle. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where one would be liable for damage in that case? If it is a case where his phlegm and spittle cause damage as they were moving through the air after the person expectorated, that is damage caused by his direct action and there is no room to distinguish between the damage that it caused and any other damage caused by one’s direct action. If it is a case where his phlegm or spittle causes damage after it comes to rest on the ground, e.g., if one slipped in the spittle, fell, and was injured, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel this is a subcategory of Pit, as the spittle is an ownerless obstacle in the public domain. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Maveh is like that of the primary category of Maveh, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them; he was referring to a subcategory of Fire.

תּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא אַבְנוֹ, סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ, וְנָפְלוּ בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה וְהִזִּיקוּ; הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָזְלוּ קָא מַזְּקִי – הַיְינוּ אֵשׁ,

The Gemara asks: What is a subcategory of Fire? If we say that it is a case of his stone, his knife, or his load, where he placed them on top of his roof, and they fell off the roof by means of a common wind, and they caused damage, what are the circumstances in which one would be liable for the damage that was caused? If it is a case where those items caused damage as they were moving through the air propelled by the wind, that is a case of Fire.

מַאי שְׁנָא אֵשׁ – דְּכֹחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – כֹּחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ כְּאֵשׁ, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל.

If so, what is different about Fire that defines it as a unique category? What is different is that another force, the wind, is involved with the fire in causing damage, as the wind causes the fire to spread, and the fire is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. In these subcategories of Fire too, another force is involved with the items placed on the roof and causes damage, as the wind causes them to fall, and they are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Fire is like that of the primary category of Fire, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he was referring to a subcategory of Trampling.

רֶגֶל?! הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל כְּרֶגֶל! בַּחֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

The Gemara questions this explanation: A subcategory of Trampling? But didn’t we already establish that the status of a subcategory of Trampling is similar to that of the primary category of Trampling? The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa was referring to one’s liability to pay half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles in a case where they were inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, which is a halakha learned through tradition and not explicitly written in the Torah.

וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל? לְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

The Gemara asks: But if it is a unique halakhic category and the payment is different, why is it characterized as a subcategory of Trampling? The Gemara explains: It is due to the fact that it shares a common aspect with Trampling. One whose animal propels pebbles while it walks and thereby causes damage is liable to pay half of the damages from his superior-quality property, and he does not pay only from the body of his animal, as is the halakha concerning half the cost of the damage paid by the owner of an innocuous ox that gored a person or an animal.

וְהָא מִבַּעְיָא בָּעֵי רָבָא – דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת – מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, אוֹ מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם?

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rava raise a dilemma with regard to that matter? As Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to one’s liability to pay half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles propelled by the foot of his animal, does one pay damages exclusively from the body of his ox that caused the damage, or does one pay damages from his superior-quality property?

לְרָבָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, לְרַב פָּפָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains: Although it is a dilemma for Rava, it is obvious to Rav Pappa that one pays from his superior-quality property, and in that sense, he classified the pebbles that cause damage as a subcategory of Trampling.

לְרָבָא דְּמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, אַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל? לְפוֹטְרָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

The Gemara asks: According to Rava, who raises it as a dilemma, why is it characterized as a subcategory of Trampling when its legal status is different both in terms of the extent of one’s liability and in terms of the manner of payment? The Gemara explains: It is classified as a subcategory of Trampling in order to exempt from liability pebbles that cause damage in the public domain, just as damage in the category of Trampling is exempt in the public domain.

הַמַּבְעֶה וְהַהֶבְעֵר כּוּ׳. מַאי ״מַבְעֶה״? רַב אָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה הַשֵּׁן.

§ One of the primary categories of damage enumerated in the mishna is the category of Maveh and another is the category of Fire. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of Maveh? Rav says: Maveh, that is the category of Man, which includes a person who causes damage, but not the property or animal of a person that causes damage. And Shmuel says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating.

רַב אָמַר מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״אָמַר שֹׁמֵר אָתָא בֹקֶר וְגַם לָיְלָה, אִם תִּבְעָיוּן בְּעָיוּ״.

