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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 5, 2016 | 讻状讞 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 5

Study Guide Bava Kamma 5. The gemara compares different lists compiled by tanaim about damages – each lists includes additional items. 聽The gemara discusses why one didn’t include what the other included. 聽 The gemara then goes back to our mishna which compared the 4 nezikin and discusses further differences between the categories and why it was necessary to have a separate listing for each one (both in the mishna and in the Torah itself, upon which the mishna was based). 聽See attached sheet for charts that highlight the differences in categorization and the differences in halacha between them.


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

注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬转谞讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to the payment made by conspiring witnesses, which is categorized as monetary restitution, as the witnesses pay the precise sum that they conspired to cause the defendant to lose, let Rabbi Oshaya also teach it as one of the categories on his list. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that conspiring witnesses do not pay on the basis of their own admission. Evidently, theirs is not a payment of monetary restitution; rather, it is a fine, as only one who was found liable based on the testimony of witnesses pays a fine, not one who was found liable based on his own admission.

讗讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讬转谞讬 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 砖讜专 诇讬转谞讬 砖讜专 讚讗讝讬拽 砖讜专 讜诇讬转谞讬 砖讜专 讚讗讝讬拽 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Oshaya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, let him teach two distinct types of categories of damage under the rubric of Ox: Let him teach one category for an ox that damages an ox or other property belonging to another person, and let him also teach the case of an ox that injures a person.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

The Gemara explains its question: As we learned in a mishna (33a): In a case where the two parties damaged each other concurrently, Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of the innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference between the damage caused by his ox and the damage that the person caused the ox. Rabbi Akiva holds that if an innocuous ox injures a person, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, whereas if an innocuous ox damages another鈥檚 property then the owner is liable only for half the cost of the damage. Since the owner鈥檚 liability in the two cases is different, each case should be classified as a distinct category, and Rabbi Oshaya should list them separately in his baraita.

讛讗 转讘专讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讝讬讝讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 讬砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬注砖讛 诇讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva break the force of his fist [gezizeih], i.e., he significantly tempered the force of his statement, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that even in the case of an innocuous ox that injured a person, the owner of the ox would pay from his superior-quality property and not merely from the body of his animal, as in the case of an innocuous ox that damages property; therefore, the verse states with regard to an ox that gores a person: 鈥淎ccording to this judgment shall it be done to him鈥 (Exodus 21:31), from which it is derived that the owner of the ox pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his ox, and he does not pay from his superior-quality property. The mishna states that one pays restitution from his superior-quality property in instances of all primary categories of damage. Since in the case of an innocuous ox that injured a person even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the owner does not pay from his superior-quality property, it should not be included in a list of the primary categories.

讛讗讜谞住 讜讛诪驻转讛 讜讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬转谞讬

The Gemara asks: As for the rapist, and the seducer, and the defamer, all of which are cases in which the offender pays monetary restitution, let Rabbi Oshaya teach them as categories in his list.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 谞讝拽 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 爪注专 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘砖转 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 驻讙诐 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讝拽 诪讛 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 拽谞住讗 讘拽谞住讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara explains why Rabbi Oshaya did not teach them as separate categories: Whichever way you look at it, they should not be listed. If the payments listed by Rabbi 岣yya are for damage caused to the woman鈥檚 body, which reduces her value, he already taught it; if the payments are for pain, he already taught it; if the payments are for humiliation, he already taught it; if the payment is for degradation, that too is a payment for damage, which he already taught. What, then, have you to say? What is the nature of the payments paid by the rapist and the seducer mentioned by Rabbi 岣yya? In these cases, each payment paid is considered a fine [kenasa], and as explained, with regard to cases in which one is liable to pay a fine, Rabbi Oshaya does not speak.

讛诪讟诪讗 讜讛诪讚诪注 讜讛诪谞住讱 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬转谞讬

The Gemara asks further: And one who causes another鈥檚 teruma to become ritually impure, and one who mixes teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred food, and one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idolatry, each of which is a case in which the offender must pay monetary restitution to compensate the owner for his loss due to the lowered value of his food or wine, let Rabbi Oshaya teach them as categories in his list.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讝拽 讗讬 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽谞住讗 讜讘拽谞住讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara answers: Whichever way you look at it, these cases should not be listed. If Rabbi Oshaya holds that damage that is not evident, i.e., where the object is physically unchanged but its halakhic status is changed, is characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, Rabbi Oshaya already taught, i.e., included in his list, restitution for damage, and if he holds that damage that is not evident is not characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, then it is a fine, and, as explained, with regard to cases for which one is liable to pay a fine, Rabbi Oshaya does not speak.

