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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 3, 2016 | 讻状讜 讘讗讬讬专 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 3

The gemara goes through the subcategories of each category of damages in order to determine in which case Rav Papa was referring to when he said that the subcategory is different from the category.


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

讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜

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

讗诪专 诪专 讜砖诇讞 讝讜 讛专讙诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛

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

讗讬 拽专谉 讻转讬讘 讗讬 砖谉 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淭hat send forth the feet.鈥

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗砖谉 讜讛讗 讚诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讗专讙诇 砖谉 讚诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase 鈥渁nd he sends forth鈥 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 鈥渁nd it consumed.鈥 The connotation of that phrase is damage in which the object is completely destroyed.

讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讙诇 诪讛 专讙诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讗祝 砖谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讘注专 讝讜 讛砖谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专 讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专 讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛

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

讗讬 拽专谉 讻转讬讘 讗讬 专讙诇 讻转讬讘 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗专讙诇 讛讗 讚讗讝讬诇 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讗 讚砖诇讞 砖诇讜讞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淎s one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone,鈥 as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: 鈥淎nd it consumed,鈥 and that phrase: 鈥淎nd he sends forth,鈥 are referring to the primary category of Trampling, and this phrase: 鈥淎nd it consumed,鈥 is referring to a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, and that phrase: 鈥淎nd he sends forth,鈥 is referring to a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage. Therefore, the verse 鈥渁s one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone鈥 teaches us that the phrase 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 is referring to Eating.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讜拽讬 讗砖谉 专讙诇 讚讗讝诇讛 诪诪讬诇讗 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 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 鈥渁nd he sends forth.鈥 The connotation of that phrase is a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage.

讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖谉 诪讛 砖谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇讞讛 砖诇讜讞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗讝诇 诪诪讬诇讗 讗祝 专讙诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇讞讛 砖诇讜讞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讝诇讛 诪诪讬诇讗

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.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜砖诇讞 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讜讘注专 讚诪砖诪注 专讙诇 讜诪砖诪注 砖谉 诪砖诪注 专讙诇 讚讻转讬讘 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讜诪砖诪注 砖谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖谉 讘讛诪转 讗砖诇讞 讘诐

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

讗讬 诇讗讜 拽专讗 讬转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讜 讛讗 讗讜 讛讗 讗讜 专讙诇 讚讛讝讬拽讜 诪爪讜讬 讗讜 砖谉 讚讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: If not for the additional phrase in the verse, 鈥渁nd it consumed,鈥 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.

诪讻讚讬 砖拽讜诇讬谉 讛谉 讜讬讘讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讚讛讬 诪谞讬讬讛讜 诪驻拽转 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖诇讞 砖诇讜讞讬 讗讘诇 讗讝诇讗 诪诪讬诇讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 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 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 teaches us that the owner is liable even in a case where the ox went and caused damage on its own.

转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 谞转讞讻讻讛 讘讻讜转诇 诇讛谞讗转讛 讜讟讬谞驻讛 驻讬专讜转 诇讛谞讗转讛

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谉 讚讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讜 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽谉 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讻砖谉 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇

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.

转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讛讝讬拽讛 讘讙讜驻讛 讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 讘砖注专讛 讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 讘砖诇讬祝 砖注诇讬讛 讘驻专讜诪讘讬讗 砖讘驻讬讛 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讙诇 讚讛讝讬拽讜 诪爪讜讬 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讝讬拽谉 诪爪讜讬 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讻专讙诇 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚讘讜专

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.

