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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 7, 2016 | ืืณ ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • 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 37

Can we derive from our mishna whether or not when the mishnyaot refer to a sela, they mean the higher valued currency or the lower valued – one eighth of the other ย If an animal is muad for one type, does that make him muad for all types of animals? ย If he is muad for people, then is he also muad for animals? ย For small animals, is he muad for large animals? ย  Depending on how you read the mishna on this page, affects how you answer this question. ย It all depends on a single letter . ย The two different readings are brought and analyzed. ย Other situations of determining patterns are brought and questions are raised and comparisons are made to where also patterns are used for determining whether a woman has a set menstrual cycle or not.


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

ืื™ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืคืจื•ื–ื‘ื•ืœ

do not require a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] by transferring the right of collection to the court. The reason that orphans do not require this document is because the court is legally considered to be their steward, and their debts are therefore transferred to the court automatically, even without a prosbol.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืคืจื•ื–ื‘ื•ืœ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•

Similarly, Rami bar แธคama taught: Orphans do not require a prosbol, as Rabban Gamliel and his court were tantamount to the fathers of orphans, as they were vigilant to collect all of the debts owed to orphans. Subsequently, the courts in every generation have this status.

ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ืชืงืข ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื ืžื›ื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ื” ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืฉืชืงื™ืœ ืœื™ื” ืชืงืข ืœื™ื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื” ื ื”ืœื™ื”

The Gemara relates: แธคanan the wicked slapped a certain man. He then came before Rav Huna for judgment. Rav Huna said to him: Go give him a half-dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an act. แธคanan the wicked had a clipped dinar, and wanted to give him a half-dinar from it, but there was no one who wanted to take it from him to give him smaller coins for it. แธคanan the wicked then gave him another slap, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of half a dinar, and gave him the clipped dinar as payment.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืžื™ื ื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืงื˜ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

MISHNA: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species, as it already gored other oxen three times, but is not forewarned with regard to other species; or an ox that is forewarned with regard to people, but is not forewarned with regard to animals; or one that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species; in all these cases, if the ox gores the type of animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื—ื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืื™ืžืชื™ ื”ื•ื ืชื ืžืฉื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช

When is it rendered innocuous again after being forewarned with regard to Shabbat? It reverts to its innocuous status when its behavior reverts to normal, i.e., when it refrains from goring for three days of Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat in three successive weeks.

ื’ืžืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ

GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Zevid said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, referring to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species, if it gores another species, its owner pays only half the cost of the damage. Rav Pappa said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species. Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that the fact that it is forewarned with regard to goring one species does not render it forewarned with regard to goring other species, until it is proven otherwise.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ื“ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara explains: Rav Zevid said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that it is referring specifically to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species. This implies that in an ordinary case, where there is no such proof, the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all species. Rav Pappa, by contrast, said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืจื™ืฉื

Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause of the mishna, whereas Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืงื˜ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื ืกืชืžื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause, as it teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species. Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all animals, this clause of the mishna teaches us that even from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, in an ordinary case the ox is thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species, which is a more far-reaching statement, as an ox is less likely to gore large animals.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, there is a difficulty with the latter clause of the mishna.

ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœืงื˜ื ื™ื ื“ืขืœืžื ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara explains: Now that it can be said that from being forewarned with regard to small oxen, in an ordinary case, the ox is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to small animals in general, need it be said that from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species it is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species? It must be that the mishna reads: But is not forewarned, indicating that only when the ox is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species and then it gores another species is its owner liable to pay only half the cost of the damage. Otherwise, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

ื•ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืคืจืฅ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื ื ืคืจืฅ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื˜ื ื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

And Rav Pappa could have said to you in response that even if the mishna reads: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, the latter clause is necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it breached the norm by attacking one of that species, it is considered to have breached the norm entirely with regard to that species, and there is no difference with regard to large members of the species and there is no difference with regard to small members of it, as the ox is now likely to gore any of them. Therefore, this clause of the mishna teaches us that it is not considered forewarned with regard to the large animals of that species.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืจื™ืฉื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื“ื ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื ืžื™ ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

As stated previously, Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause of the mishna. As the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is not forewarned with regard to animals. Granted, if you say that we learned that the mishna states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, which would indicate that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, it is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then the mishna, in the next clause, teaches us this, that even from being forewarned with regard to people, in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals. The ox is considered innocuous with regard to animals, although it is more common for an ox to gore an animal than a person.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืื“ื ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

But if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case it is considered forewarned with regard to other species, then there is a difficulty with the following clause of the mishna. Now that it can be said that even from being forewarned with regard to one species of animal, in an ordinary case, it is thereby considered forewarned with regard to other species of animals, need it be said that from its being forewarned with regard to people it is also considered forewarned with regard to animals?