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讚讗讬 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讝拽 转谞讗 讛讬讝拽讗 讚诪讬谞讻专讗 讜转谞讗 讛讬讝拽讗 讚诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗

The Gemara suggests: Since Rabbi 岣yya lists these cases as distinct categories, let us say that Rabbi 岣yya holds that damage that is not evident is not characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, as, if it were characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, didn鈥檛 he already teach, i.e., include in his list, restitution for damage? The Gemara rejects that suggestion: Even if he holds that damage that is evident is characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, he distinguishes between different types of damage. He teaches cases of damage that is evident and he teaches cases of damage that is not evident.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 转谞讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转谞讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara considers the fact that each of the lists of primary categories is introduced with the number that they total: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, he taught the number of four primary categories in introducing his list to exclude those additional categories of Rabbi Oshaya. And similarly, Rabbi Oshaya taught the number of thirteen primary categories to exclude those additional categories of Rabbi 岣yya. But what does the number of twenty-four primary categories of Rabbi 岣yya serve to exclude?

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讜住专 讜诪驻讙诇

The Gemara answers: He taught that number in order to exclude the cases of an informer, who provides information to the authorities leading them to confiscate another person鈥檚 property; and to exclude the case of a priest who renders an offering piggul by performing the sacrificial rites for one offering with the intent to sacrifice it for the sake of another offering, in which case the person who brought the offering must replace it with another.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诪驻讙诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讗诇讗 诪讜住专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讜住专 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讜讘讚讬讘讜专讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi 岣yya teach these cases. Granted, he did not include the case of a priest who renders an offering piggul. Perhaps, with regard to cases involving consecrated items, Rabbi 岣yya does not speak. But with regard to the case of an informer, what is the reason Rabbi 岣yya did not teach it and include it in his list of categories? The Gemara answers: The case of an informer is different, as the damage is caused through speech, and with regard to damage caused through speech, Rabbi 岣yya does not speak.

讜讛讗 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the case of a defamer, where the damage is caused through speech, and yet Rabbi 岣yya teaches it and includes it in his list? The Gemara answers: He includes that case because it is a case of speech that involves an action. One who defames his wife is liable only if he made his allegation after engaging in intercourse with her.

讜讛讗 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讚讬讘讜专讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 专讞诪谞讗 拽专讬讬讛 诪注砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the case of conspiring witnesses a case of speech that involves no action, as they are liable for their testimony, and Rabbi 岣yya teaches it and includes it in his list? The Gemara answers: There, although it involves no action, the Merciful One characterizes it as an action, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do unto his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19).

讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 转谞讗 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

The Gemara considers the subcategories of the various primary categories listed: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, his terminology is understandable, as he taught primary categories, which, by inference, means that there are also additional forms of damage that are subcategories of those primary categories. But according to Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya, why did they employ the terminology they employed? They employed the term primary categories, which, by inference, means that there are subcategories. What are the subcategories of the primary categories they listed? It appears that they enumerated all the various categories of damage.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讻讗讘讜转 诇砖诇诐 诪诪讬讟讘

Rabbi Abbahu says: When Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya characterize, as primary categories, the various categories of damage that they listed, it is not to indicate that there are subcategories; rather, it is to indicate that all of them are characterized as primary categories, in the sense that one is liable to pay from one鈥檚 best-quality property.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗转讬讗 转讞转 谞转讬谞讛 讬砖诇诐 讻住祝

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this, i.e., from where is it derived? The Gemara explains: It is derived using a verbal analogy from the terms 鈥渋n place of,鈥 鈥済iving,鈥 鈥渉e shall pay,鈥 and 鈥渕oney.鈥 The term 鈥渋n place of鈥 is written with regard to a forewarned ox that gores (Exodus 21:36); 鈥渉e shall give鈥 is written with regard to an ox that kills a slave (Exodus 21:32); 鈥渉e shall pay鈥 is written with regard to the categories of damage of Eating and Trampling (Exodus 22:4); and 鈥渕oney鈥 is written with regard to Pit (Exodus 21:34). The halakha that one must pay from his best-quality property is stated explicitly in each of those four verses. In each of the twenty-four categories listed by Rabbi 岣yya one of those four terms is written, so by means of a verbal analogy, the requirement to pay from one鈥檚 best-quality property applies to each of them.

