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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 25, 2016 | 讬状讟 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 55

One difference between the wording of the ten commandments in the book of shmot and the book of devarim is discussed – why the word “good” appears in the context of the commandment to respect your parents appears only in devraim (“so that it will be good for you”). 聽From here, the gemara discusses things one sees in one’s dreams that are a sign of good things to come. 聽 The gemara then goes back to the topic discusses in the mishna about crossbreeding or coworking two animals that are from the same species but not the same type. 聽The sixth chapter begins with laws regarding one who watched his animal properly but the animal got out and ate of trampled a field. 聽The gemara connects it back to an argument we saw earlier about what level of watching is needed for an animal who gored three times shor muad – would the same apply here for eating an trampling as all animals are considered muad for that behavior as it is expected, or is there a difference?


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

谞讗诪专 讘讛诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 砖讗转讛 砖讜讗诇谞讬 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘讛诐 讟讜讘 砖讗诇谞讬 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讟讜讘 讗诐 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讟讜讘 讗诐 诇讗讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 砖讛讬讛 专讙讬诇 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讛讬讛 讘拽讬 讘讗讙讚讛

in the context of the mitzva to honor one鈥檚 parents, the word good is stated there: 鈥淚n order that it shall be good for you鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:16)? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to him: Before you ask me why the word good is stated, ask me if the word good is actually stated there or not, since I am not sufficiently proficient in my knowledge of the biblical verses to remember the precise wording, and I do not know if the word good is stated there or not. Go to Rabbi Tan岣m bar 岣nilai, who was commonly found at the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was an expert in aggada. Perhaps he heard something from him on this matter and can answer your question.

讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪谞讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞讜诐 讗讞讬 讗诪讜 砖诇 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 砖诇 专讘 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻谉 诇讛砖转讘专

Rabbi 岣nina ben Agil went to him and asked him. Rabbi Tan岣m said to him: I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Na岣m, the brother of the mother of Rav A岣, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav A岣i, son of Rabbi 岣nina: It does not mention the word good in the first tablets, since they were ultimately destined to be broken after the Jews made the Golden Calf.

讜讻讬 住讜驻谉 诇讛砖转讘专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 驻住拽讛 讟讜讘讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: And even if it had mentioned the term good, and they were ultimately destined to break, what of it? Rav Ashi said: If this term had been mentioned in the first tablets, all good would have, God forbid, ceased from Israel once they were broken. Therefore, only the second version, which was written after the breaking of the tablets, contains the word good, so that there would always be good for the Jewish people.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讜讗讛 讟讬转 讘讞诇讜诪讜 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讟讜讘 讗讬诪讗 讜讟讗讟讗转讬讛 讘诪讟讗讟讗 讛砖诪讚 讞讚 讟讬转 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Yehoshua says: If one sees the letter tet in his dream, it is a good sign for him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because the word good [tov] is written in the Torah and begins with the letter tet, then one could say instead that it is an allusion to the verse: 鈥淎nd I will sweep it with the broom [vetetetiha bemate鈥檃teh] of destruction鈥 (Isaiah 14:23), which also contains the letter tet several times but is referring to punishment. The Gemara answers: We mean that when someone sees one tet in his dream, it is a good sign, but this latter verse contains several.

讗讬诪讗 讟诪讗转讛 讘砖讜诇讬讛 讟讬转 讘讬转 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讟讘注讜 讘讗专抓 砖注专讬讛

The Gemara asks: This latter statement is problematic, as even according to this explanation, one can say that a single letter tet alludes to the verse: 鈥淗er filthiness [tumatah] is in her skirts鈥 (Lamentations 1:9), which begins with the letter tet. The Gemara answers: We mean that when one sees the letter tet together with the letter bet in his dream, it is a good sign for him, as the word tov is written with both. The Gemara asks further: According to this, say that it alludes to the verse: 鈥淗er gates are sunk [tave鈥檜] into the ground鈥 (Lamentations 2:9), which begins with the letter tet followed by the letter bet.

讗诇讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇讟讜讘讛 转讞讬诇讛 砖诪讘专讗砖讬转 注讚 讜讬专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛讗讜专 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讟讬转

Rather, it is not merely because it is the first letter of the word good [tov] that it is considered a good omen. Since the Torah initially introduces the letter tet in a context of good, with the word good [tov] itself, it is a good omen. As from the word bereshit, the first word in the Torah, until the verse: 鈥淎nd God saw that the light was good [tov]鈥 (Genesis 1:4), the letter tet is not written anywhere.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛专讜讗讛 讛住驻讚 讘讞诇讜诪讜 讞住讜 注诇讬讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜驻讚讗讜讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻转讘讗

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If one sees a eulogy [hesped] in his dream, it is an allusion that in Heaven they had pity [岣su] on him and saved him [peda鈥檜hu] from actually being eulogized. The Gemara notes: This statement applies specifically when he actually saw the word: Eulogy [hesped], in writing.