The Gemara elaborates: Rav says: Maveh, this is the category of Man, as it is written: “The watchman said: Morning has come, and also night; if you will inquire [tivayun], inquire [be’ayu]” (Isaiah 21:12). The terms “tivayun” and “be’ayu,” meaning inquire, refer to a person, who is able to inquire. Accordingly, Maveh relates to an action performed by a person.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַבְעֶה זֶה הַשֵּׁן, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיךְ נֶחְפְּשׂוּ עֵשָׂו, נִבְעוּ מַצְפֻּנָיו״. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵיכְדֵין אִיתְבְּלֵישׁ עֵשָׂו, אִתְגַּלִּין מַטְמֹרוֹהִי.

And Shmuel says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating, as it is written: “How is Esau searched out [neḥpesu]; how are his hidden places revealed [nivu]” (Obadiah 1:6)? The terms nivu and maveh share a common root. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that nivu connotes Eating? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yosef translates the verse into Aramaic: How is Esau searched out [itbelish]; how are his hidden places revealed [itgaleyan]? The meaning of the Aramaic term itgaleyan means revealed, and that is the meaning of the Hebrew term “nivu.” Maveh references the animal’s teeth, which are covered when its mouth is closed and revealed when it eats.

וְרַב, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל? אָמַר לָךְ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״נִבְעֶה״?

The Gemara asks: And as for Rav, what is the reason that he did not say that Maveh refers to Eating, as does Shmuel? The Gemara explains that Rav could have said to you: Is it taught in the mishna: Niveh? Niveh is the passive form of the word maveh, which would be the appropriate form if the reference was to teeth that are revealed. The term in the mishna is maveh, an active form of the verb.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב? אָמַר לְךָ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״בּוֹעֶה״?

And as for Shmuel, what is the reason that he did not say that Maveh refers to the category of Man, as does Rav? The Gemara explains that Shmuel could have said to you: Is it taught in the mishna: Bo’eh? Bo’eh is a form of the word maveh connoting an action taken directly, which would be appropriate were the reference to one’s actions that cause damage. The term in the mishna is maveh, which connotes an action that one causes another to take.

מִכְּדֵי קְרָאֵי לָא כְּמַר דָּיְיקִי וְלָא כְּמַר דָּיְיקִי, רַב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל? תְּנָא שׁוֹר – וְכׇל מִילֵּי דְשׁוֹר.

The Gemara notes: After all, the meaning of the term in the verses is not precise according to one Sage, Rav, and it is not precise according to the other Sage, Shmuel. It is apparent that their dispute is not based upon their interpretation of the verses; it must be based on another issue. The Gemara asks again: As for Rav, what is the reason that he did not say that Maveh refers to Eating, as does Shmuel? The Gemara explains: Rav holds that the tanna teaches the primary category of Ox in the mishna. This includes damage caused by an ox and all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox, i.e., the actions included in the categories of Goring, Eating, and Trampling. Perforce, Maveh refers to a different category of damage, i.e., Man.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ שׁוֹר! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: תְּנָא שׁוֹר – לְקַרְנוֹ, וּמַבְעֶה – לְשִׁינּוֹ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא רְאִי הַקֶּרֶן – שֶׁאֵין הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ, כִּרְאִי הַשֵּׁן – שֶׁיֵּשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקָהּ.

The Gemara asks: And as for Shmuel too, who interpreted Maveh as Eating, doesn’t the mishna teach the category of Ox, which should include all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox? Rav Yehuda said that according to Shmuel, the tanna teaches Ox specifically with regard to damage caused with its horn, and it teaches Maveh with regard to damage caused with its tooth. And when the mishna contrasts Ox with Maveh, this is what the tanna is saying: The defining characteristic of the primary category of Goring, where there is no inherent pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage, is not similar to the defining characteristic of the category of Eating, where there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage.

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

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. 

My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others.  Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life.  Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.

Rina Goldberg
Rina Goldberg

Englewood NJ, United States

When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.

Shoshana Shinnar
Shoshana Shinnar

Jerusalem, Israel

I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you

Dena Heller
Dena Heller

New Jersey, United States

Robin Zeiger
Robin Zeiger

Tel Aviv, Israel

I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.

Julie Mendelsohn
Julie Mendelsohn

Zichron Yakov, Israel

I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.

Rachel Rotenberg
Rachel Rotenberg

Tekoa, Israel

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.

Susan Handelman
Susan Handelman

Jerusalem, Israel

My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.

Diana Bloom
Diana Bloom

Tampa, United States

I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.

Julie-Landau-Photo
Julie Landau

Karmiel, Israel

Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.

Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.

Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal

Merion Station,  USA

Beit Shemesh, Israel

I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz

Bronx, United States

I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Yael Merlini

Berlin, Germany

After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!

Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker

Modi’in, Israel

After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.

Janine Rubens
Janine Rubens

Virginia, United States

I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!

Mona Fishbane
Mona Fishbane

Teaneck NJ, United States

I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.

Yafit Fishbach
Yafit Fishbach

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Meryll Page

Minneapolis, MN, United States

I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!

Rochel Cheifetz
Rochel Cheifetz

Riverdale, NY, United States

I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.

Dianne Kuchar
Dianne Kuchar

Dover Heights, Australia

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.

Lisa S. Malik
Lisa S. Malik

Wynnewood, United States

Bava Kamma 3

הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״.

the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10).

אָמַר מָר: ״וְשִׁלַּח״ זוֹ הָרֶגֶל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ?

The Master said in the baraita just cited: “And he sends forth,” this is a reference to the category of Trampling, and likewise it says: “Happy are you that sow beside all waters that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase: “And he sends forth,” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Trampling is that the Merciful One writes: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what would you have interpreted that phrase?

אִי קֶרֶן – כְּתִיב! אִי שֵׁן – כְּתִיב!

If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Goring, that cannot be, as Goring is written in a different verse. If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Eating, that too cannot be, as Eating is written in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Trampling, and the baraita had no need to prove this from the phrase: “That send forth the feet.”

אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַשֵּׁן, וְהָא דְּמִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, הָא דְּלָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the baraita to cite the verse: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey,” as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: “And he sends forth,” and that phrase: “And it consumed,” are referring to the primary category of Eating, and that phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is completely destroyed, and this phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is not completely destroyed. Therefore, the verse “that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” teaches us that the phrase “and he sends forth,” is referring to Trampling.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא אַרֶגֶל, שֵׁן דְּלָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא – מְנָלַן?

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase “and he sends forth” is referring to Trampling, from where do we derive that one is liable with regard to acts categorized as Eating in a case where the object damaged is not completely destroyed? The primary category of Eating is derived from the phrase “and it consumed.” The connotation of that phrase is damage in which the object is completely destroyed.

דּוּמְיָא דְרֶגֶל, מָה רֶגֶל – לָא שְׁנָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא; אַף שֵׁן – לָא שְׁנָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא.

The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Eating is juxtaposed to and therefore similar to the category of Trampling: Just as with regard to liability for the category of Trampling, it is no different if the object damaged is completely destroyed and it is no different if the object damaged is not completely destroyed; so too, with regard to liability for the category of Eating, it is no different whether the object damaged is completely destroyed and it is no different whether the object damaged is not completely destroyed.

אָמַר מָר: ״וּבִעֵר״ זוֹ הַשֵּׁן, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְנָא לַהּ?

The Master said in that baraita: When the verse states: “And it consumed” (Exodus 22:4), this is a reference to the category of Eating. And likewise it states: “And I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase “and it consumed” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Eating is that the Merciful One writes: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what case would you have interpreted that phrase?

אִי קֶרֶן – כְּתִיב! אִי רֶגֶל – כְּתִיב! אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַרֶגֶל, הָא דְּאָזֵיל מִמֵּילָא, הָא דְּשַׁלַּח שַׁלּוֹחֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Goring, that cannot be, as Goring is written in a different verse. And if you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Trampling, that too cannot be, as Trampling, is written in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Eating. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the baraita to cite the verse: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone,” as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: “And it consumed,” and that phrase: “And he sends forth,” are referring to the primary category of Trampling, and this phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, and that phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage. Therefore, the verse “as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” teaches us that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring to Eating.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקֵי אַשֵּׁן, רֶגֶל דְּאָזְלָה מִמֵּילָא – מְנָלַן?

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring to Eating, from where do we derive that one is liable with regard to actions categorized as Trampling in a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own? The primary category of Trampling is derived from the phrase “and he sends forth.” The connotation of that phrase is a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage.

דּוּמְיָא דְשֵׁן, מָה שֵׁן – לָא שְׁנָא שַׁלְּחַהּ שַׁלּוֹחֵי, לָא שְׁנָא דְּאָזֵל מִמֵּילָא; אַף רֶגֶל – לָא שְׁנָא שַׁלְּחַהּ שַׁלּוֹחֵי, לָא שְׁנָא אָזְלָה מִמֵּילָא.