诇讗 讛专讬 讛砖讜专 讻讛专讬 讛诪讘注讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讜转讬转讬 讗讬讚讱 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗

搂 The mishna states: The defining characteristic of the primary category of Ox is not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Maveh. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that this is what the mishna is saying: Let the Merciful One write one of the primary categories and derive the other categories from it. Then the tanna says: It is not possible to derive one category from one other category, as each category has its unique characteristics.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

The mishna continues: And the defining characteristics of this category of Ox and that category of Maveh, in which there is a living spirit, are not similar to the defining characteristic of the category of Fire, in which there is no living spirit. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying? Rav Mesharshiyya said in the name of Rava that this is what the tanna is saying:

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 转专转讬 讜转讬转讬 讗讬讚讱 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讚专 讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬 诇讗 讗转讬

Let the Merciful One write only two of the primary categories and derive the other categories from them. Then the tanna says: It is not possible to derive one category from two other categories, as each category has its own unique characteristics, which prevent the derivation of a new category even from a combination of two categories.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讻讬 砖讚讬转 讘讜专 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讬讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讘诪讛 讛爪讚 诇讘专 诪拽专谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讻讜诇讛讜 砖讻谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉

Rava said: And with regard to all of the primary categories in the mishna, when you cast the primary category of Pit among them, all of the rest of them can then be derived through an analogy based on the common factor of two categories. This is the case with all of the categories except for Goring, due to the fact that there is room to refute the analogy to teach the halakha of Goring with the following contention: What is notable about all of the other categories? They are notable in that they are forewarned from their outset. Since it is the typical manner of the animal to trample and eat, and the typical manner of fire to burn, and the typical manner of a pit to serve as an obstacle, the owner is always forewarned with regard to safeguarding against damage and is liable to pay full damages for his failure to prevent the damage even the first time. With regard to Goring, the animal is innocuous for the first three instances of damage and only thereafter is the animal forewarned, rendering its owner liable to pay full damages.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讚专讘讛 拽专谉 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专谉 谞诪讬 讗转讬讗

And according to the one who says: On the contrary, Goring is superior in the sense that one鈥檚 liability in a case of Goring is more apparent, as the objective of the ox鈥檚 action is to cause damage, even Goring can be derived from the common factor of two sources.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛诇讻讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: But if all the categories can be derived from another category and Pit, for the purpose of deriving what halakha did the Merciful One write all the primary categories explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is in order to derive their unique halakhot that apply exclusively to each category.

拽专谉 诇讞诇拽 讘讬谉 转诪讛 诇诪讜注讚转

Goring is written explicitly in order to distinguish between the halakhot of damage caused by an innocuous animal and damage caused by a forewarned animal.

砖谉 讜专讙诇 诇驻讜讟专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Eating and Trampling are written explicitly in order to exempt from liability those whose animals perform the actions in these categories in a public domain.

讘讜专 诇驻讟讜专 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讘讜专 诇驻讟讜专 讘讜 讗转 讛讗讚诐

Pit is written explicitly in order to exempt one from liability for damage to vessels caused when they fall into a pit. The Gemara adds: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable even for damage to vessels caused when they fall into a pit, Pit was written in order to exempt one from liability for the death of a person who was killed by falling into a pit. Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the possessor of the pit is exempt because the person who ultimately fell into the pit was capable of avoiding it.

讗讚诐 诇讞讬讬讘讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

Man is written explicitly in order to render him liable for four additional types of indemnity, beyond the payment of damages for the diminution in value caused when one injures a person.