讜讻谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 转专谞讙讜诇 讟讜讜住 讜驻住讬讜谞讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And similarly, undomesticated animals and birds are subject to the same halakhot as domesticated animals. Reish Lakish says: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a ruling from the Tosefta that illustrates the statement that birds and undomesticated animals are also subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds: A cock, a peacock [tavvas], and a pheasant [ufasyonei] are diverse kinds with respect to each other, since this halakha applies to birds as well.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬谉 讞讚 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious; what novelty is stated here? Rav 岣viva said: The novelty here is because they are reared together. Lest you say: Since they are reared together, they are essentially one species, and not considered diverse kinds. Therefore, it teaches us that they are actually separate species, and the halakhot of diverse kinds do apply to them.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜讜讝 讜讗讜讜讝 讛讘专 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讗讬 讗专讬讱 拽讜注讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讝讜讟专 拽讜注讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙诪诇讗 驻专住讗 讜讙诪诇讗 讟讬讬注讗 讚讛讗讬 讗诇讬诐 拽讜注讬讛 讜讛讗讬 拽讟讬谉 拽讜注讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛

Following the discussion of the prohibition of diverse kinds as it relates to birds, Shmuel says: The domestic goose and the wild goose are diverse kinds with respect to each other and are not one species. Rava bar Rav 岣nan objects to this: What is the reason? If we say it is because the beak of this one is long and the beak of that one is short, if that is so, then with regard to a Persian camel and an Arabian camel, where the neck of this one is thick and the neck of that one is thin, they should indeed be considered diverse kinds with respect to one another. Clearly, though, the camels are in fact two variants of a single species.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝讛 讘讬爪讬讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讝讛 讘讬爪讬讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 讞讚讗 讘讬注转讗 讘砖讬讞诇讗 讜讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 讻诪讛 讘讬注转讗 讘砖讬讞诇讗

Rather, Abaye says: That is not the reason, but rather another difference exists between the domestic goose and the wild goose, concerning the male: With regard to this type, i.e., the wild goose, its testicles are visible from the outside, and with regard to that one, i.e., the domestic goose, its testicles are inside. Rav Pappa said that another difference exists between them, concerning the female: This one, i.e., the wild goose, releases only one egg in its ovary and later releases another, and that one, i.e., the domestic goose, releases several eggs at once in its ovary. Consequently, they are not considered to be the same species.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪专讘讬注 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘讬诐 诇讜拽讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诪讬讘砖讛

In connection with the prohibition of diverse kinds, Rabbi Yirmeya says that Reish Lakish says: One who crossbreeds two species of creatures that live in the sea is flogged for transgressing the prohibition of crossbreeding diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., where is there an allusion to this in the Torah? Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Ulla: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the term: 鈥淎ccording to its species [leminehu]鈥 (Genesis 1:21), referring to animals living on dry land, and the same term: 鈥淎ccording to its species [leminehu]鈥 (Genesis 1:25), referring to sea creatures. In the same way that the former may not be crossbred, similarly, the latter may not be crossbred.

讘注讬 专讞讘讛 讛诪谞讛讬讙 讘注讬讝讗 讜砖讬讘讜讟讗 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬讝讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转 讘讬诐 讜砖讬讘讜讟讗 诇讗 住诇讬拽 诇讬讘砖讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 注讘讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 拽讗 诪谞讛讬讙

The Sage Ra岣va raises a dilemma: With regard to one who drives a wagon on the seashore with a goat and a shibbuta, a certain species of fish, together, pulled by the goat on land and the fish at sea, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition against performing labor with diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that since the goat does not descend into the sea and the shibbuta does not ascend onto the land, they are not working together at all, and so he has not done anything forbidden? Or perhaps, since in any event, he is now driving the wagon with both of them, he thereby transgresses the prohibition?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讬讘专 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讝专注 讞讟讛 讘讗专抓 讜砖注讜专讛 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘

Ravina objects to this: But if that is so that one is liable, then if a person joined wheat and barley together in his hand and sowed the wheat in Eretz Yisrael and the barley outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to seeds, so too he should be liable. Clearly, however, they are two distinct regions, and the seeds are not considered to be mixed together.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗专抓 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗

The Sages said in response to this objection: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of planting diverse kinds of seeds, it is specifically Eretz Yisrael that is the location subject to this obligation, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael is not a location subject to this obligation. Here, by contrast, in the case of the person driving a wagon, both this location, i.e., the land, and that location, i.e., the sea, are locations subject to this obligation. Consequently, if one works together two different species either on the land or in the sea, he is liable. Therefore, the question is a valid one.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖讜专 砖谞讙讞 讗转 讛驻专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜谞住 爪讗谉 诇讚讬专 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 驻讟讜专 诇讗 谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In the case of one who brought his flock of sheep into the pen and locked the door before it in a manner that is appropriate, and despite this sheep went out and caused damage in another person鈥檚 field by eating produce or trampling it, the owner is exempt, since he safeguarded the animals appropriately. If he did not lock the door before the sheep in a manner that is appropriate, and sheep went out and caused damage, the owner is liable, since his negligence led to the damage.

谞驻专爪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讜 砖驻专爪讜讛 诇住讟讬诐 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 驻讟讜专 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诇住讟讬诐 诇住讟讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉

If the owner locked the door appropriately but the wall of the pen was breached at night, or bandits breached it, and sheep subsequently went out and caused damage by eating or trampling, the owner of the sheep is exempt from liability. If the bandits themselves took the sheep out of the pen and the animals subsequently caused damage, the bandits are liable.

讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞诪讛 讗讜 砖诪住专讛 诇讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讞讬讬讘

If the owner left the animal in the sun, causing it to suffer, or if he conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who are not able to safeguard it, and the animal went out and caused damage, the owner is liable because he was negligent.

诪住专讛 诇专讜注讛 谞讻谞住 讛专讜注讛 转讞转讬讜

If the owner conveyed the animal to a shepherd to care for it, the shepherd enters in his place and is responsible for the damage.

谞驻诇讛 诇讙讬谞讛 讜谞讛谞讬转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讬专讚讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讬转 住讗讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛

If the animal fell into a garden and derives benefit from produce there, its owner pays for the benefit that it derives and not for other damage caused. If the animal descended into the garden in its usual manner and caused damage there, its owner pays for what it damaged. How does the court appraise the value of the damage when the owner pays for what it damaged? The court appraises a large piece of land with an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃] in that field, including the garden bed in which the damage took place. This appraisal includes how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The court appraises not only the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, rather the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬诐 诪砖诇诪转 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬诐 讗诐 住讗讛 住讗讛 讗诐 住讗转讬诐 住讗转讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: This principle of appraisal applies only in a case where the animal ate unripe produce; but if it ate ripe produce, the owner pays the value of the ripe produce. Therefore, if it ate one se鈥檃 of produce, he pays for one se鈥檃, and if it ate two se鈥檃, he pays for two se鈥檃.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 讚诇转 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讝讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 讻专讗讜讬

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the definition of locking the door in a manner that is appropriate. The Sages taught: What is considered locking in a manner that is appropriate, and what is considered locking in a manner that is not appropriate? If one locked the door such that it is able to withstand a typical wind without collapsing or opening, this is considered a manner that is appropriate, whereas if he locked the door such that it is unable to withstand a typical wind, this is considered a manner that is not appropriate.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪讜注讚 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 拽砖专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讜谞注诇 诇驻谞讬讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗 讜讛讝讬拽 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to animals that are forewarned that it is sufficient for the owner to provide only reduced safeguarding? Since the mishna deals with damage categorized as Eating or Trampling, for which all animals are considered forewarned, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (45b): If the owner of an ox tied it with reins to a fence or locked the gate before it in a manner that is appropriate, but nevertheless the ox went out and caused damage, whether the animal is innocuous or forewarned the owner is liable because this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讜注讚 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖诪讜专 讛讜讗 讝讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 住讻讬谉

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that if the ox is innocuous the owner is liable even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous animal. But if the ox is forewarned, the owner is exempt from payment of damages, as it is stated in the verse describing the liability for damage caused by a forewarned animal: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it鈥 (Exodus 21:36), and this ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate was secured. Rabbi Eliezer says: A forewarned ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife. According to this mishna, only Rabbi Yehuda maintains that reduced safeguarding is sufficient to render exempt from liability the owner of an ox that is forewarned.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 砖谉 讜专讙诇 讚讛转讜专讛 诪讬注讟讛 讘砖诪讬专转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转讜专讛 诪讬注讟讛 讘砖诪讬专转谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讜专 讜讗砖 砖谉 讜专讙诇

The Gemara answers: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the owner of a forewarned ox is liable even if he provides only reduced safeguarding. Although animals are considered forewarned with regard to Eating and Trampling, one cannot apply to them a halakha stated with regard to an animal that is forewarned with regard to Goring. The halakha is different with regard to Eating and Trampling since the Torah limited the required standard of safeguarding for them. As the amora Rabbi Elazar says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: There are four matters for which the Torah limited their required standard of safeguarding, and these are: Pit, and Fire, Eating, and Trampling.

讘讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讗讜 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘专 讜诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讛讗 讻住讛讜 驻讟讜专

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Pit? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:33). One can infer: But if he covered it, he is exempt from liability, even though it is possible that the pit would become uncovered in the future.

讗砖 讚讻转讬讘 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 诪讘注讬专

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Fire? As it is written: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation鈥 (Exodus 22:5), which is interpreted to mean that one is exempt from liability unless he acts in a manner that is similar to actively kindling the fire in another鈥檚 property by being negligent.

砖谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 讜讘注专

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Eating? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose, and it feed [uvi鈥檈r] in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner does not bear liability unless he acts in a manner that is similar to causing his animal to feed there, by being negligent.

专讙诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 讜砖诇讞

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Trampling? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose [veshila岣], and it feed in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner is not liable unless he acts in a manner that is similar to setting his animal loose.

讜转谞讬讗 讜砖诇讞 讝讛 讛专讙诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讜讘注专 讝讛 讛砖谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专 讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜

And it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the term veshila岣: This is referring to damage by Trampling, and similarly, the verse states: 鈥淭hat send forth [meshale岣i] the feet of the ox and the donkey鈥 (Isaiah 32:20). With regard to the term uvi鈥檈r: This is referring to damage by Eating, and similarly, the verse states: 鈥淎s one consumes with the tooth, until it be all gone鈥 (I聽Kings 14:10).

讟注诪讗 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 讜砖诇讞 讜讘注专 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讗

Evidently, the reason for the owner鈥檚 liability is specifically that he acted in a manner that is similar to setting the animal loose or causing it to feed. One can infer: But if he did not act in such a manner, even if he provided only reduced safeguarding, he is not liable.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 爪讗谉 诪讻讚讬 讘砖讜专 拽讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗转讬 谞讬转谞讬 砖讜专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 爪讗谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛转讜专讛 诪讬注讟讛 讘砖诪讬专转谉

Rabba said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, as it taught the halakha specifically with regard to sheep. This raises the question: Since we have been dealing with cases involving an ox in all the previous mishnayot, then let this mishna also teach the halakha with regard to an ox. What is different in this mishna that it teaches the case of sheep? Is it not because the Torah limited its requirements specifically with regard to the safeguarding against damage that is more likely to be caused by sheep, i.e., caused by Eating and Trampling, since sheep are unlikely to gore? If so, the wording of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that a reduced level of supervision is sufficient only with regard to Eating and Trampling, but not Goring.

诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讗谉 拽专谉 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛 砖谉 讜专讙诇 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖谉 讜专讙诇 讚诪讜注讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this: One can not necessarily derive from the wording of the mishna that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Perhaps the mishna specifically uses the case of sheep to teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because if it would have used an example of an ox here, one might have thought that it also includes damage caused by Goring, about which it is not written in the Torah that reduced supervision is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna specifically uses the example of sheep, to indicate damage caused by Eating and Trampling, about which it is written that reduced supervision is sufficient. And it teaches us that only with regard to Eating and Trampling, for which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, is reduced supervision sufficient according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes that this is a valid reading of the mishna and one may learn from it that the mishna may even be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讘驻谞讬 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讻讜驻祝 拽诪转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讜讛砖讜讻专 注讚讬 砖拽专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讛讬讜讚注 注讚讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 诇讜

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said: There are four matters in which one who commits an offense concerning them is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven and it would be proper for him to pay compensation, and the cases are as follows: One who breaches a fence that stood before another鈥檚 animal, thereby allowing the animal to escape; and one who bends another鈥檚 standing grain before a fire so that it catches fire; and one who hires false witnesses to testify; and one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf.

讗诪专 诪专 讛驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讘驻谞讬 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讻讜转诇 讘专讬讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗

The Gemara clarifies each of the cases listed in the baraita. The Master says: With regard to the case of one who breaches a fence that stood before another鈥檚 animal, what are the circumstances? If we say it is speaking of a stable wall that would not have fallen by itself, the one who breached it should also be liable according to human laws, at least for the damage caused to the wall. Rather, here

  • 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 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 55

谞讗诪专 讘讛诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 砖讗转讛 砖讜讗诇谞讬 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘讛诐 讟讜讘 砖讗诇谞讬 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讟讜讘 讗诐 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讟讜讘 讗诐 诇讗讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 砖讛讬讛 专讙讬诇 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讛讬讛 讘拽讬 讘讗讙讚讛

in the context of the mitzva to honor one鈥檚 parents, the word good is stated there: 鈥淚n order that it shall be good for you鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:16)? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to him: Before you ask me why the word good is stated, ask me if the word good is actually stated there or not, since I am not sufficiently proficient in my knowledge of the biblical verses to remember the precise wording, and I do not know if the word good is stated there or not. Go to Rabbi Tan岣m bar 岣nilai, who was commonly found at the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was an expert in aggada. Perhaps he heard something from him on this matter and can answer your question.

讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪谞讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞讜诐 讗讞讬 讗诪讜 砖诇 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 砖诇 专讘 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻谉 诇讛砖转讘专

Rabbi 岣nina ben Agil went to him and asked him. Rabbi Tan岣m said to him: I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Na岣m, the brother of the mother of Rav A岣, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav A岣i, son of Rabbi 岣nina: It does not mention the word good in the first tablets, since they were ultimately destined to be broken after the Jews made the Golden Calf.

讜讻讬 住讜驻谉 诇讛砖转讘专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 驻住拽讛 讟讜讘讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: And even if it had mentioned the term good, and they were ultimately destined to break, what of it? Rav Ashi said: If this term had been mentioned in the first tablets, all good would have, God forbid, ceased from Israel once they were broken. Therefore, only the second version, which was written after the breaking of the tablets, contains the word good, so that there would always be good for the Jewish people.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讜讗讛 讟讬转 讘讞诇讜诪讜 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讟讜讘 讗讬诪讗 讜讟讗讟讗转讬讛 讘诪讟讗讟讗 讛砖诪讚 讞讚 讟讬转 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Yehoshua says: If one sees the letter tet in his dream, it is a good sign for him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because the word good [tov] is written in the Torah and begins with the letter tet, then one could say instead that it is an allusion to the verse: 鈥淎nd I will sweep it with the broom [vetetetiha bemate鈥檃teh] of destruction鈥 (Isaiah 14:23), which also contains the letter tet several times but is referring to punishment. The Gemara answers: We mean that when someone sees one tet in his dream, it is a good sign, but this latter verse contains several.

讗讬诪讗 讟诪讗转讛 讘砖讜诇讬讛 讟讬转 讘讬转 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讟讘注讜 讘讗专抓 砖注专讬讛

The Gemara asks: This latter statement is problematic, as even according to this explanation, one can say that a single letter tet alludes to the verse: 鈥淗er filthiness [tumatah] is in her skirts鈥 (Lamentations 1:9), which begins with the letter tet. The Gemara answers: We mean that when one sees the letter tet together with the letter bet in his dream, it is a good sign for him, as the word tov is written with both. The Gemara asks further: According to this, say that it alludes to the verse: 鈥淗er gates are sunk [tave鈥檜] into the ground鈥 (Lamentations 2:9), which begins with the letter tet followed by the letter bet.

讗诇讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇讟讜讘讛 转讞讬诇讛 砖诪讘专讗砖讬转 注讚 讜讬专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛讗讜专 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讟讬转

Rather, it is not merely because it is the first letter of the word good [tov] that it is considered a good omen. Since the Torah initially introduces the letter tet in a context of good, with the word good [tov] itself, it is a good omen. As from the word bereshit, the first word in the Torah, until the verse: 鈥淎nd God saw that the light was good [tov]鈥 (Genesis 1:4), the letter tet is not written anywhere.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛专讜讗讛 讛住驻讚 讘讞诇讜诪讜 讞住讜 注诇讬讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜驻讚讗讜讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻转讘讗

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If one sees a eulogy [hesped] in his dream, it is an allusion that in Heaven they had pity [岣su] on him and saved him [peda鈥檜hu] from actually being eulogized. The Gemara notes: This statement applies specifically when he actually saw the word: Eulogy [hesped], in writing.

讜讻谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 转专谞讙讜诇 讟讜讜住 讜驻住讬讜谞讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And similarly, undomesticated animals and birds are subject to the same halakhot as domesticated animals. Reish Lakish says: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a ruling from the Tosefta that illustrates the statement that birds and undomesticated animals are also subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds: A cock, a peacock [tavvas], and a pheasant [ufasyonei] are diverse kinds with respect to each other, since this halakha applies to birds as well.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬谉 讞讚 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious; what novelty is stated here? Rav 岣viva said: The novelty here is because they are reared together. Lest you say: Since they are reared together, they are essentially one species, and not considered diverse kinds. Therefore, it teaches us that they are actually separate species, and the halakhot of diverse kinds do apply to them.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜讜讝 讜讗讜讜讝 讛讘专 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讗讬 讗专讬讱 拽讜注讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讝讜讟专 拽讜注讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙诪诇讗 驻专住讗 讜讙诪诇讗 讟讬讬注讗 讚讛讗讬 讗诇讬诐 拽讜注讬讛 讜讛讗讬 拽讟讬谉 拽讜注讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛

Following the discussion of the prohibition of diverse kinds as it relates to birds, Shmuel says: The domestic goose and the wild goose are diverse kinds with respect to each other and are not one species. Rava bar Rav 岣nan objects to this: What is the reason? If we say it is because the beak of this one is long and the beak of that one is short, if that is so, then with regard to a Persian camel and an Arabian camel, where the neck of this one is thick and the neck of that one is thin, they should indeed be considered diverse kinds with respect to one another. Clearly, though, the camels are in fact two variants of a single species.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝讛 讘讬爪讬讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讝讛 讘讬爪讬讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 讞讚讗 讘讬注转讗 讘砖讬讞诇讗 讜讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 讻诪讛 讘讬注转讗 讘砖讬讞诇讗

Rather, Abaye says: That is not the reason, but rather another difference exists between the domestic goose and the wild goose, concerning the male: With regard to this type, i.e., the wild goose, its testicles are visible from the outside, and with regard to that one, i.e., the domestic goose, its testicles are inside. Rav Pappa said that another difference exists between them, concerning the female: This one, i.e., the wild goose, releases only one egg in its ovary and later releases another, and that one, i.e., the domestic goose, releases several eggs at once in its ovary. Consequently, they are not considered to be the same species.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪专讘讬注 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘讬诐 诇讜拽讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诪讬讘砖讛

In connection with the prohibition of diverse kinds, Rabbi Yirmeya says that Reish Lakish says: One who crossbreeds two species of creatures that live in the sea is flogged for transgressing the prohibition of crossbreeding diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., where is there an allusion to this in the Torah? Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Ulla: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the term: 鈥淎ccording to its species [leminehu]鈥 (Genesis 1:21), referring to animals living on dry land, and the same term: 鈥淎ccording to its species [leminehu]鈥 (Genesis 1:25), referring to sea creatures. In the same way that the former may not be crossbred, similarly, the latter may not be crossbred.

讘注讬 专讞讘讛 讛诪谞讛讬讙 讘注讬讝讗 讜砖讬讘讜讟讗 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬讝讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转 讘讬诐 讜砖讬讘讜讟讗 诇讗 住诇讬拽 诇讬讘砖讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 注讘讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 拽讗 诪谞讛讬讙

The Sage Ra岣va raises a dilemma: With regard to one who drives a wagon on the seashore with a goat and a shibbuta, a certain species of fish, together, pulled by the goat on land and the fish at sea, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition against performing labor with diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that since the goat does not descend into the sea and the shibbuta does not ascend onto the land, they are not working together at all, and so he has not done anything forbidden? Or perhaps, since in any event, he is now driving the wagon with both of them, he thereby transgresses the prohibition?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讬讘专 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讝专注 讞讟讛 讘讗专抓 讜砖注讜专讛 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘

Ravina objects to this: But if that is so that one is liable, then if a person joined wheat and barley together in his hand and sowed the wheat in Eretz Yisrael and the barley outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to seeds, so too he should be liable. Clearly, however, they are two distinct regions, and the seeds are not considered to be mixed together.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗专抓 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗

The Sages said in response to this objection: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of planting diverse kinds of seeds, it is specifically Eretz Yisrael that is the location subject to this obligation, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael is not a location subject to this obligation. Here, by contrast, in the case of the person driving a wagon, both this location, i.e., the land, and that location, i.e., the sea, are locations subject to this obligation. Consequently, if one works together two different species either on the land or in the sea, he is liable. Therefore, the question is a valid one.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖讜专 砖谞讙讞 讗转 讛驻专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜谞住 爪讗谉 诇讚讬专 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 驻讟讜专 诇讗 谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In the case of one who brought his flock of sheep into the pen and locked the door before it in a manner that is appropriate, and despite this sheep went out and caused damage in another person鈥檚 field by eating produce or trampling it, the owner is exempt, since he safeguarded the animals appropriately. If he did not lock the door before the sheep in a manner that is appropriate, and sheep went out and caused damage, the owner is liable, since his negligence led to the damage.

谞驻专爪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讜 砖驻专爪讜讛 诇住讟讬诐 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 驻讟讜专 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诇住讟讬诐 诇住讟讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉

If the owner locked the door appropriately but the wall of the pen was breached at night, or bandits breached it, and sheep subsequently went out and caused damage by eating or trampling, the owner of the sheep is exempt from liability. If the bandits themselves took the sheep out of the pen and the animals subsequently caused damage, the bandits are liable.

讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞诪讛 讗讜 砖诪住专讛 诇讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讞讬讬讘

If the owner left the animal in the sun, causing it to suffer, or if he conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who are not able to safeguard it, and the animal went out and caused damage, the owner is liable because he was negligent.

诪住专讛 诇专讜注讛 谞讻谞住 讛专讜注讛 转讞转讬讜

If the owner conveyed the animal to a shepherd to care for it, the shepherd enters in his place and is responsible for the damage.

谞驻诇讛 诇讙讬谞讛 讜谞讛谞讬转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讬专讚讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讬转 住讗讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛

If the animal fell into a garden and derives benefit from produce there, its owner pays for the benefit that it derives and not for other damage caused. If the animal descended into the garden in its usual manner and caused damage there, its owner pays for what it damaged. How does the court appraise the value of the damage when the owner pays for what it damaged? The court appraises a large piece of land with an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃] in that field, including the garden bed in which the damage took place. This appraisal includes how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The court appraises not only the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, rather the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬诐 诪砖诇诪转 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬诐 讗诐 住讗讛 住讗讛 讗诐 住讗转讬诐 住讗转讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: This principle of appraisal applies only in a case where the animal ate unripe produce; but if it ate ripe produce, the owner pays the value of the ripe produce. Therefore, if it ate one se鈥檃 of produce, he pays for one se鈥檃, and if it ate two se鈥檃, he pays for two se鈥檃.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 讚诇转 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讝讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 讻专讗讜讬

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the definition of locking the door in a manner that is appropriate. The Sages taught: What is considered locking in a manner that is appropriate, and what is considered locking in a manner that is not appropriate? If one locked the door such that it is able to withstand a typical wind without collapsing or opening, this is considered a manner that is appropriate, whereas if he locked the door such that it is unable to withstand a typical wind, this is considered a manner that is not appropriate.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪讜注讚 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 拽砖专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讜谞注诇 诇驻谞讬讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗 讜讛讝讬拽 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to animals that are forewarned that it is sufficient for the owner to provide only reduced safeguarding? Since the mishna deals with damage categorized as Eating or Trampling, for which all animals are considered forewarned, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (45b): If the owner of an ox tied it with reins to a fence or locked the gate before it in a manner that is appropriate, but nevertheless the ox went out and caused damage, whether the animal is innocuous or forewarned the owner is liable because this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讜注讚 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖诪讜专 讛讜讗 讝讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 住讻讬谉

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that if the ox is innocuous the owner is liable even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous animal. But if the ox is forewarned, the owner is exempt from payment of damages, as it is stated in the verse describing the liability for damage caused by a forewarned animal: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it鈥 (Exodus 21:36), and this ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate was secured. Rabbi Eliezer says: A forewarned ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife. According to this mishna, only Rabbi Yehuda maintains that reduced safeguarding is sufficient to render exempt from liability the owner of an ox that is forewarned.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 砖谉 讜专讙诇 讚讛转讜专讛 诪讬注讟讛 讘砖诪讬专转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转讜专讛 诪讬注讟讛 讘砖诪讬专转谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讜专 讜讗砖 砖谉 讜专讙诇

The Gemara answers: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the owner of a forewarned ox is liable even if he provides only reduced safeguarding. Although animals are considered forewarned with regard to Eating and Trampling, one cannot apply to them a halakha stated with regard to an animal that is forewarned with regard to Goring. The halakha is different with regard to Eating and Trampling since the Torah limited the required standard of safeguarding for them. As the amora Rabbi Elazar says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: There are four matters for which the Torah limited their required standard of safeguarding, and these are: Pit, and Fire, Eating, and Trampling.

讘讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讗讜 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘专 讜诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讛讗 讻住讛讜 驻讟讜专

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Pit? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:33). One can infer: But if he covered it, he is exempt from liability, even though it is possible that the pit would become uncovered in the future.

讗砖 讚讻转讬讘 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 诪讘注讬专

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Fire? As it is written: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation鈥 (Exodus 22:5), which is interpreted to mean that one is exempt from liability unless he acts in a manner that is similar to actively kindling the fire in another鈥檚 property by being negligent.

砖谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 讜讘注专

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Eating? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose, and it feed [uvi鈥檈r] in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner does not bear liability unless he acts in a manner that is similar to causing his animal to feed there, by being negligent.

专讙诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 讜砖诇讞

Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Trampling? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose [veshila岣], and it feed in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner is not liable unless he acts in a manner that is similar to setting his animal loose.

讜转谞讬讗 讜砖诇讞 讝讛 讛专讙诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇讞讬 专讙诇 讛砖讜专 讜讛讞诪讜专 讜讘注专 讝讛 讛砖谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘注专 讛讙诇诇 注讚 转诪讜

And it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the term veshila岣: This is referring to damage by Trampling, and similarly, the verse states: 鈥淭hat send forth [meshale岣i] the feet of the ox and the donkey鈥 (Isaiah 32:20). With regard to the term uvi鈥檈r: This is referring to damage by Eating, and similarly, the verse states: 鈥淎s one consumes with the tooth, until it be all gone鈥 (I聽Kings 14:10).

讟注诪讗 讚注讘讬讚 讻注讬谉 讜砖诇讞 讜讘注专 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讗

Evidently, the reason for the owner鈥檚 liability is specifically that he acted in a manner that is similar to setting the animal loose or causing it to feed. One can infer: But if he did not act in such a manner, even if he provided only reduced safeguarding, he is not liable.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 爪讗谉 诪讻讚讬 讘砖讜专 拽讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗转讬 谞讬转谞讬 砖讜专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 爪讗谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛转讜专讛 诪讬注讟讛 讘砖诪讬专转谉

Rabba said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, as it taught the halakha specifically with regard to sheep. This raises the question: Since we have been dealing with cases involving an ox in all the previous mishnayot, then let this mishna also teach the halakha with regard to an ox. What is different in this mishna that it teaches the case of sheep? Is it not because the Torah limited its requirements specifically with regard to the safeguarding against damage that is more likely to be caused by sheep, i.e., caused by Eating and Trampling, since sheep are unlikely to gore? If so, the wording of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that a reduced level of supervision is sufficient only with regard to Eating and Trampling, but not Goring.

诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讗谉 拽专谉 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛 砖谉 讜专讙诇 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖谉 讜专讙诇 讚诪讜注讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this: One can not necessarily derive from the wording of the mishna that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Perhaps the mishna specifically uses the case of sheep to teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because if it would have used an example of an ox here, one might have thought that it also includes damage caused by Goring, about which it is not written in the Torah that reduced supervision is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna specifically uses the example of sheep, to indicate damage caused by Eating and Trampling, about which it is written that reduced supervision is sufficient. And it teaches us that only with regard to Eating and Trampling, for which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, is reduced supervision sufficient according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes that this is a valid reading of the mishna and one may learn from it that the mishna may even be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讘驻谞讬 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讻讜驻祝 拽诪转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讜讛砖讜讻专 注讚讬 砖拽专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讛讬讜讚注 注讚讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 诇讜

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said: There are four matters in which one who commits an offense concerning them is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven and it would be proper for him to pay compensation, and the cases are as follows: One who breaches a fence that stood before another鈥檚 animal, thereby allowing the animal to escape; and one who bends another鈥檚 standing grain before a fire so that it catches fire; and one who hires false witnesses to testify; and one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf.

讗诪专 诪专 讛驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讘驻谞讬 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讻讜转诇 讘专讬讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗

The Gemara clarifies each of the cases listed in the baraita. The Master says: With regard to the case of one who breaches a fence that stood before another鈥檚 animal, what are the circumstances? If we say it is speaking of a stable wall that would not have fallen by itself, the one who breached it should also be liable according to human laws, at least for the damage caused to the wall. Rather, here

Scroll To Top