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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 8, 2016 | 讘壮 讘转诪讜讝 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 38

If either the injured animal or the one that injures is hekdesh, there is no payment. 聽If the animal who is injured belongs to a Canaanite, there is no payment. 聽However if the reverse is true, the Caananite聽must pay. 聽The Meiri limits this halacha and explains that the聽Caananite聽reference in the mishna would not be applicable聽to non Jews in his day (and not in ours either). 聽The sources of these laws are derived from verses. 聽Does a non Jew get rewarded for learning Torah or keeping the seven Noahide laws? 聽 What is appropriate and not appropriate to be said to someone mourning a loss? 聽A difference of opinion is brought. 聽 A discussion of the merits of Amon and Moav is brought and what lesson can be learned from them. 聽How do we treat the Samaritans in terms of laws of damages – like non Jews or like Jews?


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

讚讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讛讗讬 专注讛讜 讙讘讬 诪讜注讚

Because if so, if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, let the verse write this phrase: 鈥淥f another,鈥 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.

砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 讗诪专讬 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 专注讛讜 讚讜拽讗 讚讙讜讬 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专 讜讗讬 专注讛讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讙讜讬 谞讞讬讬讘

搂 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鈥檚 ox gores a Jew鈥檚 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 鈥渙f another鈥 is meant in a precise manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, when a gentile鈥檚 ox gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt from liability. And if the phrase 鈥渙f another鈥 is not meant in a precise manner, then even when a Jew鈥檚 ox gores that of a gentile the owner of the belligerent ox should be liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讬转专 讙讜讬诐 专讗讛 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 砖拽讬讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘谞讬 谞讞 讻讬讜谉 砖诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 注诪讚 讜讛转讬专 诪诪讜谞谉 诇讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Abbahu said that the reason for this ruling is that the verse states: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [vayyatter]鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛讜驻讬注 诪讛专 驻讗专谉 诪驻讗专谉 讛讜驻讬注 诪诪讜谞诐 诇讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the source for this halakha is from here: It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: 鈥淭he Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; He appeared from Mount Paran鈥 (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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讬转专 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讛讜驻讬注 诪讛专 驻讗专谉

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: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.鈥 And another verse states: 鈥淗e appeared from Mount Paran.鈥

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: What is the reason the baraita adds: And another verse states, indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讛讜驻讬注 诪讛专 驻讗专谉 诪驻讗专谉 讛讜驻讬注 诪诪讜谞谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讛 专讗讛 专讗讛 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 砖谞爪讟讜讜 注诇讬讛谉 讘谞讬 谞讞 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜诐 注诪讚 讜讛讙诇讛 讗讜转诐 诪注诇 讗讚诪转诐

The Gemara explains that this is how the baraita is to be understood: And if you would say that this verse: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth鈥 is necessary to express that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef derived from the verse, come and hear another source: 鈥淗e appeared from Mount Paran,鈥 meaning: From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana鈥檚 exposition? It is as Rav Mattana says: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth.鈥 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.

讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讜讬转专 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讙诇讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬转专 讙讜讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诇谞转专 讘讛谉 注诇 讛讗专抓 讜诪转专讙诐 诇拽驻爪讗 讘讛讜谉 注诇 讗专注讗

And from where may it be inferred that this term vayyatter is a term of exile? It is written here: 鈥淎nd made the nations tremble [vayyatter]鈥 (Habakkuk 3:6), and it is written there: 鈥Lenatter upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:21), which is translated into Aramaic as: 鈥淭o leap upon the earth.鈥 Apparently, the root nun, tav, reish, common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another.

诪讗讬 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讛 专讗讛 专讗讛 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 砖拽讬讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘谞讬 谞讞 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜诐 注诪讚 讜讛转讬专谉 诇讛诐

What is Rav Yosef鈥檚 exposition? It is as Rav Yosef says: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth; He beheld.鈥 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.

讗讬转讙讜专讬 讗转讙专 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻专

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.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 讗转诐 讛讗讚诐 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗讚诐 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara asks: But do they not receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淲hich if a person does, he shall live by them鈥 (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.

讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬诐 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻专 讻诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 讗诇讗 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讛诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛

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 岣nina says: One who is commanded and performs a mitzva is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讘专 砖诇讞讛 诪诇讻讜转 专讜诪讬 砖谞讬 住专讚讬讜讟讜转 讗爪诇 讞讻诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讚讜谞讜 转讜专转讻诐 拽专讗讜 讜砖谞讜 讜砖诇砖讜 讘砖注转 驻讟讬专转谉 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讚拽讚拽谞讜 讘讻诇 转讜专转讻诐 讜讗诪转 讛讜讗 讞讜抓 诪讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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.

诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 专注讛讜 讚讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙讜讬 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讬驻讟专 讜讗讬 专注讛讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讙讜讬 诇讞讬讬讘 讜讚讘专 讝讛 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讗讜转讜 诇诪诇讻讜转

The officials鈥 reasoning was that this halakha is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase 鈥渙f another鈥 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 鈥渙f another鈥 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.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讻讬讘讗 诇讬讛 讘专转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇讗 拽讜诐 谞讬讝诇 谞讬谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬 讙讘讬 谞讞诪转讗 讚讘讘诇讗讬 讚讙讬讚讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬注讘讚 注讘讚讬

搂 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鈥檚 decree, they would do so, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.

讗讝诇 讛讜讗 诇讞讜讚讗讬 讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 (讗诇 诪砖讛) 讗诇 转爪专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻讬 诪讛 注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讞诪讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗诇讗 谞砖讗 诪砖讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 讜诪讛 诪讚讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讗讜 讗诇讗 诇注讝讜专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 爪专讜专 讗转 讛诪讚讬谞讬诐 讜讛讻讬转诐 讗讜转诐

Ulla therefore went to console Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda by himself, and said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:9). What entered Moses鈥檚 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: 鈥淗arass the Midianites and smite them鈥 (Numbers 25:17),

诪讜讗讘讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

with regard to the Moabites themselves, is it not clear all the more so that they should be attacked?

讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讗 讻砖注诇转讛 注诇 讚注转讱 注诇转讛 注诇 讚注转讬 砖转讬 驻专讬讚讜转 讟讜讘讜转 讬砖 诇讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 专讜转 讛诪讜讗讘讬讛 讜谞注诪讛 讛注诪讜谞讬转

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鈥檚 wife, from whom the continuation of that dynasty will emerge. For the sake of these women, the Moabites and Ammonites must not be destroyed.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讬 驻专讬讚讜转 讟讜讘讜转 讞住 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 砖转讬 讗讜诪讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 讜诇讗 讛讞专讬讘谉 讘转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诐 讻砖专讛 讛讬讗 讜专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 诇爪讗转 诪诪谞讛 讚讘专 讟讜讘 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讚讛讜讛 讞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪拽驻讞 砖讻专 讻诇 讘专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻专 砖讬讞讛 谞讗讛

搂 Having mentioned the Moabites and Ammonites, the Gemara cites that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻讬专讛 讚拽讗诪专讛 诪讜讗讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讗诇 转爪专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 诪诇讞诪讛 诪诇讞诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讗谞讙专讬讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讜

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: 鈥淒o not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle,鈥 indicating that specifically a full-fledged battle was not authorized but that the Jewish people could impose forced labor [angarya] on them.

爪注讬专讛 讚拽讗诪专讛 讘谉 注诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讜拽专讘转 诪讜诇 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 讗诇 转爪专诐 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 讻诇诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗谞讙专讬讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讘讛讜

By contrast, with regard to the descendants of the younger daughter, who said her son鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd when you come near against the children of Ammon, do not harass them, nor contend with them鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讬拽讚讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讘砖讘讬诇 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 砖拽讚诪转讛 讘讻讬专讛 诇爪注讬专讛 拽讚诪转讛 讗专讘注 讚讜专讜转 诇讬砖专讗诇 注讜讘讚 讬砖讬 讜讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛 讜讗讬诇讜 爪注讬专讛 注讚 专讞讘注诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诐 讗诪讜 谞注诪讛 讛注诪谞讬转

And with regard to the daughters of Lot, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 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鈥檚 son, was born, as it is written: 鈥淎nd his mother鈥檚 name was Naamah the Ammonite鈥 (I聽Kings 14:31).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讻讜转讬 驻讟讜专 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讻讜转讬 驻讟讜专 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛谉

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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讻诇 讛讻转诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪专拽诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讙专讬诐 讜讟讜注讬诐

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.

诪讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

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.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗诪转 讛诐

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 拽谞住 讛讜讗 砖拽谞住 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇讗 讬讟诪注讜 讘讛诐

Rabbi Abbahu says: They are true converts, and are therefore considered Jews by Torah law inasmuch as in the event that a Jew鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讛诪诪讝专转 讜注诇 讛谞转讬谞讛 讜注诇 讛讻讜转讬转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽谞住 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪诪讜谞诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞拽谞讜住 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讟诪注讜 讘讛谉

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讚讬

Abaye said: According to Rabbi Meir, the reason the Sages did not revoke this fine is in order

  • 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 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 38

讚讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讛讗讬 专注讛讜 讙讘讬 诪讜注讚

Because if so, if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, let the verse write this phrase: 鈥淥f another,鈥 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.

砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 讗诪专讬 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 专注讛讜 讚讜拽讗 讚讙讜讬 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专 讜讗讬 专注讛讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讙讜讬 谞讞讬讬讘

搂 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鈥檚 ox gores a Jew鈥檚 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 鈥渙f another鈥 is meant in a precise manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, when a gentile鈥檚 ox gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt from liability. And if the phrase 鈥渙f another鈥 is not meant in a precise manner, then even when a Jew鈥檚 ox gores that of a gentile the owner of the belligerent ox should be liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讬转专 讙讜讬诐 专讗讛 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 砖拽讬讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘谞讬 谞讞 讻讬讜谉 砖诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 注诪讚 讜讛转讬专 诪诪讜谞谉 诇讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Abbahu said that the reason for this ruling is that the verse states: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [vayyatter]鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛讜驻讬注 诪讛专 驻讗专谉 诪驻讗专谉 讛讜驻讬注 诪诪讜谞诐 诇讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the source for this halakha is from here: It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: 鈥淭he Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; He appeared from Mount Paran鈥 (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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讬转专 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讛讜驻讬注 诪讛专 驻讗专谉

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: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.鈥 And another verse states: 鈥淗e appeared from Mount Paran.鈥

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: What is the reason the baraita adds: And another verse states, indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讛讜驻讬注 诪讛专 驻讗专谉 诪驻讗专谉 讛讜驻讬注 诪诪讜谞谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讛 专讗讛 专讗讛 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 砖谞爪讟讜讜 注诇讬讛谉 讘谞讬 谞讞 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜诐 注诪讚 讜讛讙诇讛 讗讜转诐 诪注诇 讗讚诪转诐

The Gemara explains that this is how the baraita is to be understood: And if you would say that this verse: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth鈥 is necessary to express that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef derived from the verse, come and hear another source: 鈥淗e appeared from Mount Paran,鈥 meaning: From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana鈥檚 exposition? It is as Rav Mattana says: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth.鈥 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.

讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讜讬转专 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讙诇讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬转专 讙讜讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诇谞转专 讘讛谉 注诇 讛讗专抓 讜诪转专讙诐 诇拽驻爪讗 讘讛讜谉 注诇 讗专注讗

And from where may it be inferred that this term vayyatter is a term of exile? It is written here: 鈥淎nd made the nations tremble [vayyatter]鈥 (Habakkuk 3:6), and it is written there: 鈥Lenatter upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:21), which is translated into Aramaic as: 鈥淭o leap upon the earth.鈥 Apparently, the root nun, tav, reish, common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another.

诪讗讬 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注诪讚 讜讬诪讚讚 讗专抓 专讗讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讛 专讗讛 专讗讛 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 砖拽讬讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘谞讬 谞讞 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜诐 注诪讚 讜讛转讬专谉 诇讛诐

What is Rav Yosef鈥檚 exposition? It is as Rav Yosef says: 鈥淗e stood and shook the earth; He beheld.鈥 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.

讗讬转讙讜专讬 讗转讙专 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻专

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.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 讗转诐 讛讗讚诐 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗讚诐 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara asks: But do they not receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淲hich if a person does, he shall live by them鈥 (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.

讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬诐 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻专 讻诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 讗诇讗 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讛诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛

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 岣nina says: One who is commanded and performs a mitzva is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讘专 砖诇讞讛 诪诇讻讜转 专讜诪讬 砖谞讬 住专讚讬讜讟讜转 讗爪诇 讞讻诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讚讜谞讜 转讜专转讻诐 拽专讗讜 讜砖谞讜 讜砖诇砖讜 讘砖注转 驻讟讬专转谉 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讚拽讚拽谞讜 讘讻诇 转讜专转讻诐 讜讗诪转 讛讜讗 讞讜抓 诪讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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.

诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 专注讛讜 讚讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙讜讬 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讬驻讟专 讜讗讬 专注讛讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 谞讙讞 讚讙讜讬 诇讞讬讬讘 讜讚讘专 讝讛 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讗讜转讜 诇诪诇讻讜转

The officials鈥 reasoning was that this halakha is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase 鈥渙f another鈥 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 鈥渙f another鈥 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.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讻讬讘讗 诇讬讛 讘专转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇讗 拽讜诐 谞讬讝诇 谞讬谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬 讙讘讬 谞讞诪转讗 讚讘讘诇讗讬 讚讙讬讚讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬注讘讚 注讘讚讬

搂 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鈥檚 decree, they would do so, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.

讗讝诇 讛讜讗 诇讞讜讚讗讬 讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 (讗诇 诪砖讛) 讗诇 转爪专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻讬 诪讛 注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讞诪讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗诇讗 谞砖讗 诪砖讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 讜诪讛 诪讚讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讗讜 讗诇讗 诇注讝讜专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 爪专讜专 讗转 讛诪讚讬谞讬诐 讜讛讻讬转诐 讗讜转诐

Ulla therefore went to console Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda by himself, and said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:9). What entered Moses鈥檚 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: 鈥淗arass the Midianites and smite them鈥 (Numbers 25:17),

诪讜讗讘讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

with regard to the Moabites themselves, is it not clear all the more so that they should be attacked?

讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讗 讻砖注诇转讛 注诇 讚注转讱 注诇转讛 注诇 讚注转讬 砖转讬 驻专讬讚讜转 讟讜讘讜转 讬砖 诇讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 专讜转 讛诪讜讗讘讬讛 讜谞注诪讛 讛注诪讜谞讬转

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鈥檚 wife, from whom the continuation of that dynasty will emerge. For the sake of these women, the Moabites and Ammonites must not be destroyed.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讬 驻专讬讚讜转 讟讜讘讜转 讞住 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 砖转讬 讗讜诪讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 讜诇讗 讛讞专讬讘谉 讘转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诐 讻砖专讛 讛讬讗 讜专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 诇爪讗转 诪诪谞讛 讚讘专 讟讜讘 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讚讛讜讛 讞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪拽驻讞 砖讻专 讻诇 讘专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻专 砖讬讞讛 谞讗讛

搂 Having mentioned the Moabites and Ammonites, the Gemara cites that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻讬专讛 讚拽讗诪专讛 诪讜讗讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讗诇 转爪专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 诪诇讞诪讛 诪诇讞诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讗谞讙专讬讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讜

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: 鈥淒o not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle,鈥 indicating that specifically a full-fledged battle was not authorized but that the Jewish people could impose forced labor [angarya] on them.

爪注讬专讛 讚拽讗诪专讛 讘谉 注诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讜拽专讘转 诪讜诇 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 讗诇 转爪专诐 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 讻诇诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗谞讙专讬讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讘讛讜

By contrast, with regard to the descendants of the younger daughter, who said her son鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd when you come near against the children of Ammon, do not harass them, nor contend with them鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讬拽讚讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讘砖讘讬诇 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 砖拽讚诪转讛 讘讻讬专讛 诇爪注讬专讛 拽讚诪转讛 讗专讘注 讚讜专讜转 诇讬砖专讗诇 注讜讘讚 讬砖讬 讜讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛 讜讗讬诇讜 爪注讬专讛 注讚 专讞讘注诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诐 讗诪讜 谞注诪讛 讛注诪谞讬转

And with regard to the daughters of Lot, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 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鈥檚 son, was born, as it is written: 鈥淎nd his mother鈥檚 name was Naamah the Ammonite鈥 (I聽Kings 14:31).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讻讜转讬 驻讟讜专 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讻讜转讬 驻讟讜专 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛谉

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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讻诇 讛讻转诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪专拽诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讙专讬诐 讜讟讜注讬诐

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.

诪讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

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.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗诪转 讛诐

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 拽谞住 讛讜讗 砖拽谞住 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇讗 讬讟诪注讜 讘讛诐

Rabbi Abbahu says: They are true converts, and are therefore considered Jews by Torah law inasmuch as in the event that a Jew鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讛诪诪讝专转 讜注诇 讛谞转讬谞讛 讜注诇 讛讻讜转讬转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽谞住 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪诪讜谞诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞拽谞讜住 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讟诪注讜 讘讛谉

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讚讬

Abaye said: According to Rabbi Meir, the reason the Sages did not revoke this fine is in order

Scroll To Top