讗砖 诇驻讟讜专 讘讜 讗转 讛讟诪讜谉 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

Fire is written explicitly in order to exempt one from liability for damage caused to a concealed object, e.g., one hidden by grain, that was consumed by fire. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable even for damage done to a concealed object damaged by fire, to add what halakha does the Torah mention the category of Fire explicitly?

  • 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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 5

注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬转谞讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to the payment made by conspiring witnesses, which is categorized as monetary restitution, as the witnesses pay the precise sum that they conspired to cause the defendant to lose, let Rabbi Oshaya also teach it as one of the categories on his list. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that conspiring witnesses do not pay on the basis of their own admission. Evidently, theirs is not a payment of monetary restitution; rather, it is a fine, as only one who was found liable based on the testimony of witnesses pays a fine, not one who was found liable based on his own admission.

讗讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讬转谞讬 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 砖讜专 诇讬转谞讬 砖讜专 讚讗讝讬拽 砖讜专 讜诇讬转谞讬 砖讜专 讚讗讝讬拽 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Oshaya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, let him teach two distinct types of categories of damage under the rubric of Ox: Let him teach one category for an ox that damages an ox or other property belonging to another person, and let him also teach the case of an ox that injures a person.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

The Gemara explains its question: As we learned in a mishna (33a): In a case where the two parties damaged each other concurrently, Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of the innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference between the damage caused by his ox and the damage that the person caused the ox. Rabbi Akiva holds that if an innocuous ox injures a person, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, whereas if an innocuous ox damages another鈥檚 property then the owner is liable only for half the cost of the damage. Since the owner鈥檚 liability in the two cases is different, each case should be classified as a distinct category, and Rabbi Oshaya should list them separately in his baraita.

讛讗 转讘专讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讝讬讝讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 讬砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬注砖讛 诇讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva break the force of his fist [gezizeih], i.e., he significantly tempered the force of his statement, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that even in the case of an innocuous ox that injured a person, the owner of the ox would pay from his superior-quality property and not merely from the body of his animal, as in the case of an innocuous ox that damages property; therefore, the verse states with regard to an ox that gores a person: 鈥淎ccording to this judgment shall it be done to him鈥 (Exodus 21:31), from which it is derived that the owner of the ox pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his ox, and he does not pay from his superior-quality property. The mishna states that one pays restitution from his superior-quality property in instances of all primary categories of damage. Since in the case of an innocuous ox that injured a person even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the owner does not pay from his superior-quality property, it should not be included in a list of the primary categories.

讛讗讜谞住 讜讛诪驻转讛 讜讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬转谞讬

The Gemara asks: As for the rapist, and the seducer, and the defamer, all of which are cases in which the offender pays monetary restitution, let Rabbi Oshaya teach them as categories in his list.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 谞讝拽 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 爪注专 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘砖转 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 驻讙诐 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讝拽 诪讛 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 拽谞住讗 讘拽谞住讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara explains why Rabbi Oshaya did not teach them as separate categories: Whichever way you look at it, they should not be listed. If the payments listed by Rabbi 岣yya are for damage caused to the woman鈥檚 body, which reduces her value, he already taught it; if the payments are for pain, he already taught it; if the payments are for humiliation, he already taught it; if the payment is for degradation, that too is a payment for damage, which he already taught. What, then, have you to say? What is the nature of the payments paid by the rapist and the seducer mentioned by Rabbi 岣yya? In these cases, each payment paid is considered a fine [kenasa], and as explained, with regard to cases in which one is liable to pay a fine, Rabbi Oshaya does not speak.

讛诪讟诪讗 讜讛诪讚诪注 讜讛诪谞住讱 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬转谞讬

The Gemara asks further: And one who causes another鈥檚 teruma to become ritually impure, and one who mixes teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred food, and one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idolatry, each of which is a case in which the offender must pay monetary restitution to compensate the owner for his loss due to the lowered value of his food or wine, let Rabbi Oshaya teach them as categories in his list.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讝拽 讗讬 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽谞住讗 讜讘拽谞住讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara answers: Whichever way you look at it, these cases should not be listed. If Rabbi Oshaya holds that damage that is not evident, i.e., where the object is physically unchanged but its halakhic status is changed, is characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, Rabbi Oshaya already taught, i.e., included in his list, restitution for damage, and if he holds that damage that is not evident is not characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, then it is a fine, and, as explained, with regard to cases for which one is liable to pay a fine, Rabbi Oshaya does not speak.