The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Trampling is juxtaposed to and therefore similar to the category of Eating: Just as with regard to liability for the category of Eating, it is no different if the owner sent the animal to cause damage and it is no different if the animal went and caused damage on its own, so too, with regard to liability for the category of Trampling, it is no different if the owner sent the animal to cause damage and it is no different if the animal went and caused damage on its own.

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְשִׁלַּח״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״וּבִעֵר״; דְּמַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן – מַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל, דִּכְתִיב: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״; וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁן בְּהֵמֹת אֲשַׁלַּח בָּם״!

The Gemara suggests: And let the Merciful One write only the first phrase, “and he sends forth,” and there would be no need to write the second phrase, “and it consumed,” as the phrase “and he sends forth” connotes Trampling and connotes Eating. It connotes Trampling, as it is written: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20), and it connotes Eating, as it is written: “And the teeth of animals I will send forth against them” (Deuteronomy 32:24).

אִי לָאו קְרָא יַתִּירָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אוֹ הָא אוֹ הָא – אוֹ רֶגֶל דְּהֶזֵּיקוֹ מָצוּי, אוֹ שֵׁן דְּיֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ.

The Gemara answers: If not for the additional phrase in the verse, “and it consumed,” I would say that the verse refers either to this category of damage or to that category of damage: It refers either to Trampling, where its damage is commonplace, or to Eating, where there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage.

מִכְּדֵי שְׁקוּלִין הֵן, וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם – דְּהֵי מִנַּיְיהוּ מַפְּקַתְּ? אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכִי דְּשַׁלַּח שַׁלּוֹחֵי, אֲבָל אָזְלָא מִמֵּילָא – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Since both interpretations are of equal validity, let both of them come and be derived from the verse, as which of them will you exclude? Since there is no reason to prefer one category over the other, perforce both are derived, and the phrase “and it consumed” is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: The additional phrase is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter of liability applies only in a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage, but in a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, the owner would not be liable for the damage. Therefore, the phrase “and it consumed” teaches us that the owner is liable even in a case where the ox went and caused damage on its own.

תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן מַאי הִיא? נִתְחַכְּכָה בְּכוֹתֶל לַהֲנָאָתָהּ, וְטִינְּפָה פֵּירוֹת לַהֲנָאָתָהּ.

Having clarified the sources for the primary categories of Eating and Trampling, the Gemara proceeds to identify their subcategories and to determine whether it was with regard to these primary categories of damage that Rav Pappa said: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them. What is a subcategory of Eating? It is a case where, for example, an animal rubbed against a wall for its pleasure and damaged the wall, or where it sullied produce by rolling on it for its pleasure.

מַאי שְׁנָא שֵׁן – דְּיֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – יֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקָן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן כְּשֵׁן, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל.

If so, what is different about Eating that it is defined as a unique primary category? What is different is that there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing 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 Eating, as well, there is pleasure for the animals in the course of the damage that they cause and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent your oxen from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Therefore, the subcategories of Eating are not dissimilar to the primary category. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a sub-category of Eating is like that of the primary category of Eating, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Trampling.

תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל מַאי הִיא? הִזִּיקָה בְּגוּפָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ, בִּשְׂעָרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ, בִּשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ.

The Gemara asks: What is a subcategory of Trampling? The classification is applied in a case where, for example, an animal caused damage with its body, not its legs, in the course of its walking; or caused damage with its hair that became entangled with an object in the course of its walking; or caused damage with a rope that is upon it; or caused damage with a bit [bifrumbiya] that is in its mouth; or caused damage with a bell that is around its neck.

מַאי שְׁנָא רֶגֶל – דְּהֶזֵּיקוֹ מָצוּי, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – הֶזֵּיקָן מָצוּי, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל כְּרֶגֶל, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר.

If so, what is different about Trampling that it is defined as a unique category? What is different is that its damage is commonplace, and the animal is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you, its owner. In these subcategories of Trampling, as well, their damage is commonplace, and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Therefore, the subcategories of Trampling are not dissimilar to the primary category. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Trampling is like that of the primary category of Trampling, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Pit.

תּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא אָב – עֲשָׂרָה, וְתוֹלָדָה – תִּשְׁעָה; לָא תִּשְׁעָה כְּתִיבִי, וְלָא עֲשָׂרָה כְּתִיבִי!

The Gemara examines that assertion: What is a subcategory of Pit? If we say that the primary category of Pit applies when, in the public domain, one leaves an uncovered pit that is ten handbreadths deep, and that is the pit mentioned in the Torah, and a subcategory of Pit applies when one leaves an uncovered pit that is nine handbreadths deep, there is no basis for that distinction, as neither nine handbreadths are written in the Torah, nor are ten handbreadths written in the Torah.

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא; ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, עֲשָׂרָה – עָבְדָן מִיתָה, תִּשְׁעָה – נְזִיקִין עָבְדִי, מִיתָה לָא עָבְדִי.

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the carcass shall be for him” (Exodus 21:34), and the Sages have an accepted tradition that a pit ten handbreadths deep causes the death of an animal that falls into it, but a pit nine handbreadths deep causes damage to an animal that falls into it but does not cause death. Accordingly, the pit written in the Torah (Exodus 21:33), which mentions the death of the animal that fell therein, is ten handbreadths deep. This is classified as the primary category of Pit, and a pit nine handbreadths deep is its subcategory.

סוֹף סוֹף, זֶה אָב לְמִיתָה, וְזֶה אָב לִנְזָקִין!

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, this pit that is ten handbreadths deep is a primary category of damage with regard to death, and that pit that is nine handbreadths deep is a primary category with regard to damage.

אֶלָּא אַאַבְנוֹ, סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ.

Rather, Rav Pappa’s statement: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, was stated in reference to these subcategories of Pit: His stone, his knife, or his load, any of which he placed in a public domain as obstacles, and they caused damage when people stumbled upon them.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ – בֵּין לְרַב וּבֵין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where one is liable for damage caused by these obstacles? If it is a case where one declared these items ownerless, both according to the opinion of Rav and according to the opinion of Shmuel, cited later in the Gemara, these cases are a subcategory of Pit, as both Rav and Shmuel agree that any obstacle declared ownerless by its owner that causes damage in the public domain is a subcategory of Pit.

וְאִי דְּלָא אַפְקְרִינְהוּ – אִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִבּוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר; וְאִי לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ שׁוֹר!

And if it is a case where one did not declare them ownerless, there is still a difficulty. If Rav Pappa’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says: We learned that one is liable for damage caused by all obstacles that he places in a public domain, whether or not he declares them ownerless, from the halakhot with regard to one’s pit, these cases are a subcategory of Pit. And if Rav Pappa’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: We learned that one is liable for damage caused by all obstacles that he places in a public domain that he did not declare ownerless, from the halakhot with regard to one’s ox that gored another animal, these cases are a subcategory of Ox. With regard to the subcategories of Ox, the Gemara already established that their legal status is like that of the primary category of Ox.

מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן תְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – תְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתָן לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר כְּבוֹר, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְמַבְעֶה.

The Gemara asks concerning an obstacle that is a subcategory of Pit: What is different about Pit that it is defined it as a unique category? It is that its initial formation, i.e., the digging of the pit, is done in a manner that can result in damage, and it is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage to others, is incumbent upon you. In these subcategories of Pit, too, their initial formation, i.e., the placement of the obstacle in the public domain, is done in a manner that can result in damage, and they are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Pit is like that of the primary category of Pit, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Maveh.

מַאי נִיהוּ? אִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: מַבְעֶה זוֹ שֵׁן – הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן כְּשֵׁן. אִי לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם – מַאי אָבוֹת וּמַאי תּוֹלָדוֹת אִית בֵּיהּ?

The meaning of the term Maveh is not clear; therefore, the Gemara asks: What is the primary category of Maveh to whose subcategories the Gemara referred? If one suggests that Rav Pappa said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating, this cannot be Rav Pappa’s intent. But didn’t we already establish that the legal status of a subcategory of Eating is like that of the primary category of Eating? Clearly, Rav Pappa was not referring to subcategories of Maveh. And if one suggests that Rav Pappa said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: Maveh, this is the primary category of Man, which includes damage caused by a person, not by his property or animals, what primary categories and what subcategories are there in that category? The halakha is the same with regard to all damage that a person causes.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָב – נֵיעוֹר, תּוֹלָדָה – יָשֵׁן; וְהָתְנַן: אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין עֵר בֵּין יָשֵׁן!