转讜诇讚讛 讚讘讜专 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讘 注砖专讛 讜转讜诇讚讛 转砖注讛 诇讗 转砖注讛 讻转讬讘讬 讜诇讗 注砖专讛 讻转讬讘讬

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.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注砖专讛 注讘讚谉 诪讬转讛 转砖注讛 谞讝讬拽讬谉 注讘讚讬 诪讬转讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (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.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讝讛 讗讘 诇诪讬转讛 讜讝讛 讗讘 诇谞讝拽讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 讗讗讘谞讜 住讻讬谞讜 讜诪砖讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜

Rather, Rav Pappa鈥檚 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗驻拽专讬谞讛讜 讘讬谉 诇专讘 讜讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专

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.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗驻拽专讬谞讛讜 讗讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇诐 诪讘讜专讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讜讗讬 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇诐 诪砖讜专讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜专

And if it is a case where one did not declare them ownerless, there is still a difficulty. If Rav Pappa鈥檚 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鈥檚 pit, these cases are a subcategory of Pit. And if Rav Pappa鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜专 砖讻谉 转讞诇转 注砖讬讬转讜 诇谞讝拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 转讞诇转 注砖讬讬转谉 诇谞讝拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚讘讜专 讻讘讜专 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚诪讘注讛

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.

诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讜 砖谉 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讻砖谉 讗讬 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讗讚诐 诪讗讬 讗讘讜转 讜诪讗讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讬转 讘讬讛

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鈥檚 intent. But didn鈥檛 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讘 谞讬注讜专 转讜诇讚讛 讬砖谉 讜讛转谞谉 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 注专 讘讬谉 讬砖谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讗讝诇讬 拽诪讝拽讬 讻讞讜 讛讜讛 讗讬 讘转专 讚谞讬讬讞 讘讬谉 诇专讘 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚诪讘注讛 讻诪讘注讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚讗砖

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鈥檚 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.

转讜诇讚讛 讚讗砖 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讘谞讜 住讻讬谞讜 讜诪砖讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞谉 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 讜谞驻诇讜 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讗讝诇讜 拽讗 诪讝拽讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗砖

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗砖 讚讻讞 讗讞专 诪注讜专讘 讘讛谉 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讞 讗讞专 诪注讜专讘 讘讛谉 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚讗砖 讻讗砖 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇

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.

专讙诇 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讻专讙诇 讘讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

The Gemara questions this explanation: A subcategory of Trampling? But didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 诇砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

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.

讜讛讗 诪讘注讬讗 讘注讬 专讘讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava raise a dilemma with regard to that matter? As Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to one鈥檚 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?

诇专讘讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

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.

诇专讘讗 讚诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 诇驻讜讟专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讛诪讘注讛 讜讛讛讘注专 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 诪讘注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讗讚诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讛砖谉

搂 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.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讗讚诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 砖诪专 讗转讗 讘拽专 讜讙诐 诇讬诇讛 讗诐 转讘注讬讜谉 讘注讬讜

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

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讛砖谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讱 谞讞驻砖讜 注砖讜 谞讘注讜 诪爪驻谞讬讜 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讻讚诪转专讙诐 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬讻讚讬谉 讗讬转讘诇讬砖 注砖讜 讗转讙诇讬谉 诪讟诪专讜讛讬

And Shmuel says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating, as it is written: 鈥淗ow is Esau searched out [ne岣esu]; how are his hidden places revealed [nivu]鈥 (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 鈥nivu.鈥 Maveh references the animal鈥檚 teeth, which are covered when its mouth is closed and revealed when it eats.

讜专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 谞讘注讛

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘讜注讛

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鈥檈h? Bo鈥檈h is a form of the word maveh connoting an action taken directly, which would be appropriate were the reference to one鈥檚 actions that cause damage. The term in the mishna is maveh, which connotes an action that one causes another to take.

诪讻讚讬 拽专讗讬 诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讗 砖讜专 讜讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚砖讜专

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 砖讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讗 砖讜专 诇拽专谞讜 讜诪讘注讛 诇砖讬谞讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 专讗讬 讛拽专谉 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讜 讻专讗讬 讛砖谉 砖讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Shmuel too, who interpreted Maveh as Eating, doesn鈥檛 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.