ื•ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื™ืฉื ืื—ื–ืจื” ืงืื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืงืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืชืœืชื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ื•ืœื ื ื’ื— ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžืื“ื ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืื• ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื™ื”ื ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื

And Rav Zevid could have said to you in response: The former clause in the mishna relates to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, i.e., a case where the ox was forewarned with regard to man and forewarned with regard to animals, and reverted to its innocuous status with regard to animals, as it stood in close proximity to an animal three times and did not gore. Lest you say that since it did not demonstratively revert to its innocuous behavior toward people, as it did not refrain from goring people, its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, the mishna teaches us that its reversal with regard to animals is nevertheless considered a reversal, and it no longer has the status of a forewarned ox with regard to goring animals.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืœืื“ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Zevidโ€™s opinion from a baraita: Sumakhos says: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is considered forewarned with regard to animals, due to an a fortiori inference: If it is forewarned with regard to people, is it not clear all the more so that it is forewarned with regard to animals? The Gemara elaborates: By inference, the first tanna, i.e., the tanna of the mishna, is saying that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa.

ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื—ื–ืจื” ืงืื™ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืื• ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืžืื“ื ื•ืžื” ืžืื“ื ืœื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid could have said to you that Sumakhosโ€™s statement can be interpreted as relating to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, and this is what he is saying to the first tanna: Contrary to what you are saying, that the oxโ€™s reversal with regard to animals is considered a reversal although it has not yet reversed its behavior toward people, I maintain that its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of an animal forewarned with regard to people: If the ox has not reverted to its innocuous behavior toward people, is it not clear all the more so that it has not truly reverted to its innocuous behavior toward animals?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear a proof for Rav Zevidโ€™s opinion from the mishna: The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื™ื•ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžืฉื™ื™ืœื™ [ืœื™ื”] ื•ื”ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืงืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืื’ืžื•ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžื’ืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืชื• ืื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื”ื•

Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches: But was not forewarned with regard to weekdays, they were asking him about the halakha in that case, and likewise, he was answering them with a ruling. But if you say that it teaches: This ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot is not forewarned with regard to weekdays, the mishna would be understood as saying that an ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbat is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays. Is it possible that the Sages were teaching him this halakha? And furthermore, what was he responding to them? They had already stated themselves that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื ืื™ ืžืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืช ืฉืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• [ืžืฉืœื] ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

Rav Yannai said: Rav Zevidโ€™s opinion can be inferred from the former clause of the mishna as well, as it teaches: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืงื ืžืคืจืฉ ืœื”

Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, this clause is explaining the halakha in that case, i.e., if the ox is forewarned only with regard to its species, its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage only if it gores another ox.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืคืกืงื” ืžืื™ ืชื• ืืช ืฉืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ืœื ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื”ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, and the halakha was already determined at the beginning of the mishna, namely, that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then what need is there for the mishna to further state: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage? Has the mishna not taught us until now that for an innocuous ox its owner pays half the cost of the damage and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage?

ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ืœื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื›ืœ

The Gemara comments: And even if you say that Rav Pappaโ€™s opinion, which says that an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, is accepted, nevertheless, if an ox gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, it is thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all of them. The ox is rendered forewarned with regard to all three species, regardless of the fact that it did not gore each individual species three times.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืกื™ืจื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื

ยง The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and subsequently saw another ox but did not gore it, again saw an ox and gored it and then saw an ox but did not gore it, and a third time saw an ox and gored it and saw an ox and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate oxen. The ox is considered forewarned with regard to goring every other ox that it sees and is considered innocuous with regard to the oxen in between. If it then gores two oxen in a row, the owner of the ox is liable for only half the cost of the damage for the second ox.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ื—ืžื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืกื•ืก ื ื’ื— ื’ืžืœ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืคืจื“ ื ื’ื— ืขืจื•ื“ ืœื ื ื’ื— ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืกื™ืจื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืœื›ืœ

The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and then saw a donkey but did not gore it, and saw a horse and gored it, then saw a camel and did not gore it, and saw a mule and gored it, and then saw a wild donkey [arod] and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate animals of all species.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื ื’ื—

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox gored

ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื•ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืžื”ื•

an ox, another ox, and a third ox, and then a donkey and a camel, with regard to what is it considered forewarned?

ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืชืจื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืชืจื ื‘ืชืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™

The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this last ox that was gored together with the donkey and the camel, do we place it together with the previously gored oxen, and accordingly the belligerent ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas with regard to other species it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place this last ox together with the donkey and the camel, and it was rendered forewarned with regard to all of the species it gored.

ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื•ืจ ืžื”ื• ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืงืžื ื‘ืชืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœืžื™ื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื ืื™ื™ืขื“

The Gemara adds a similar dilemma: If an ox gored a donkey and a camel, and then an ox, an ox, and another ox, what is the halakha? The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this first ox that it gored, do we place it together with the camel and donkey, and the belligerent ox was accordingly rendered forewarned with regard to all species? Or perhaps we place it together with the two oxen that it gored afterward, and accordingly, it was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas it was not rendered forewarned with regard to other species.

ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžื”ื• ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืชืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืœื ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืชืจ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ื™ื•ืžื

Similarly, if it gored on Shabbat, on Shabbat, and on Shabbat, i.e., on three consecutive Shabbatot, and then on Sunday and on Monday, what is the halakha? With regard to this last Shabbat, do we place it together with the previous Shabbat, and the ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbat, whereas with regard to weekdays it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place it together with the goring on Sunday and Monday, and it was thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week.

ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืžื”ื• ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืชืจ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื™ื•ืžื™ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“

If an ox gored on Thursday, and Friday, and Shabbat, and then the next Shabbat and the next Shabbat after that, what is the halakha? With regard to this first Shabbat, do we place it together with Thursday and Friday, and thereby hold that the ox was rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week? Or perhaps we place this first Shabbat together with the other Shabbatot, and the ox is rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbatot?

ืชื™ืงื•

These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื™ื•ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ

ยง If an ox gored on the fifteenth day of this month, and subsequently gored on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and then on the seventeenth day of the month after that, the halakha is subject to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to a parallel discussion concerning a woman whose menstrual cycle begins on a different day each month.

ื“ืืชืžืจ ืจืืชื” ื™ื•ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืงื‘ืขื” ืœื” ื•ืกืช ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉืชืฉืœืฉ ื‘ื“ื™ืœื•ื’

As it was stated: If a woman saw menstrual blood on the fifteenth day of this month, and on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and on the seventeenth day of the month after that, Rav says: She has thereby established her menstrual cycle [veset], i.e., a month and one day. And Shmuel says: Her menstrual cycle is not established until she skips a day three times. According to Shmuel, the cycle is established in this case not by the date per se, but rather by the pattern of one additional day every month. Only when this occurs for three consecutive months, i.e., when she menstruates in the fourth month, is this pattern established.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืžืข ืงื•ืœ ืฉื•ืคืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ืงื•ืœ ืฉื•ืคืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ืงื•ืœ ืฉื•ืคืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื•ืคืจื•ืช

ยง Rava said: If an ox heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and again heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and a third time heard the sound of a shofar and gored, it is rendered forewarned with regard to the sound of shofarot.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ืš ืฉื•ืคืจ ืงืžื ืกื™ื•ื˜ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืงื˜ื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this first shofar merely startled [siyyuta] the ox, prompting it to gore, and that consequently it should not count for the purpose of rendering the ox forewarned, Rava teaches us that since the ox repeatedly gored upon hearing the sound of a shofar, this sound is considered a consistent impetus for its goring.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

MISHNA: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored a consecrated ox, and conversely, a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, i.e., an ox owned by a Jew, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if one manโ€™s ox hurts the ox of anotherโ€ (Exodus 21:35). It is derived from the phrase โ€œthe ox of anotherโ€ that one is liable only if it is a non-sacred ox, but not if it is a consecrated ox, which belongs to the Temple treasury, regardless of whether the latter was the ox that gored or the ox that was gored.

ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability. But with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, regardless of whether the goring ox was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

GEMARA: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, or a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability, as it is stated: โ€œThe ox of another,โ€ indicating: But not a consecrated ox. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: With regard to a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืืžืจื™ ืžืื™ ืงื ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื™ ืจืขื”ื• ื“ื•ืงื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืคื˜ืจ ื•ืื™ ืจืขื”ื• ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ื ื’ื— ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืœื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Sages said: What does Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya hold? Why does he distinguish between a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox and a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox? If the phrase โ€œof anotherโ€ is meant in a precise manner, then even with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox the owner of the belligerant ox should be exempt from liability, as the victim is not the ox of another, but belongs to the Temple treasury. And if the phrase โ€œof anotherโ€ is not meant in a precise manner, but rather, includes all oxen, then a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox should render the Temple treasury liable as well.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ื“ื•ืงื ื•ืžื™ื”ื• ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื›ื™ ื ื’ื— ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืžื” ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื ื’ื— ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

And if you would say that actually Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya holds that โ€œof anotherโ€ is meant in a precise manner, and accordingly, if a consecrated ox gores a non-sacred ox the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but nevertheless, when a non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, this is the reason its owner is liable: Because Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya infers it a fortiori from the case of a non-sacred ox, as follows: If in the case of a non-sacred ox that gores another non-sacred ox the owner of the belligerent ox is liable, is it not clear all the more so that when it gores a consecrated ox the owner of the ox is liable?

ื“ื™ื• ืœื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื›ื ื“ื•ืŸ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืชื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

If this is Rabbi Shimon ben Menasyaโ€™s reasoning, then his ruling that the owner of the ox pays the Temple treasury the full cost of the damage, whether his ox was innocuous or forewarned, is problematic, as it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the halakha of the source from which it is derived. Therefore, just as there, in a case where an individualโ€™s innocuous non-sacred ox gores another non-sacred ox, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage, here too, if an innocuous non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, its owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื›ืฉืคืจื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจืขื”ื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืชื ืจืขื”ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

Rather, Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasyaโ€™s reasoning is as follows: In principle, all cases of damage were included among those in which the owner pays the full cost of the damage. The halakha that in a case of an innocuous ox the owner pays only half the cost of the damage is an exception to the rule, and when the verse specified the term โ€œof anotherโ€ with regard to an innocuous ox, it intended that it is specifically when oneโ€™s innocuous ox gores the ox of another that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage. And by inference, if it gores a consecrated ox, whether the belligerent ox is innocuous or forewarned its owner pays the full cost of the 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 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 37

ืื™ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืคืจื•ื–ื‘ื•ืœ

do not require a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] by transferring the right of collection to the court. The reason that orphans do not require this document is because the court is legally considered to be their steward, and their debts are therefore transferred to the court automatically, even without a prosbol.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืคืจื•ื–ื‘ื•ืœ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•

Similarly, Rami bar แธคama taught: Orphans do not require a prosbol, as Rabban Gamliel and his court were tantamount to the fathers of orphans, as they were vigilant to collect all of the debts owed to orphans. Subsequently, the courts in every generation have this status.

ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ืชืงืข ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื ืžื›ื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ื” ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืฉืชืงื™ืœ ืœื™ื” ืชืงืข ืœื™ื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื” ื ื”ืœื™ื”

The Gemara relates: แธคanan the wicked slapped a certain man. He then came before Rav Huna for judgment. Rav Huna said to him: Go give him a half-dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an act. แธคanan the wicked had a clipped dinar, and wanted to give him a half-dinar from it, but there was no one who wanted to take it from him to give him smaller coins for it. แธคanan the wicked then gave him another slap, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of half a dinar, and gave him the clipped dinar as payment.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืžื™ื ื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืงื˜ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

MISHNA: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species, as it already gored other oxen three times, but is not forewarned with regard to other species; or an ox that is forewarned with regard to people, but is not forewarned with regard to animals; or one that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species; in all these cases, if the ox gores the type of animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื—ื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืื™ืžืชื™ ื”ื•ื ืชื ืžืฉื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช

When is it rendered innocuous again after being forewarned with regard to Shabbat? It reverts to its innocuous status when its behavior reverts to normal, i.e., when it refrains from goring for three days of Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat in three successive weeks.