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讚讗讬 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讝拽 转谞讗 讛讬讝拽讗 讚诪讬谞讻专讗 讜转谞讗 讛讬讝拽讗 讚诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗

The Gemara suggests: Since Rabbi 岣yya lists these cases as distinct categories, let us say that Rabbi 岣yya holds that damage that is not evident is not characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, as, if it were characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, didn鈥檛 he already teach, i.e., include in his list, restitution for damage? The Gemara rejects that suggestion: Even if he holds that damage that is evident is characterized as damage for which one is liable to pay restitution, he distinguishes between different types of damage. He teaches cases of damage that is evident and he teaches cases of damage that is not evident.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 转谞讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转谞讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara considers the fact that each of the lists of primary categories is introduced with the number that they total: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, he taught the number of four primary categories in introducing his list to exclude those additional categories of Rabbi Oshaya. And similarly, Rabbi Oshaya taught the number of thirteen primary categories to exclude those additional categories of Rabbi 岣yya. But what does the number of twenty-four primary categories of Rabbi 岣yya serve to exclude?

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讜住专 讜诪驻讙诇

The Gemara answers: He taught that number in order to exclude the cases of an informer, who provides information to the authorities leading them to confiscate another person鈥檚 property; and to exclude the case of a priest who renders an offering piggul by performing the sacrificial rites for one offering with the intent to sacrifice it for the sake of another offering, in which case the person who brought the offering must replace it with another.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诪驻讙诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讗诇讗 诪讜住专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讜住专 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讜讘讚讬讘讜专讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi 岣yya teach these cases. Granted, he did not include the case of a priest who renders an offering piggul. Perhaps, with regard to cases involving consecrated items, Rabbi 岣yya does not speak. But with regard to the case of an informer, what is the reason Rabbi 岣yya did not teach it and include it in his list of categories? The Gemara answers: The case of an informer is different, as the damage is caused through speech, and with regard to damage caused through speech, Rabbi 岣yya does not speak.

讜讛讗 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the case of a defamer, where the damage is caused through speech, and yet Rabbi 岣yya teaches it and includes it in his list? The Gemara answers: He includes that case because it is a case of speech that involves an action. One who defames his wife is liable only if he made his allegation after engaging in intercourse with her.

讜讛讗 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讚讬讘讜专讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 专讞诪谞讗 拽专讬讬讛 诪注砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the case of conspiring witnesses a case of speech that involves no action, as they are liable for their testimony, and Rabbi 岣yya teaches it and includes it in his list? The Gemara answers: There, although it involves no action, the Merciful One characterizes it as an action, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do unto his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19).

讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 转谞讗 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讘讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜诇讚讜转 转讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

The Gemara considers the subcategories of the various primary categories listed: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, his terminology is understandable, as he taught primary categories, which, by inference, means that there are also additional forms of damage that are subcategories of those primary categories. But according to Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya, why did they employ the terminology they employed? They employed the term primary categories, which, by inference, means that there are subcategories. What are the subcategories of the primary categories they listed? It appears that they enumerated all the various categories of damage.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讻讗讘讜转 诇砖诇诐 诪诪讬讟讘

Rabbi Abbahu says: When Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya characterize, as primary categories, the various categories of damage that they listed, it is not to indicate that there are subcategories; rather, it is to indicate that all of them are characterized as primary categories, in the sense that one is liable to pay from one鈥檚 best-quality property.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗转讬讗 转讞转 谞转讬谞讛 讬砖诇诐 讻住祝

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this, i.e., from where is it derived? The Gemara explains: It is derived using a verbal analogy from the terms 鈥渋n place of,鈥 鈥済iving,鈥 鈥渉e shall pay,鈥 and 鈥渕oney.鈥 The term 鈥渋n place of鈥 is written with regard to a forewarned ox that gores (Exodus 21:36); 鈥渉e shall give鈥 is written with regard to an ox that kills a slave (Exodus 21:32); 鈥渉e shall pay鈥 is written with regard to the categories of damage of Eating and Trampling (Exodus 22:4); and 鈥渕oney鈥 is written with regard to Pit (Exodus 21:34). The halakha that one must pay from his best-quality property is stated explicitly in each of those four verses. In each of the twenty-four categories listed by Rabbi 岣yya one of those four terms is written, so by means of a verbal analogy, the requirement to pay from one鈥檚 best-quality property applies to each of them.

