Bava Kamma 38
דְּאִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא לְהַאי ״רֵעֵהוּ״ גַּבֵּי מוּעָד.
Because if so, if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, let the verse write this phrase: “Of another,” with regard to the case of a forewarned ox. One could then infer that the owner is exempt from liability in the case of an innocuous ox as well, as the liability with regard to an innocuous ox is less severe than with regard to a forewarned ox. The stating of this exemption specifically in the context of an innocuous ox indicates that the exemption is only concerning the leniency stated in the verse, that if the gored ox belongs to another person, the owner of the belligerent ox is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.
שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר. אָמְרִי: מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי ״רֵעֵהוּ״ דַּוְקָא – דְּגוֹי כִּי נָגַח דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לִיפְּטַר! וְאִי ״רֵעֵהוּ״ לָאו דַּוְקָא – אֲפִילּוּ דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי נָגַח דְּגוֹי נִחַיַּיב!
§ The mishna teaches: 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; whereas if a gentile’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. The Sages said: This statement is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, when a gentile’s ox gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, then even when a Jew’s ox gores that of a gentile the owner of the belligerent ox should be liable.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״עָמַד וַיְמֹדֶד אֶרֶץ, רָאָה וַיַּתֵּר גּוֹיִם״ – רָאָה שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם בְּנֵי נֹחַ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא קִיְּימוּ – עָמַד וְהִתִּיר מָמוֹנָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
Rabbi Abbahu said that the reason for this ruling is that the verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [vayyatter]” (Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves to fulfill, and since they did not fulfill them, He arose and permitted [vehittir] their money to the Jewish people, so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to gentiles.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן״ – מִפָּארָן הוֹפִיעַ מָמוֹנָם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the source for this halakha is from here: It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: “The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; He appeared from Mount Paran” (Deuteronomy 33:2), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: From the time God came from Mount Paran, when giving the Torah, the money of the gentile nations appeared, i.e., it was revealed and granted to the Jewish people.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר. שׁוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עָמַד וַיְמֹדֶד אֶרֶץ, רָאָה וַיַּתֵּר גּוֹיִם״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן״.
This is also taught in a baraita: 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. By contrast, with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the belligerent ox pays the full cost of the damage, as it is stated: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.” And another verse states: “He appeared from Mount Paran.”
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״?
The Gemara asks: What is the reason the baraita adds: And another verse states, indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, הַאי ״עָמַד וַיְמֹדֶד אֶרֶץ״ – מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב מַתְנָה וְכִדְרַב יוֹסֵף, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן״ – מִפָּארָן הוֹפִיעַ מָמוֹנָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. מַאי דְּרַב מַתְנָה? דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: ״עָמַד וַיְמֹדֶד אֶרֶץ, רָאָה וְכוּ׳״. מָה רָאָה – רָאָה שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְלֹא קִיְּימוּם, עָמַד וְהִגְלָה אוֹתָם מֵעַל אַדְמָתָם.
The Gemara explains that this is how the baraita is to be understood: And if you would say that this verse: “He stood and shook the earth” is necessary to express that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef derived from the verse, come and hear another source: “He appeared from Mount Paran,” meaning: From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana’s exposition? It is as Rav Mattana says: “He stood and shook the earth.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah were commanded but did not fulfill, and He arose and exiled them from their land on account of their transgressions.
וּמַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״וַיַּתֵּר״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאִגַּלּוֹיֵי הוּא? כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיַּתֵּר גּוֹיִם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לְנַתֵּר בָּהֵן עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן: לְקַפָּצָא בְּהוֹן עַל אַרְעָא.
And from where may it be inferred that this term vayyatter is a term of exile? It is written here: “And made the nations tremble [vayyatter]” (Habakkuk 3:6), and it is written there: “Lenatter upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:21), which is translated into Aramaic as: “To leap upon the earth.” Apparently, the root nun, tav, reish, common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another.
מַאי דְּרַב יוֹסֵף? דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: ״עָמַד וַיְמֹדֶד אֶרֶץ, רָאָה וְכוּ׳״; מָה רָאָה? רָאָה שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְלֹא קִיְּימוּם, עָמַד וְהִתִּירָן לָהֶם.