And if you would say that there is a distinction: The primary category is a case where one causes damage while awake, and a subcategory is a case where one causes damage while asleep; but didn’t we learn in a mishna (26a): The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned, and he is liable for any damage that he causes, both when he is awake and when he is asleep? Accordingly, that is not the distinction between a primary category and a subcategory.

אֶלָּא אַכִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָזְלִי קָמַזְּקִי – כֹּחוֹ הָוֵה! אִי בָּתַר דְּנָיַיח – בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְמַבְעֶה כְּמַבְעֶה. וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, אַתּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ.

Rather, perhaps Rav Pappa was referring to cases where one causes damage with his phlegm or his spittle. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where one would be liable for damage in that case? If it is a case where his phlegm and spittle cause damage as they were moving through the air after the person expectorated, that is damage caused by his direct action and there is no room to distinguish between the damage that it caused and any other damage caused by one’s direct action. If it is a case where his phlegm or spittle causes damage after it comes to rest on the ground, e.g., if one slipped in the spittle, fell, and was injured, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel this is a subcategory of Pit, as the spittle is an ownerless obstacle in the public domain. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Maveh is like that of the primary category of Maveh, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them; he was referring to a subcategory of Fire.

תּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא אַבְנוֹ, סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ, וְנָפְלוּ בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה וְהִזִּיקוּ; הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָזְלוּ קָא מַזְּקִי – הַיְינוּ אֵשׁ,

The Gemara asks: What is a subcategory of Fire? If we say that it is a case of his stone, his knife, or his load, where he placed them on top of his roof, and they fell off the roof by means of a common wind, and they caused damage, what are the circumstances in which one would be liable for the damage that was caused? If it is a case where those items caused damage as they were moving through the air propelled by the wind, that is a case of Fire.

מַאי שְׁנָא אֵשׁ – דְּכֹחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – כֹּחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ כְּאֵשׁ, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל.

If so, what is different about Fire that defines it as a unique category? What is different is that another force, the wind, is involved with the fire in causing damage, as the wind causes the fire to spread, and the fire is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. In these subcategories of Fire too, another force is involved with the items placed on the roof and causes damage, as the wind causes them to fall, and they are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Fire is like that of the primary category of Fire, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he was referring to a subcategory of Trampling.

רֶגֶל?! הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל כְּרֶגֶל! בַּחֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

The Gemara questions this explanation: A subcategory of Trampling? But didn’t we already establish that the status of a subcategory of Trampling is similar to that of the primary category of Trampling? The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa was referring to one’s liability to pay half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles in a case where they were inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, which is a halakha learned through tradition and not explicitly written in the Torah.

וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל? לְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

The Gemara asks: But if it is a unique halakhic category and the payment is different, why is it characterized as a subcategory of Trampling? The Gemara explains: It is due to the fact that it shares a common aspect with Trampling. One whose animal propels pebbles while it walks and thereby causes damage is liable to pay half of the damages from his superior-quality property, and he does not pay only from the body of his animal, as is the halakha concerning half the cost of the damage paid by the owner of an innocuous ox that gored a person or an animal.

וְהָא מִבַּעְיָא בָּעֵי רָבָא – דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת – מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, אוֹ מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם?

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rava raise a dilemma with regard to that matter? As Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to one’s liability to pay half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles propelled by the foot of his animal, does one pay damages exclusively from the body of his ox that caused the damage, or does one pay damages from his superior-quality property?

לְרָבָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, לְרַב פָּפָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains: Although it is a dilemma for Rava, it is obvious to Rav Pappa that one pays from his superior-quality property, and in that sense, he classified the pebbles that cause damage as a subcategory of Trampling.

לְרָבָא דְּמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, אַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל? לְפוֹטְרָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

The Gemara asks: According to Rava, who raises it as a dilemma, why is it characterized as a subcategory of Trampling when its legal status is different both in terms of the extent of one’s liability and in terms of the manner of payment? The Gemara explains: It is classified as a subcategory of Trampling in order to exempt from liability pebbles that cause damage in the public domain, just as damage in the category of Trampling is exempt in the public domain.

הַמַּבְעֶה וְהַהֶבְעֵר כּוּ׳. מַאי ״מַבְעֶה״? רַב אָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה הַשֵּׁן.