  • 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 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 3

讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜

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

讗诪专 诪专 讜砖诇讞 讝讜 讛专讙诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛

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

讗讬 拽专谉 讻转讬讘 讗讬 砖谉 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淭hat send forth the feet.鈥

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗砖谉 讜讛讗 讚诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讗专讙诇 砖谉 讚诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase 鈥渁nd he sends forth鈥 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 鈥渁nd it consumed.鈥 The connotation of that phrase is damage in which the object is completely destroyed.

讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讙诇 诪讛 专讙诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讗祝 砖谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 诪讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讘注专 讝讜 讛砖谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专 讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专 讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛

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

讗讬 拽专谉 讻转讬讘 讗讬 专讙诇 讻转讬讘 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗专讙诇 讛讗 讚讗讝讬诇 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讗 讚砖诇讞 砖诇讜讞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淎s one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone,鈥 as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: 鈥淎nd it consumed,鈥 and that phrase: 鈥淎nd he sends forth,鈥 are referring to the primary category of Trampling, and this phrase: 鈥淎nd it consumed,鈥 is referring to a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, and that phrase: 鈥淎nd he sends forth,鈥 is referring to a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage. Therefore, the verse 鈥渁s one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone鈥 teaches us that the phrase 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 is referring to Eating.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讜拽讬 讗砖谉 专讙诇 讚讗讝诇讛 诪诪讬诇讗 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 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 鈥渁nd he sends forth.鈥 The connotation of that phrase is a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage.

讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖谉 诪讛 砖谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇讞讛 砖诇讜讞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗讝诇 诪诪讬诇讗 讗祝 专讙诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇讞讛 砖诇讜讞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讝诇讛 诪诪讬诇讗

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.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜砖诇讞 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讜讘注专 讚诪砖诪注 专讙诇 讜诪砖诪注 砖谉 诪砖诪注 专讙诇 讚讻转讬讘 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讜诪砖诪注 砖谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖谉 讘讛诪转 讗砖诇讞 讘诐

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

讗讬 诇讗讜 拽专讗 讬转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讜 讛讗 讗讜 讛讗 讗讜 专讙诇 讚讛讝讬拽讜 诪爪讜讬 讗讜 砖谉 讚讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: If not for the additional phrase in the verse, 鈥渁nd it consumed,鈥 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.

诪讻讚讬 砖拽讜诇讬谉 讛谉 讜讬讘讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讚讛讬 诪谞讬讬讛讜 诪驻拽转 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖诇讞 砖诇讜讞讬 讗讘诇 讗讝诇讗 诪诪讬诇讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 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 鈥渁nd it consumed鈥 teaches us that the owner is liable even in a case where the ox went and caused damage on its own.

转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 谞转讞讻讻讛 讘讻讜转诇 诇讛谞讗转讛 讜讟讬谞驻讛 驻讬专讜转 诇讛谞讗转讛

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谉 讚讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讜 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽谉 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讻砖谉 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇

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.

转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讛讝讬拽讛 讘讙讜驻讛 讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 讘砖注专讛 讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 讘砖诇讬祝 砖注诇讬讛 讘驻专讜诪讘讬讗 砖讘驻讬讛 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讙诇 讚讛讝讬拽讜 诪爪讜讬 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讝讬拽谉 诪爪讜讬 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讻专讙诇 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚讘讜专

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.

转讜诇讚讛 讚讘讜专 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讘 注砖专讛 讜转讜诇讚讛 转砖注讛 诇讗 转砖注讛 讻转讬讘讬 讜诇讗 注砖专讛 讻转讬讘讬

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.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注砖专讛 注讘讚谉 诪讬转讛 转砖注讛 谞讝讬拽讬谉 注讘讚讬 诪讬转讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (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.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讝讛 讗讘 诇诪讬转讛 讜讝讛 讗讘 诇谞讝拽讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 讗讗讘谞讜 住讻讬谞讜 讜诪砖讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜

Rather, Rav Pappa鈥檚 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗驻拽专讬谞讛讜 讘讬谉 诇专讘 讜讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专

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.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗驻拽专讬谞讛讜 讗讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇诐 诪讘讜专讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讜讗讬 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇诐 诪砖讜专讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜专

And if it is a case where one did not declare them ownerless, there is still a difficulty. If Rav Pappa鈥檚 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鈥檚 pit, these cases are a subcategory of Pit. And if Rav Pappa鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜专 砖讻谉 转讞诇转 注砖讬讬转讜 诇谞讝拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 转讞诇转 注砖讬讬转谉 诇谞讝拽 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚讘讜专 讻讘讜专 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚诪讘注讛

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.

诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讜 砖谉 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚砖谉 讻砖谉 讗讬 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讗讚诐 诪讗讬 讗讘讜转 讜诪讗讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讬转 讘讬讛

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鈥檚 intent. But didn鈥檛 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讘 谞讬注讜专 转讜诇讚讛 讬砖谉 讜讛转谞谉 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 注专 讘讬谉 讬砖谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讗讝诇讬 拽诪讝拽讬 讻讞讜 讛讜讛 讗讬 讘转专 讚谞讬讬讞 讘讬谉 诇专讘 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚诪讘注讛 讻诪讘注讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚讗砖

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鈥檚 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.

转讜诇讚讛 讚讗砖 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讘谞讜 住讻讬谞讜 讜诪砖讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞谉 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 讜谞驻诇讜 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讗讝诇讜 拽讗 诪讝拽讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗砖

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗砖 讚讻讞 讗讞专 诪注讜专讘 讘讛谉 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转讜 注诇讬讱 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讞 讗讞专 诪注讜专讘 讘讛谉 讜诪诪讜谞讱 讜砖诪讬专转谉 注诇讬讱 讗诇讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚讗砖 讻讗砖 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇

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.

专讙诇 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讻专讙诇 讘讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

The Gemara questions this explanation: A subcategory of Trampling? But didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 诇砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

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.

讜讛讗 诪讘注讬讗 讘注讬 专讘讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava raise a dilemma with regard to that matter? As Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to one鈥檚 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?

诇专讘讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

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.

诇专讘讗 讚诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 诇驻讜讟专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讛诪讘注讛 讜讛讛讘注专 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 诪讘注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讗讚诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讛砖谉

搂 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.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讗讚诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 砖诪专 讗转讗 讘拽专 讜讙诐 诇讬诇讛 讗诐 转讘注讬讜谉 讘注讬讜

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

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讘注讛 讝讛 讛砖谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讱 谞讞驻砖讜 注砖讜 谞讘注讜 诪爪驻谞讬讜 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讻讚诪转专讙诐 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬讻讚讬谉 讗讬转讘诇讬砖 注砖讜 讗转讙诇讬谉 诪讟诪专讜讛讬

And Shmuel says: Maveh, this is the category of Eating, as it is written: 鈥淗ow is Esau searched out [ne岣esu]; how are his hidden places revealed [nivu]鈥 (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 鈥nivu.鈥 Maveh references the animal鈥檚 teeth, which are covered when its mouth is closed and revealed when it eats.

讜专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 谞讘注讛

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘讜注讛

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鈥檈h? Bo鈥檈h is a form of the word maveh connoting an action taken directly, which would be appropriate were the reference to one鈥檚 actions that cause damage. The term in the mishna is maveh, which connotes an action that one causes another to take.

诪讻讚讬 拽专讗讬 诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讗 砖讜专 讜讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚砖讜专

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 砖讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讗 砖讜专 诇拽专谞讜 讜诪讘注讛 诇砖讬谞讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 专讗讬 讛拽专谉 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讜 讻专讗讬 讛砖谉 砖讬砖 讛谞讗讛 诇讛讝讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Shmuel too, who interpreted Maveh as Eating, doesn鈥檛 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.

Scroll To Top