What is Rav Yosef’s exposition? It is as Rav Yosef says: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves and did not fulfill, so He arose and permitted their prohibitions to them.
אִיתְּגוֹרֵי אִתְּגוּר?! אִם כֵּן, מָצִינוּ חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר! אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ מְקַיְּימִין אוֹתָן – אֵין מְקַבְּלִין עֲלֵיהֶן שָׂכָר.
The Gemara asks: Did they thereby profit, in that their prohibitions became permitted to them? If so, we have found a transgressor who is rewarded. Mar, son of Rabbana, says: This is not to say that for them to transgress their mitzvot is no longer a sin; rather, it is to say that even if they fulfill them, they do not receive reward for fulfilling them.
וְלָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה – שֶׁהוּא כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם, וָחַי בָּהֶם״ – ״כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״אָדָם״; הָא לָמַדְתָּ, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל!
The Gemara asks: But do they not receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah is considered like a High Priest? The verse states with regard to the mitzvot: “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Which if priests and Levites and Israelites do, they shall live by them, but rather: A person, indicating that all people are included. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.
אָמְרִי: אֵין מְקַבְּלִים עֲלֵיהֶן שָׂכָר כִּמְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה, אֶלָּא כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גָּדוֹל הַמְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה יוֹתֵר מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה.
The Sages said in response: Rav Yosef meant that they do not receive the reward as does one who is commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it, but as does one who is not commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it anyway. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who is commanded and performs a mitzva is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, וּכְבָר שָׁלְחָה מַלְכוּת רוֹמִי שְׁנֵי סְרַדְיוֹטוֹת אֵצֶל חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: לַמְּדוּנוּ תּוֹרַתְכֶם. קָרְאוּ וְשָׁנוּ וְשִׁלֵּשׁוּ. בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתָן אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: דִּקְדַּקְנוּ בְּכׇל תּוֹרַתְכֶם – וֶאֱמֶת הוּא; חוּץ מִדָּבָר זֶה שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים: שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר. שֶׁל גּוֹי שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
The Sages taught the following story in the context of the aforementioned halakha: And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [sardeyotot] to the Sages of Israel, and ordered them in the name of the king: Teach us your Torah. The officials read the Torah, and repeated it, and repeated it again, reading it for the third time. At the time of their departure, they said to the Sages: We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this one matter that you state, i.e., that with regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt from liability, whereas with regard to the ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי ״רֵעֵהוּ״ דַּוְקָא – אֲפִילּוּ דְּגוֹי כִּי נָגַח דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִיפְּטַר; וְאִי ״רֵעֵהוּ״ לָאו דַּוְקָא – אֲפִילּוּ דְיִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי נָגַח דְּגוֹי לִחַיַּיב! וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין אָנוּ מוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ לַמַּלְכוּת.
The officials’ reasoning was that this halakha is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, that the owners of both oxen must both be Jewish, then even when the ox of a gentile gores the ox of a Jew the owner of the ox should be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, and the oxen of all are included, then even when the ox of a Jew gores the ox of a gentile the owner should be liable. They added: But we will not inform this matter to the kingdom; having acknowledged that the entire Torah is true, we will not reveal this ruling, as it will displease the kingdom.
רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה שְׁכִיבָא לֵיהּ בְּרַתָּא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְעוּלָּא: קוּם נֵיזִל נִינַחֲמֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי אִית לִי גַּבֵּי נֶחָמְתָּא דְבַבְלָאֵי – דְּגִידּוּפָא הוּא? דְּאָמְרִי: ״מַאי אֶפְשָׁר לְמִיעְבַּד״; הָא אֶפְשָׁר לְמִיעְבַּד – עָבְדִי.
§ Incidentally, it is related that the daughter of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda died. The Sages said to Ulla: Arise; let us go console him. Ulla said to them: What business do I have with the consolation of Babylonians, which is actually heresy? As, they say while consoling mourners: What can be done? This seems to suggest that if it were possible to do something, acting against the Almighty’s decree, they would do so, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.