诇讗 讛专讬 讛砖讜专 讻讛专讬 讛诪讘注讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讜转讬转讬 讗讬讚讱 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗

搂 The mishna states: The defining characteristic of the primary category of Ox is not similar to the defining characteristic of the primary category of Maveh. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that this is what the mishna is saying: Let the Merciful One write one of the primary categories and derive the other categories from it. Then the tanna says: It is not possible to derive one category from one other category, as each category has its unique characteristics.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

The mishna continues: And the defining characteristics of this category of Ox and that category of Maveh, in which there is a living spirit, are not similar to the defining characteristic of the category of Fire, in which there is no living spirit. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying? Rav Mesharshiyya said in the name of Rava that this is what the tanna is saying:

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 转专转讬 讜转讬转讬 讗讬讚讱 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讚专 讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬 诇讗 讗转讬

Let the Merciful One write only two of the primary categories and derive the other categories from them. Then the tanna says: It is not possible to derive one category from two other categories, as each category has its own unique characteristics, which prevent the derivation of a new category even from a combination of two categories.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讻讬 砖讚讬转 讘讜专 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讬讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讘诪讛 讛爪讚 诇讘专 诪拽专谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讻讜诇讛讜 砖讻谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪转讞讬诇转谉

Rava said: And with regard to all of the primary categories in the mishna, when you cast the primary category of Pit among them, all of the rest of them can then be derived through an analogy based on the common factor of two categories. This is the case with all of the categories except for Goring, due to the fact that there is room to refute the analogy to teach the halakha of Goring with the following contention: What is notable about all of the other categories? They are notable in that they are forewarned from their outset. Since it is the typical manner of the animal to trample and eat, and the typical manner of fire to burn, and the typical manner of a pit to serve as an obstacle, the owner is always forewarned with regard to safeguarding against damage and is liable to pay full damages for his failure to prevent the damage even the first time. With regard to Goring, the animal is innocuous for the first three instances of damage and only thereafter is the animal forewarned, rendering its owner liable to pay full damages.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讚专讘讛 拽专谉 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专谉 谞诪讬 讗转讬讗

And according to the one who says: On the contrary, Goring is superior in the sense that one鈥檚 liability in a case of Goring is more apparent, as the objective of the ox鈥檚 action is to cause damage, even Goring can be derived from the common factor of two sources.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛诇讻讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: But if all the categories can be derived from another category and Pit, for the purpose of deriving what halakha did the Merciful One write all the primary categories explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is in order to derive their unique halakhot that apply exclusively to each category.

拽专谉 诇讞诇拽 讘讬谉 转诪讛 诇诪讜注讚转

Goring is written explicitly in order to distinguish between the halakhot of damage caused by an innocuous animal and damage caused by a forewarned animal.

砖谉 讜专讙诇 诇驻讜讟专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Eating and Trampling are written explicitly in order to exempt from liability those whose animals perform the actions in these categories in a public domain.

讘讜专 诇驻讟讜专 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讘讜专 诇驻讟讜专 讘讜 讗转 讛讗讚诐

Pit is written explicitly in order to exempt one from liability for damage to vessels caused when they fall into a pit. The Gemara adds: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable even for damage to vessels caused when they fall into a pit, Pit was written in order to exempt one from liability for the death of a person who was killed by falling into a pit. Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the possessor of the pit is exempt because the person who ultimately fell into the pit was capable of avoiding it.

讗讚诐 诇讞讬讬讘讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

Man is written explicitly in order to render him liable for four additional types of indemnity, beyond the payment of damages for the diminution in value caused when one injures a person.

讗砖 诇驻讟讜专 讘讜 讗转 讛讟诪讜谉 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

Fire is written explicitly in order to exempt one from liability for damage caused to a concealed object, e.g., one hidden by grain, that was consumed by fire. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable even for damage done to a concealed object damaged by fire, to add what halakha does the Torah mention the category of Fire explicitly?

Scroll To Top