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

Daf Yomi

December 27, 2023 | ื˜ืดื• ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 55

Today’s daf is sponsored by Earl Norman in honor of the first responders of the State of Israel. “Their dedication, professionalism and compassion often in the face of danger is an inspiration.”

Why does the word ‘good’ appear in the context of the commandment to respect your parents only in the ten commandments in the book of Devarim and not in the book of Shmot (“so that it will be good for you”)? If one sees the letter tet in a dream, it is a sign of good things to come. Once the Mishna has established the prohibition of k’elaim (crossbreeding or coworking two animals), different rabbis bring examples where the prohibition applies to animals that are from the same species but not the same type, such as a rooster, peacock, and pheasant. The sixth chapter begins with laws regarding one who watched his animal properly but the animal escaped and ate or trampled a field. If the wall was breached at night or was broken by robbers, the owner is exempt, as are the robbers (indirect damages). If the robbers took the animals out and the animals caused damage, the robbers are liable as they are directly responsible. |If the owner gave the animal to another person to watch, is the owner no longer responsible, and the liability shifts to the other person? On what does it depend? If the animal accidentally falls into another’s field and damages (eats or tramples), the owner only pays the benefit they received, but if the animal went in intentionally the owner has to compensate for the damages. The Gemara explains that the level of protection (shmira) mentioned in the case of the Mishna is light protection (able to withstand a regular wind). This leads to the suggestion that the Mishna corresponds only to Rabbi Yehuda’s position that a shor muad is exempt if the owner safeguarded the animal by putting up a standard wall, as an animal is always considered forewarned regarding eating and trampling. However, this is rejected as perhaps the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is only relevant for keren damages where there is intent to damage, and not applicable to eating a trampling. Further proof is brought from a tannaitic source that there are four cases where the Torah required only basic safeguarding – a pit, fire, eating, and trampling. The Gemara brings a source for each from the Torah. Further proof is brought from the language of the Mishna. There are four cases where one is exempt from liability in a court of law, but liable in a heavenly court – one is the case in our Mishna where one breaches a fence of another and lets out the owner’s animals.

ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืืชื” ืฉื•ืืœื ื™ ืœืžื” ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืฉืืœื ื™ ืื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื ืœืื• ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื ืœืื• ื›ืœืš ืืฆืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืชื ื—ื•ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ืœืื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื’ื™ืœ ืืฆืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืงื™ ื‘ืื’ื“ื”


in the context of the mitzva to honor oneโ€™s parents, the word good is stated there: โ€œIn order that it shall be good for youโ€ (Deuteronomy 5:16)? Rabbi แธคiyya 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 Tanแธฅum bar แธคanilai, 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.


ืื–ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืžื ื• ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืืœื ื›ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ื•ื ืื—ื™ ืืžื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ ืืžื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ ืื—ื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชื‘ืจ


Rabbi แธคanina ben Agil went to him and asked him. Rabbi Tanแธฅum said to him: I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Naแธฅum, the brother of the mother of Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav Aแธฅai, son of Rabbi แธคanina: 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.


ื•ื›ื™ ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชื‘ืจ ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื—ืก ื•ืฉืœื•ื ืคืกืงื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ืจื•ืื” ื˜ื™ืช ื‘ื—ืœื•ืžื• ืกื™ืžืŸ ื™ืคื” ืœื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ืžื ื•ื˜ืื˜ืืชื™ื” ื‘ืžื˜ืื˜ื ื”ืฉืžื“ ื—ื“ ื˜ื™ืช ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ


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: โ€œAnd I will sweep it with the broom [vetetetiha bemateโ€™ateh] of destructionโ€ (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.


ืื™ืžื ื˜ืžืืชื” ื‘ืฉื•ืœื™ื” ื˜ื™ืช ื‘ื™ืช ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืžื ื˜ื‘ืขื• ื‘ืืจืฅ ืฉืขืจื™ื”


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: โ€œHer filthiness [tumatah] is in her skirtsโ€ (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: โ€œHer gates are sunk [taveโ€™u] into the groundโ€ (Lamentations 2:9), which begins with the letter tet followed by the letter bet.


ืืœื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืคืชื— ื‘ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืฉืžื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืขื“ ื•ื™ืจื ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ื”ืื•ืจ ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ื™ืช


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: โ€œAnd God saw that the light was good [tov]โ€ (Genesis 1:4), the letter tet is not written anywhere.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืจื•ืื” ื”ืกืคื“ ื‘ื—ืœื•ืžื• ื—ืกื• ืขืœื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืคื“ืื•ื”ื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ื


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 [แธฅasu] on him and saved him [pedaโ€™uhu] from actually being eulogized. The Gemara notes: This statement applies specifically when he actually saw the word: Eulogy [hesped], in writing.


ื•ื›ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœ ื˜ื•ื•ืก ื•ืคืกื™ื•ื ื™ ื›ืœืื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


ยง 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.


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t this obvious; what novelty is stated here? Rav แธคaviva 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.


ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื•ื•ื– ื•ืื•ื•ื– ื”ื‘ืจ ื›ืœืื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืื™ ืืจื™ืš ืงื•ืขื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ืงื•ืขื™ื” ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื’ืžืœื ืคืจืกื ื•ื’ืžืœื ื˜ื™ื™ืขื ื“ื”ืื™ ืืœื™ื ืงื•ืขื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ืงื˜ื™ืŸ ืงื•ืขื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ื›ืœืื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 แธคanan 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.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื• ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื• ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื—ื“ื ื‘ื™ืขืชื ื‘ืฉื™ื—ืœื ื•ื”ื ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื›ืžื” ื‘ื™ืขืชื ื‘ืฉื™ื—ืœื


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืžืจื‘ื™ืข ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืขื•ืœื ืืชื™ื ืœืžื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื‘ืฉื”


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: โ€œAccording to its species [leminehu]โ€ (Genesis 1:21), referring to animals living on dry land, and the same term: โ€œAccording to its species [leminehu]โ€ (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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ื‘ื” ื”ืžื ื”ื™ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื–ื ื•ืฉื™ื‘ื•ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืขื™ื–ื ืœื ื ื—ื™ืช ื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื™ื‘ื•ื˜ื ืœื ืกืœื™ืง ืœื™ื‘ืฉื” ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ืช ืงื ืžื ื”ื™ื’


The Sage Raแธฅava 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?


ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื—ื™ื‘ืจ ื—ื˜ื” ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ื–ืจืข ื—ื˜ื” ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘


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.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ืืจืฅ ืžืงื•ื ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืœื ืžืงื•ื ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื”ื›ื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื”ื•ื


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.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื ื’ื— ืืช ื”ืคืจื”


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 personโ€™s 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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื›ื•ื ืก ืฆืืŸ ืœื“ื™ืจ ื•ื ืขืœ ื‘ืคื ื™ื” ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืœื ื ืขืœ ื‘ืคื ื™ื” ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘


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.


ื ืคืจืฆื” ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืื• ืฉืคืจืฆื•ื” ืœืกื˜ื™ื ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื”ื•ืฆื™ืื•ื” ืœืกื˜ื™ื ืœืกื˜ื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ


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.


ื”ื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื—ืžื” ืื• ืฉืžืกืจื” ืœื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘


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.


ืžืกืจื” ืœืจื•ืขื” ื ื›ื ืก ื”ืจื•ืขื” ืชื—ืชื™ื•


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 seโ€™a of seed [beit seโ€™a] 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.


ื ืคืœื” ืœื’ื™ื ื” ื•ื ื”ื ื™ืช ืžืฉืœืžืช ืžื” ืฉื ื”ื ื™ืช ื™ืจื“ื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืžืฉืœืžืช ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžืฉืœืžืช ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืฉืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืกืื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉื“ื” ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ืคื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื ื™ืคื”


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 seโ€™a of produce, he pays for one seโ€™a, and if it ate two seโ€™a, he pays for two seโ€™a.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœื” ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื’ืžื•ืจื™ื ืžืฉืœืžืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื’ืžื•ืจื™ื ืื ืกืื” ืกืื” ืื ืกืืชื™ื ืกืืชื™ื


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื“ืœืช ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ื–ื”ื• ื›ืจืื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ื–ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื›ืจืื•ื™


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืคื˜ื™ืฉ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืงืฉืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืžื•ืกื™ืจื” ื•ื ืขืœ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฆื ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืื—ื“ ืชื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื•ืขื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


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: โ€œAnd the owner has not secured itโ€ (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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืชื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื•ืขื“ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ื™ืฉืžืจื ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืฉืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื ื–ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืืœื ืกื›ื™ืŸ


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.


ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื“ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืขื˜ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจืชืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืขื˜ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจืชืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืืฉ ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Pit? As it is written: โ€œIf 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 payโ€ (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.


ื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืชื— ืื™ืฉ ื‘ื•ืจ ืื• ื›ื™ ื™ื›ืจื” ืื™ืฉ ื‘ืจ ื•ืœื ื™ื›ืกื ื• ื”ื ื›ืกื”ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Fire? As it is written: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire shall pay compensationโ€ (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 anotherโ€™s property by being negligent.


ืืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Eating? As it is written: โ€œIf a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose, and it feed [uviโ€™er] in the field of anotherโ€ (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.


ืฉืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื‘ืขืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืจ ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืจ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Trampling? As it is written: โ€œIf a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose [veshilaแธฅ], and it feed in the field of anotherโ€ (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.


ืจื’ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœื— ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืœื—


And it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the term veshilaแธฅ: This is referring to damage by Trampling, and similarly, the verse states: โ€œThat send forth [meshaleแธฅei] the feet of the ox and the donkeyโ€ (Isaiah 32:20). With regard to the term uviโ€™er: This is referring to damage by Eating, and similarly, the verse states: โ€œAs one consumes with the tooth, until it be all goneโ€ (Iย Kings 14:10).


ื•ืชื ื™ื ื•ืฉืœื— ื–ื” ื”ืจื’ืœ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื—ื™ ืจื’ืœ ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืขืจ ื–ื” ื”ืฉืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืืฉืจ ื™ื‘ืขืจ ื”ื’ืœืœ ืขื“ ืชืžื•


Evidently, the reason for the ownerโ€™s 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.


ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืœื— ื•ื‘ืขืจ ื”ื ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืืŸ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืงื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืืชื™ ื ื™ืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืืŸ ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืขื˜ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจืชืŸ


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.


ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืืŸ ืงืจืŸ ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื” ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื“ืžื•ืขื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


ยง 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 anotherโ€™s animal, thereby allowing the animal to escape; and one who bends anotherโ€™s 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.


ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืจื‘ืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื“ื™ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื”ืคื•ืจืฅ ื’ื“ืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื”ื›ื•ืคืฃ ืงืžืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื” ื•ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืขื“ื™ ืฉืงืจ ืœื”ืขื™ื“ ื•ื”ื™ื•ื“ืข ืขื“ื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžืขื™ื“ ืœื•


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 anotherโ€™s 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


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฅ ื’ื“ืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื›ื•ืชืœ ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื



  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 49-55 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week, we will learn that if a person accidentally injures a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, he...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 55: Everlasting Good for the Jewish People

An apparent tangent about why the first account of the Ten Commandments in the Torah has the word "good," and...
din and daf with elana stein hain gemara shiur for women

Din & Daf (NEW): Dinei Shamayim (Episode 1)

New Series by Hadran! Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain In...
camels

Ship of the Desert

If you had to choose the animal most associated with Israel and the Middle East, it would probably be the...

Bava Kamma 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 55

ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืืชื” ืฉื•ืืœื ื™ ืœืžื” ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืฉืืœื ื™ ืื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื ืœืื• ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื ืœืื• ื›ืœืš ืืฆืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืชื ื—ื•ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ืœืื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื’ื™ืœ ืืฆืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืงื™ ื‘ืื’ื“ื”


in the context of the mitzva to honor oneโ€™s parents, the word good is stated there: โ€œIn order that it shall be good for youโ€ (Deuteronomy 5:16)? Rabbi แธคiyya 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 Tanแธฅum bar แธคanilai, 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.


ืื–ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืžื ื• ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืืœื ื›ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ื•ื ืื—ื™ ืืžื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ ืืžื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ ืื—ื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชื‘ืจ


Rabbi แธคanina ben Agil went to him and asked him. Rabbi Tanแธฅum said to him: I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Naแธฅum, the brother of the mother of Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav Aแธฅai, son of Rabbi แธคanina: 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.


ื•ื›ื™ ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชื‘ืจ ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื—ืก ื•ืฉืœื•ื ืคืกืงื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ืจื•ืื” ื˜ื™ืช ื‘ื—ืœื•ืžื• ืกื™ืžืŸ ื™ืคื” ืœื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ืžื ื•ื˜ืื˜ืืชื™ื” ื‘ืžื˜ืื˜ื ื”ืฉืžื“ ื—ื“ ื˜ื™ืช ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ


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: โ€œAnd I will sweep it with the broom [vetetetiha bemateโ€™ateh] of destructionโ€ (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.


ืื™ืžื ื˜ืžืืชื” ื‘ืฉื•ืœื™ื” ื˜ื™ืช ื‘ื™ืช ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืžื ื˜ื‘ืขื• ื‘ืืจืฅ ืฉืขืจื™ื”


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: โ€œHer filthiness [tumatah] is in her skirtsโ€ (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: โ€œHer gates are sunk [taveโ€™u] into the groundโ€ (Lamentations 2:9), which begins with the letter tet followed by the letter bet.


ืืœื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืคืชื— ื‘ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืฉืžื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืขื“ ื•ื™ืจื ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ื”ืื•ืจ ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ื™ืช


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: โ€œAnd God saw that the light was good [tov]โ€ (Genesis 1:4), the letter tet is not written anywhere.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืจื•ืื” ื”ืกืคื“ ื‘ื—ืœื•ืžื• ื—ืกื• ืขืœื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืคื“ืื•ื”ื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ื


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 [แธฅasu] on him and saved him [pedaโ€™uhu] from actually being eulogized. The Gemara notes: This statement applies specifically when he actually saw the word: Eulogy [hesped], in writing.


ื•ื›ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœ ื˜ื•ื•ืก ื•ืคืกื™ื•ื ื™ ื›ืœืื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


ยง 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.


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t this obvious; what novelty is stated here? Rav แธคaviva 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.


ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื•ื•ื– ื•ืื•ื•ื– ื”ื‘ืจ ื›ืœืื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืื™ ืืจื™ืš ืงื•ืขื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ืงื•ืขื™ื” ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื’ืžืœื ืคืจืกื ื•ื’ืžืœื ื˜ื™ื™ืขื ื“ื”ืื™ ืืœื™ื ืงื•ืขื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ืงื˜ื™ืŸ ืงื•ืขื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ื›ืœืื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 แธคanan 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.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื• ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื• ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื—ื“ื ื‘ื™ืขืชื ื‘ืฉื™ื—ืœื ื•ื”ื ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื›ืžื” ื‘ื™ืขืชื ื‘ืฉื™ื—ืœื


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืžืจื‘ื™ืข ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืขื•ืœื ืืชื™ื ืœืžื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื‘ืฉื”


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: โ€œAccording to its species [leminehu]โ€ (Genesis 1:21), referring to animals living on dry land, and the same term: โ€œAccording to its species [leminehu]โ€ (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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ื‘ื” ื”ืžื ื”ื™ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื–ื ื•ืฉื™ื‘ื•ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืขื™ื–ื ืœื ื ื—ื™ืช ื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื™ื‘ื•ื˜ื ืœื ืกืœื™ืง ืœื™ื‘ืฉื” ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ืช ืงื ืžื ื”ื™ื’


The Sage Raแธฅava 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?


ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื—ื™ื‘ืจ ื—ื˜ื” ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ื–ืจืข ื—ื˜ื” ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘


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.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ืืจืฅ ืžืงื•ื ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืœื ืžืงื•ื ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื”ื›ื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื”ื•ื


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.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื ื’ื— ืืช ื”ืคืจื”


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 personโ€™s 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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื›ื•ื ืก ืฆืืŸ ืœื“ื™ืจ ื•ื ืขืœ ื‘ืคื ื™ื” ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืœื ื ืขืœ ื‘ืคื ื™ื” ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘


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.


ื ืคืจืฆื” ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืื• ืฉืคืจืฆื•ื” ืœืกื˜ื™ื ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื”ื•ืฆื™ืื•ื” ืœืกื˜ื™ื ืœืกื˜ื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ


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.


ื”ื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื—ืžื” ืื• ืฉืžืกืจื” ืœื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘


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.


ืžืกืจื” ืœืจื•ืขื” ื ื›ื ืก ื”ืจื•ืขื” ืชื—ืชื™ื•


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 seโ€™a of seed [beit seโ€™a] 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.


ื ืคืœื” ืœื’ื™ื ื” ื•ื ื”ื ื™ืช ืžืฉืœืžืช ืžื” ืฉื ื”ื ื™ืช ื™ืจื“ื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืžืฉืœืžืช ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžืฉืœืžืช ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืงื” ืฉืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืกืื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉื“ื” ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ืคื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื ื™ืคื”


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 seโ€™a of produce, he pays for one seโ€™a, and if it ate two seโ€™a, he pays for two seโ€™a.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœื” ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื’ืžื•ืจื™ื ืžืฉืœืžืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื’ืžื•ืจื™ื ืื ืกืื” ืกืื” ืื ืกืืชื™ื ืกืืชื™ื


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื“ืœืช ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ื–ื”ื• ื›ืจืื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ื–ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื›ืจืื•ื™


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืคื˜ื™ืฉ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืงืฉืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืžื•ืกื™ืจื” ื•ื ืขืœ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืจืื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฆื ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืื—ื“ ืชื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื•ืขื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


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: โ€œAnd the owner has not secured itโ€ (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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืชื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื•ืขื“ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ื™ืฉืžืจื ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืฉืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื ื–ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืืœื ืกื›ื™ืŸ


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.


ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื“ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืขื˜ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจืชืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืขื˜ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจืชืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืืฉ ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Pit? As it is written: โ€œIf 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 payโ€ (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.


ื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืชื— ืื™ืฉ ื‘ื•ืจ ืื• ื›ื™ ื™ื›ืจื” ืื™ืฉ ื‘ืจ ื•ืœื ื™ื›ืกื ื• ื”ื ื›ืกื”ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Fire? As it is written: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire shall pay compensationโ€ (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 anotherโ€™s property by being negligent.


ืืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Eating? As it is written: โ€œIf a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose, and it feed [uviโ€™er] in the field of anotherโ€ (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.


ืฉืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื‘ืขืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืจ ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืจ


Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Trampling? As it is written: โ€œIf a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose [veshilaแธฅ], and it feed in the field of anotherโ€ (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.


ืจื’ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœื— ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืœื—


And it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the term veshilaแธฅ: This is referring to damage by Trampling, and similarly, the verse states: โ€œThat send forth [meshaleแธฅei] the feet of the ox and the donkeyโ€ (Isaiah 32:20). With regard to the term uviโ€™er: This is referring to damage by Eating, and similarly, the verse states: โ€œAs one consumes with the tooth, until it be all goneโ€ (Iย Kings 14:10).


ื•ืชื ื™ื ื•ืฉืœื— ื–ื” ื”ืจื’ืœ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื—ื™ ืจื’ืœ ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืขืจ ื–ื” ื”ืฉืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืืฉืจ ื™ื‘ืขืจ ื”ื’ืœืœ ืขื“ ืชืžื•


Evidently, the reason for the ownerโ€™s 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.


ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืœื— ื•ื‘ืขืจ ื”ื ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืืŸ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืงื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืืชื™ ื ื™ืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืืŸ ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืขื˜ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจืชืŸ


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.


ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืืŸ ืงืจืŸ ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื” ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืฉืŸ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื“ืžื•ืขื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


ยง 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 anotherโ€™s animal, thereby allowing the animal to escape; and one who bends anotherโ€™s 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.


ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืจื‘ืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื“ื™ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื”ืคื•ืจืฅ ื’ื“ืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื”ื›ื•ืคืฃ ืงืžืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื” ื•ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืขื“ื™ ืฉืงืจ ืœื”ืขื™ื“ ื•ื”ื™ื•ื“ืข ืขื“ื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžืขื™ื“ ืœื•


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 anotherโ€™s 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


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฅ ื’ื“ืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื›ื•ืชืœ ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื



Scroll To Top