אֲזַל הוּא לְחוֹדֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ (אֶל מֹשֶׁה) אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה״; וְכִי מָה עָלָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, לַעֲשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת?! אֶלָּא נָשָׂא מֹשֶׁה קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמוֹ – אָמַר: וּמָה מִדְיָנִים שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ אֶלָּא לַעֲזוֹר אֶת מוֹאָב, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״צָרוֹר אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִים וְהִכִּיתֶם אוֹתָם״,
Ulla therefore went to console Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda by himself, and said to him: The verse states: “And the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” (Deuteronomy 2:9). What entered Moses’s mind, that God had to warn him not to undertake a particular action? Did it enter his mind to wage war with the Moabites without permission? Rather, Moses reasoned an a fortiori inference by himself, saying: And if with regard to the Midianites, who came only to help the Moabites harm the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 22), the Torah said: “Harass the Midianites and smite them” (Numbers 25:17),
מוֹאָבִים עַצְמָן לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
with regard to the Moabites themselves, is it not clear all the more so that they should be attacked?
אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: לֹא כְּשֶׁעָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתִּי, שְׁתֵּי פְּרִידוֹת טוֹבוֹת יֵשׁ לִי לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶן – רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה וְנַעֲמָה הָעַמּוֹנִית.
To counter this, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: That which has entered your mind has not entered Mine, because I have two virtuous fledglings [feridot], i.e., girls, to extract from them: Ruth the Moabite, who will be the foremother of the dynasty of David, and Naamah the Ammonite, Solomon’s wife, from whom the continuation of that dynasty will emerge. For the sake of these women, the Moabites and Ammonites must not be destroyed.
וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה בִּשְׁבִיל שְׁתֵּי פְּרִידוֹת טוֹבוֹת – חָס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל שְׁתֵּי אוּמּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת וְלֹא הֶחֱרִיבָן; בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי – אִם כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא וּרְאוּיָה הִיא לָצֵאת מִמֶּנָּה דָּבָר טוֹב, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה דַּהֲוָה חַיָּה.
Ulla continued: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If for the sake of two virtuous fledglings the Holy One, Blessed be He, had pity on two large nations and did not destroy them, then if the daughter of my teacher, Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, was righteous, and she had the potential for something good to emerge from her, it is all the more so clear that she would have lived.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַפֵּחַ שְׂכַר כׇּל בְּרִיָּה, אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכַר שִׂיחָה נָאָה.
§ Having mentioned the Moabites and Ammonites, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deprive any creature of its reward. He rewards every person for his good deeds, and provides reward even for using pleasant speech by using euphemisms.
דְּאִילּוּ בְּכִירָה דְּקָאָמְרָה ״מוֹאָב״, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה ״אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָם מִלְחָמָה״ – מִלְחָמָה הוּא דְּלָא, הָא אַנְגַּרְיָא עֲבֵיד בְּהוּ;
As with regard to the descendants of the elder of the two daughters of Lot, who said that the name of her son, whom she conceived with her father, would be Moab, meaning: From father, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: “Do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle,” indicating that specifically a full-fledged battle was not authorized but that the Jewish people could impose forced labor [angarya] on them.
צְעִירָה דְּקָאָמְרָה ״בֶּן עַמִּי״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה: ״וְקָרַבְתָּ מוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, אַל תְּצֻרֵם וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם״ – כְּלָל, דַּאֲפִילּוּ אַנְגַּרְיָא לָא תַּעֲבֵיד בְּהוּ.
By contrast, with regard to the descendants of the younger daughter, who said her son’s name would be ben Ami, meaning: Son of my nation, merely alluding to the fact she conceived him through an incestuous union, the Holy One, Blessed be He said to Moses: “And when you come near against the children of Ammon, do not harass them, nor contend with them” (Deuteronomy 2:19). In other words, do not contend with them at all; do not even impose forced labor on them. This additional prohibition was a reward for her employing a euphemism when naming her son.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁבִּשְׁבִיל לַיְלָה אַחַת שֶׁקְּדָמַתָּה בְּכִירָה לִצְעִירָה – קְדָמַתָּה אַרְבַּע דּוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: עוֹבֵד, יִשַׁי, וְדָוִד, וּשְׁלֹמֹה; וְאִילּוּ צְעִירָה – עַד רְחַבְעָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ נַעֲמָה הָעַמֹּנִית״.
And with regard to the daughters of Lot, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person should always hasten to perform a mitzva, as due to the one night by which the elder daughter of Lot preceded the younger daughter, with the intention of performing a mitzva by bringing children into the world, she preceded her by four generations in having her descendants enter into the Jewish people. They are: Obed, son of Ruth the Moabite, Yishai, David, and Solomon. Whereas, the descendants of the younger daughter did not join the Jewish people until Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, was born, as it is written: “And his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonite” (I Kings 14:31).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל כּוּתִי – פָּטוּר; וְשֶׁל כּוּתִי שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to the ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a Samaritan, the owner is exempt from liability. But with regard to the ox of a Samaritan that gored the ox of a Jew, if the Samaritan’s ox was innocuous he pays half the cost of the damage, and if it was forewarned, he pays the full cost of the damage. Accordingly, the halakha with regard to Samaritans is not identical to that of a gentile, who is liable to pay the full cost of the damage even for the act of an innocuous ox.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל כּוּתִי – פָּטוּר. וְשֶׁל כּוּתִי שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
Rabbi Meir says: With regard to the ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a Samaritan, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability. And with regard to the ox of a Samaritan that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, like a gentile.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כּוּתִים גֵּרֵי אֲרָיוֹת הֵן?
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Meir holds that Samaritans are converts who had converted due to fear of lions, i.e., the original conversion of the Samaritans was under duress and consequently meaningless, and therefore he assigns to them the same status as gentiles with regard to liability for damages?
ורְמִינְהִי: כׇּל הַכְּתָמִים הַבָּאִים מֵרְקָם – טְהוֹרִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַמֵּא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גֵּרִים וְטוֹעִים.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this suggestion from a mishna (Nidda 56b): All bloodstained clothes, presumably from menstrual blood, that come from the city of Rekem are ritually pure, since most of the residents there are gentiles, and the bloodstains of gentile women are not ritually impure. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda deems them impure because, in his opinion, the inhabitants of Rekem are converts who are mistaken, i.e., they converted, and they do not observe the mitzvot because they have forgotten Judaism. He holds that since they are halakhically Jewish, their blood is ritually impure.
מִבֵּין הַגּוֹיִם – טְהוֹרִים. מִבֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא; וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין – שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן.
Bloodstained clothes that come from among gentiles are considered pure. With regard to bloodstained clothes that come from among Jews or from among Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as he suspects them of not taking care to keep impure clothes out of the public domain. And the Rabbis deem them pure, as Jews and Samaritans are not suspected of not being careful about their bloodstains.
אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר כּוּתִים גֵּרֵי אֱמֶת הֵם!
Apparently, Rabbi Meir holds that Samaritans are true converts; otherwise the halakha concerning them would be the same as for gentiles, whose bloodstains are not impure at all. This being the case, why does Rabbi Meir regard them as gentiles with regard to liability to pay damages?
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: קְנָס הוּא שֶׁקָּנַס רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמָמוֹנָם, שֶׁלֹּא יִטָּמְעוּ בָּהֶם.
Rabbi Abbahu says: They are true converts, and are therefore considered Jews by Torah law inasmuch as in the event that a Jew’s ox causes damage to them, the owner of the ox is liable to pay damages, and if an innocuous ox belonging to them gores a Jew’s ox, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir imposed a monetary fine on them, giving them the status of gentiles, so that Jews would not assimilate with them.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְאֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם קְנָס – הַבָּא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת, וְעַל הַנְּתִינָה, וְעַל הַכּוּתִית. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קָנַס רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמָמוֹנָם, הָכִי נָמֵי נִקְנוֹס, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטָּמְעוּ בָּהֶן!
Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this answer from a mishna (Ketubot 29a): And these are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them. Not only is one who rapes a Jewish young woman of unflawed lineage liable to pay this fine, but so is one who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret, or with a female Gibeonite, or with a female Samaritan. Rabbi Zeira states his objection: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Meir imposed a monetary fine on them to render them like gentiles, so too, let us fine a female Samaritan who is raped, by rendering her ineligible to receive the fine for rape, so that people will not consider them regular Jews and will not assimilate with them.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּדֵי
Abaye said: According to Rabbi Meir, the reason the Sages did not revoke this fine is in order