ื’ืžืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ

GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Zevid said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, referring to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species, if it gores another species, its owner pays only half the cost of the damage. Rav Pappa said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species. Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that the fact that it is forewarned with regard to goring one species does not render it forewarned with regard to goring other species, until it is proven otherwise.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ื“ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara explains: Rav Zevid said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that it is referring specifically to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species. This implies that in an ordinary case, where there is no such proof, the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all species. Rav Pappa, by contrast, said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืจื™ืฉื

Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause of the mishna, whereas Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืงื˜ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื ืกืชืžื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause, as it teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species. Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all animals, this clause of the mishna teaches us that even from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, in an ordinary case the ox is thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species, which is a more far-reaching statement, as an ox is less likely to gore large animals.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, there is a difficulty with the latter clause of the mishna.

ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœืงื˜ื ื™ื ื“ืขืœืžื ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara explains: Now that it can be said that from being forewarned with regard to small oxen, in an ordinary case, the ox is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to small animals in general, need it be said that from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species it is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species? It must be that the mishna reads: But is not forewarned, indicating that only when the ox is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species and then it gores another species is its owner liable to pay only half the cost of the damage. Otherwise, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

ื•ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืคืจืฅ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื ื ืคืจืฅ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื˜ื ื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

And Rav Pappa could have said to you in response that even if the mishna reads: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, the latter clause is necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it breached the norm by attacking one of that species, it is considered to have breached the norm entirely with regard to that species, and there is no difference with regard to large members of the species and there is no difference with regard to small members of it, as the ox is now likely to gore any of them. Therefore, this clause of the mishna teaches us that it is not considered forewarned with regard to the large animals of that species.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ื™ื™ืง ืžืจื™ืฉื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืชื ืŸ ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื“ื ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื ืžื™ ืกืชืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

As stated previously, Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause of the mishna. As the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is not forewarned with regard to animals. Granted, if you say that we learned that the mishna states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, which would indicate that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, it is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then the mishna, in the next clause, teaches us this, that even from being forewarned with regard to people, in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals. The ox is considered innocuous with regard to animals, although it is more common for an ox to gore an animal than a person.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืื“ื ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

But if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case it is considered forewarned with regard to other species, then there is a difficulty with the following clause of the mishna. Now that it can be said that even from being forewarned with regard to one species of animal, in an ordinary case, it is thereby considered forewarned with regard to other species of animals, need it be said that from its being forewarned with regard to people it is also considered forewarned with regard to animals?

ื•ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื™ืฉื ืื—ื–ืจื” ืงืื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืงืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืชืœืชื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ื•ืœื ื ื’ื— ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžืื“ื ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืื• ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื™ื”ื ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื

And Rav Zevid could have said to you in response: The former clause in the mishna relates to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, i.e., a case where the ox was forewarned with regard to man and forewarned with regard to animals, and reverted to its innocuous status with regard to animals, as it stood in close proximity to an animal three times and did not gore. Lest you say that since it did not demonstratively revert to its innocuous behavior toward people, as it did not refrain from goring people, its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, the mishna teaches us that its reversal with regard to animals is nevertheless considered a reversal, and it no longer has the status of a forewarned ox with regard to goring animals.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืื“ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืœืื“ื ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Zevidโ€™s opinion from a baraita: Sumakhos says: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is considered forewarned with regard to animals, due to an a fortiori inference: If it is forewarned with regard to people, is it not clear all the more so that it is forewarned with regard to animals? The Gemara elaborates: By inference, the first tanna, i.e., the tanna of the mishna, is saying that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa.

ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื—ื–ืจื” ืงืื™ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืื• ื—ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืžืื“ื ื•ืžื” ืžืื“ื ืœื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid could have said to you that Sumakhosโ€™s statement can be interpreted as relating to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, and this is what he is saying to the first tanna: Contrary to what you are saying, that the oxโ€™s reversal with regard to animals is considered a reversal although it has not yet reversed its behavior toward people, I maintain that its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of an animal forewarned with regard to people: If the ox has not reverted to its innocuous behavior toward people, is it not clear all the more so that it has not truly reverted to its innocuous behavior toward animals?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear a proof for Rav Zevidโ€™s opinion from the mishna: The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื™ื•ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžืฉื™ื™ืœื™ [ืœื™ื”] ื•ื”ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืงืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืื’ืžื•ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžื’ืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืชื• ืื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื”ื•

Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches: But was not forewarned with regard to weekdays, they were asking him about the halakha in that case, and likewise, he was answering them with a ruling. But if you say that it teaches: This ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot is not forewarned with regard to weekdays, the mishna would be understood as saying that an ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbat is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays. Is it possible that the Sages were teaching him this halakha? And furthermore, what was he responding to them? They had already stated themselves that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื ืื™ ืžืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืช ืฉืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• [ืžืฉืœื] ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

Rav Yannai said: Rav Zevidโ€™s opinion can be inferred from the former clause of the mishna as well, as it teaches: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืงื ืžืคืจืฉ ืœื”

Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, this clause is explaining the halakha in that case, i.e., if the ox is forewarned only with regard to its species, its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage only if it gores another ox.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืคืกืงื” ืžืื™ ืชื• ืืช ืฉืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ืœื ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื”ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, and the halakha was already determined at the beginning of the mishna, namely, that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then what need is there for the mishna to further state: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage? Has the mishna not taught us until now that for an innocuous ox its owner pays half the cost of the damage and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage?

ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ืœื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื›ืœ

The Gemara comments: And even if you say that Rav Pappaโ€™s opinion, which says that an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, is accepted, nevertheless, if an ox gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, it is thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all of them. The ox is rendered forewarned with regard to all three species, regardless of the fact that it did not gore each individual species three times.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืกื™ืจื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื

ยง The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and subsequently saw another ox but did not gore it, again saw an ox and gored it and then saw an ox but did not gore it, and a third time saw an ox and gored it and saw an ox and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate oxen. The ox is considered forewarned with regard to goring every other ox that it sees and is considered innocuous with regard to the oxen in between. If it then gores two oxen in a row, the owner of the ox is liable for only half the cost of the damage for the second ox.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ื’ื— ื—ืžื•ืจ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืกื•ืก ื ื’ื— ื’ืžืœ ืœื ื ื’ื— ืคืจื“ ื ื’ื— ืขืจื•ื“ ืœื ื ื’ื— ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืกื™ืจื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืœื›ืœ

The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and then saw a donkey but did not gore it, and saw a horse and gored it, then saw a camel and did not gore it, and saw a mule and gored it, and then saw a wild donkey [arod] and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate animals of all species.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื ื’ื—

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox gored

ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื•ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืžื”ื•

an ox, another ox, and a third ox, and then a donkey and a camel, with regard to what is it considered forewarned?

ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืชืจื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืชืจื ื‘ืชืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™

The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this last ox that was gored together with the donkey and the camel, do we place it together with the previously gored oxen, and accordingly the belligerent ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas with regard to other species it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place this last ox together with the donkey and the camel, and it was rendered forewarned with regard to all of the species it gored.

ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื•ืจ ืžื”ื• ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืงืžื ื‘ืชืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื’ืžืœ ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœืžื™ื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื ืื™ื™ืขื“

The Gemara adds a similar dilemma: If an ox gored a donkey and a camel, and then an ox, an ox, and another ox, what is the halakha? The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this first ox that it gored, do we place it together with the camel and donkey, and the belligerent ox was accordingly rendered forewarned with regard to all species? Or perhaps we place it together with the two oxen that it gored afterward, and accordingly, it was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas it was not rendered forewarned with regard to other species.

ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžื”ื• ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืชืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ื•ืœ ืœื ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืชืจ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ื™ื•ืžื

Similarly, if it gored on Shabbat, on Shabbat, and on Shabbat, i.e., on three consecutive Shabbatot, and then on Sunday and on Monday, what is the halakha? With regard to this last Shabbat, do we place it together with the previous Shabbat, and the ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbat, whereas with regard to weekdays it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place it together with the goring on Sunday and Monday, and it was thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week.

ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืžื”ื• ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืชืจ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื™ืขื“ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื™ื•ืžื™ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืชืจ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“

If an ox gored on Thursday, and Friday, and Shabbat, and then the next Shabbat and the next Shabbat after that, what is the halakha? With regard to this first Shabbat, do we place it together with Thursday and Friday, and thereby hold that the ox was rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week? Or perhaps we place this first Shabbat together with the other Shabbatot, and the ox is rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbatot?

ืชื™ืงื•

These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

ื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ื™ื•ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ

ยง If an ox gored on the fifteenth day of this month, and subsequently gored on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and then on the seventeenth day of the month after that, the halakha is subject to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to a parallel discussion concerning a woman whose menstrual cycle begins on a different day each month.

ื“ืืชืžืจ ืจืืชื” ื™ื•ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืงื‘ืขื” ืœื” ื•ืกืช ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉืชืฉืœืฉ ื‘ื“ื™ืœื•ื’

As it was stated: If a woman saw menstrual blood on the fifteenth day of this month, and on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and on the seventeenth day of the month after that, Rav says: She has thereby established her menstrual cycle [veset], i.e., a month and one day. And Shmuel says: Her menstrual cycle is not established until she skips a day three times. According to Shmuel, the cycle is established in this case not by the date per se, but rather by the pattern of one additional day every month. Only when this occurs for three consecutive months, i.e., when she menstruates in the fourth month, is this pattern established.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืžืข ืงื•ืœ ืฉื•ืคืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ืงื•ืœ ืฉื•ืคืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ืงื•ืœ ืฉื•ืคืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ื ืขืฉื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื•ืคืจื•ืช

ยง Rava said: If an ox heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and again heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and a third time heard the sound of a shofar and gored, it is rendered forewarned with regard to the sound of shofarot.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ืš ืฉื•ืคืจ ืงืžื ืกื™ื•ื˜ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืงื˜ื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this first shofar merely startled [siyyuta] the ox, prompting it to gore, and that consequently it should not count for the purpose of rendering the ox forewarned, Rava teaches us that since the ox repeatedly gored upon hearing the sound of a shofar, this sound is considered a consistent impetus for its goring.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

MISHNA: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored a consecrated ox, and conversely, a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, i.e., an ox owned by a Jew, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if one manโ€™s ox hurts the ox of anotherโ€ (Exodus 21:35). It is derived from the phrase โ€œthe ox of anotherโ€ that one is liable only if it is a non-sacred ox, but not if it is a consecrated ox, which belongs to the Temple treasury, regardless of whether the latter was the ox that gored or the ox that was gored.

ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability. But with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, regardless of whether the goring ox was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

GEMARA: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, or a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability, as it is stated: โ€œThe ox of another,โ€ indicating: But not a consecrated ox. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: With regard to a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืืžืจื™ ืžืื™ ืงื ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื™ ืจืขื”ื• ื“ื•ืงื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืคื˜ืจ ื•ืื™ ืจืขื”ื• ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ื ื’ื— ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืœื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Sages said: What does Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya hold? Why does he distinguish between a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox and a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox? If the phrase โ€œof anotherโ€ is meant in a precise manner, then even with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox the owner of the belligerant ox should be exempt from liability, as the victim is not the ox of another, but belongs to the Temple treasury. And if the phrase โ€œof anotherโ€ is not meant in a precise manner, but rather, includes all oxen, then a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox should render the Temple treasury liable as well.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ื“ื•ืงื ื•ืžื™ื”ื• ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื›ื™ ื ื’ื— ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืžื” ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื ื’ื— ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

And if you would say that actually Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya holds that โ€œof anotherโ€ is meant in a precise manner, and accordingly, if a consecrated ox gores a non-sacred ox the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but nevertheless, when a non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, this is the reason its owner is liable: Because Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya infers it a fortiori from the case of a non-sacred ox, as follows: If in the case of a non-sacred ox that gores another non-sacred ox the owner of the belligerent ox is liable, is it not clear all the more so that when it gores a consecrated ox the owner of the ox is liable?

ื“ื™ื• ืœื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื›ื ื“ื•ืŸ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืชื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

If this is Rabbi Shimon ben Menasyaโ€™s reasoning, then his ruling that the owner of the ox pays the Temple treasury the full cost of the damage, whether his ox was innocuous or forewarned, is problematic, as it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the halakha of the source from which it is derived. Therefore, just as there, in a case where an individualโ€™s innocuous non-sacred ox gores another non-sacred ox, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage, here too, if an innocuous non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, its owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื›ืฉืคืจื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจืขื”ื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืชื ืจืขื”ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

Rather, Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasyaโ€™s reasoning is as follows: In principle, all cases of damage were included among those in which the owner pays the full cost of the damage. The halakha that in a case of an innocuous ox the owner pays only half the cost of the damage is an exception to the rule, and when the verse specified the term โ€œof anotherโ€ with regard to an innocuous ox, it intended that it is specifically when oneโ€™s innocuous ox gores the ox of another that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage. And by inference, if it gores a consecrated ox, whether the belligerent ox is innocuous or forewarned its owner pays the full cost of the damage.

Scroll To Top