§ One of the primary categories of damage enumerated in the mishna is the category of Maveh and another is the category of Fire. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of Maveh? Rav says: Maveh, that is the category of Man, which includes a person who causes damage, but not the property or animal of a person that causes damage. And Shmuel says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating.

רַב אָמַר מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״אָמַר שֹׁמֵר אָתָא בֹקֶר וְגַם לָיְלָה, אִם תִּבְעָיוּן בְּעָיוּ״.

The Gemara elaborates: Rav says: Maveh, this is the category of Man, as it is written: “The watchman said: Morning has come, and also night; if you will inquire [tivayun], inquire [be’ayu]” (Isaiah 21:12). The terms “tivayun” and “be’ayu,” meaning inquire, refer to a person, who is able to inquire. Accordingly, Maveh relates to an action performed by a person.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַבְעֶה זֶה הַשֵּׁן, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיךְ נֶחְפְּשׂוּ עֵשָׂו, נִבְעוּ מַצְפֻּנָיו״. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵיכְדֵין אִיתְבְּלֵישׁ עֵשָׂו, אִתְגַּלִּין מַטְמֹרוֹהִי.

And Shmuel says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating, as it is written: “How is Esau searched out [neḥpesu]; how are his hidden places revealed [nivu]” (Obadiah 1:6)? The terms nivu and maveh share a common root. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that nivu connotes Eating? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yosef translates the verse into Aramaic: How is Esau searched out [itbelish]; how are his hidden places revealed [itgaleyan]? The meaning of the Aramaic term itgaleyan means revealed, and that is the meaning of the Hebrew term “nivu.” Maveh references the animal’s teeth, which are covered when its mouth is closed and revealed when it eats.

וְרַב, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל? אָמַר לָךְ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״נִבְעֶה״?

The Gemara asks: And as for Rav, what is the reason that he did not say that Maveh refers to Eating, as does Shmuel? The Gemara explains that Rav could have said to you: Is it taught in the mishna: Niveh? Niveh is the passive form of the word maveh, which would be the appropriate form if the reference was to teeth that are revealed. The term in the mishna is maveh, an active form of the verb.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב? אָמַר לְךָ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״בּוֹעֶה״?

And as for Shmuel, what is the reason that he did not say that Maveh refers to the category of Man, as does Rav? The Gemara explains that Shmuel could have said to you: Is it taught in the mishna: Bo’eh? Bo’eh is a form of the word maveh connoting an action taken directly, which would be appropriate were the reference to one’s actions that cause damage. The term in the mishna is maveh, which connotes an action that one causes another to take.

מִכְּדֵי קְרָאֵי לָא כְּמַר דָּיְיקִי וְלָא כְּמַר דָּיְיקִי, רַב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל? תְּנָא שׁוֹר – וְכׇל מִילֵּי דְשׁוֹר.

The Gemara notes: After all, the meaning of the term in the verses is not precise according to one Sage, Rav, and it is not precise according to the other Sage, Shmuel. It is apparent that their dispute is not based upon their interpretation of the verses; it must be based on another issue. The Gemara asks again: As for Rav, what is the reason that he did not say that Maveh refers to Eating, as does Shmuel? The Gemara explains: Rav holds that the tanna teaches the primary category of Ox in the mishna. This includes damage caused by an ox and all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox, i.e., the actions included in the categories of Goring, Eating, and Trampling. Perforce, Maveh refers to a different category of damage, i.e., Man.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ שׁוֹר! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: תְּנָא שׁוֹר – לְקַרְנוֹ, וּמַבְעֶה – לְשִׁינּוֹ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא רְאִי הַקֶּרֶן – שֶׁאֵין הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ, כִּרְאִי הַשֵּׁן – שֶׁיֵּשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקָהּ.

The Gemara asks: And as for Shmuel too, who interpreted Maveh as Eating, doesn’t the mishna teach the category of Ox, which should include all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox? Rav Yehuda said that according to Shmuel, the tanna teaches Ox specifically with regard to damage caused with its horn, and it teaches Maveh with regard to damage caused with its tooth. And when the mishna contrasts Ox with Maveh, this is what the tanna is saying: The defining characteristic of the primary category of Goring, where there is no inherent pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage, is not similar to the defining characteristic of the category of Eating, where there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage.

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete