If an animal is muad (forewarned, as the animal already gored that type of animal three times) for damaging other animals of its type, does that make the animal muad for all types of animals? If the animal is muad for people, then is the animal also considered muad for animals? If it is muad for small animals, is it muad for large animals? There are two alternative readings of the Mishna, which lead to different answers to those questions. The two different readings are brought and analyzed. Other situations of determining patterns are brought and difficulties are raised. Comparisons are made to similar issues and rules used for determining whether a woman has a set pattern for her menstrual cycle. An animal that belongs to the temple is exempt from damages. But the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia disagree regarding liability for a privately owned animal that gores a temple-owned animal – is the owner fully exempt or liable to pay full damages, even if the animal is tam.
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Bava Kamma 37
אֵינָן צְרִיכִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל.
do not require a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] by transferring the right of collection to the court. The reason that orphans do not require this document is because the court is legally considered to be their steward, and their debts are therefore transferred to the court automatically, even without a prosbol.
וְכֵן תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הַיְּתוֹמִים אֵינָן צְרִיכִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל – רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבֵית דִּינוֹ אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל יְתוֹמִין הָיוּ.
Similarly, Rami bar Ḥama taught: Orphans do not require a prosbol, as Rabban Gamliel and his court were tantamount to the fathers of orphans, as they were vigilant to collect all of the debts owed to orphans. Subsequently, the courts in every generation have this status.
חָנָן בִּישָׁא תְּקַע לֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל הַב לֵיהּ פַּלְגָא דְזוּזָא. הֲוָה לֵיהּ זוּזָא מָכָא, בָּעֵי לְמִיתְּבֵהּ לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ פַּלְגָא דְּזוּזָא, לָא הֲוָה מִשְׁתְּקִיל לֵיהּ. תְּקַע לֵיהּ אַחֲרִינָא, וְיַהֲבֵיהּ נִהֲלֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: Ḥanan the wicked slapped a certain man. He then came before Rav Huna for judgment. Rav Huna said to him: Go give him a half-dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an act. Ḥanan the wicked had a clipped dinar, and wanted to give him a half-dinar from it, but there was no one who wanted to take it from him to give him smaller coins for it. Ḥanan the wicked then gave him another slap, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of half a dinar, and gave him the clipped dinar as payment.
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לְמִינוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ; מוּעָד לְאָדָם וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לִבְהֵמָה; מוּעָד לִקְטַנִּים וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לִגְדוֹלִים; אֶת שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
MISHNA: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species, as it already gored other oxen three times, but is not forewarned with regard to other species; or an ox that is forewarned with regard to people, but is not forewarned with regard to animals; or one that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species; in all these cases, if the ox gores the type of animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.
אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לַחוֹל? אָמַר לָהֶם: לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, לִימוֹת הַחוֹל – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.
אֵימָתַי הוּא תָּם? מִשֶּׁיַּחְזוֹר בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יְמֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת.
When is it rendered innocuous again after being forewarned with regard to Shabbat? It reverts to its innocuous status when its behavior reverts to normal, i.e., when it refrains from goring for three days of Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat in three successive weeks.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר, רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: ״וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ תְּנַן. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: ״אֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ תְּנַן.
GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Zevid said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, referring to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species, if it gores another species, its owner pays only half the cost of the damage. Rav Pappa said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species. Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that the fact that it is forewarned with regard to goring one species does not render it forewarned with regard to goring other species, until it is proven otherwise.
רַב זְבִיד אָמַר ״וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ תְּנַן – הָא סְתָמָא הָוֵי מוּעָד. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר ״אֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ תְּנַן – דִּסְתָמָא לָא הָוֵי מוּעָד.
The Gemara explains: Rav Zevid said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that it is referring specifically to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species. This implies that in an ordinary case, where there is no such proof, the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all species. Rav Pappa, by contrast, said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species.
רַב זְבִיד דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא, רַב פָּפָּא דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא.
Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause of the mishna, whereas Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause.
רַב זְבִיד דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא – דְּקָתָנֵי: מוּעָד לִקְטַנִּים וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לִגְדוֹלִים. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָתָנֵי – הָא סְתָמֵיהּ הָוֵי מוּעָד; הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דַּאֲפִילּוּ מִקְּטַנִּים לִגְדוֹלִים נָמֵי, מִסְּתָמָא הָוֵי מוּעָד.
Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause, as it teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species. Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all animals, this clause of the mishna teaches us that even from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, in an ordinary case the ox is thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species, which is a more far-reaching statement, as an ox is less likely to gore large animals.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״אֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָתָנֵי – סְתָמָא לָא הָוֵי מוּעָד,
But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, there is a difficulty with the latter clause of the mishna.
הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר מִקְּטַנִּים לִקְטַנִּים דְּעָלְמָא, סְתָמָא לָא הָוֵי מוּעָד; מִקְּטַנִּים לִגְדוֹלִים צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּלָא הָוֵי מוּעָד?
The Gemara explains: Now that it can be said that from being forewarned with regard to small oxen, in an ordinary case, the ox is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to small animals in general, need it be said that from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species it is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species? It must be that the mishna reads: But is not forewarned, indicating that only when the ox is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species and then it gores another species is its owner liable to pay only half the cost of the damage. Otherwise, he must pay the full cost of the damage.
וְרַב פָּפָּא אָמַר לָךְ: אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּיךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּפְרַץ בֵּיהּ בְּהָהוּא מִינָא – פְּרַץ בֵּיהּ, לָא שְׁנָא גְּדוֹלִים דִּידֵיהּ וְלָא שְׁנָא קְטַנִּים דִּידֵיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא הָוֵי מוּעָד.
And Rav Pappa could have said to you in response that even if the mishna reads: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, the latter clause is necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it breached the norm by attacking one of that species, it is considered to have breached the norm entirely with regard to that species, and there is no difference with regard to large members of the species and there is no difference with regard to small members of it, as the ox is now likely to gore any of them. Therefore, this clause of the mishna teaches us that it is not considered forewarned with regard to the large animals of that species.
רַב פָּפָּא דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא, דְּקָתָנֵי: מוּעָד לְאָדָם אֵינוֹ מוּעָד לִבְהֵמָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״אֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ תְּנַן – סְתָמָא לָא הָוֵי מוּעָד; הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דַּאֲפִילּוּ מֵאָדָם לִבְהֵמָה נָמֵי, סְתָמָא לָא הָוֵי מוּעָד.
As stated previously, Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause of the mishna. As the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is not forewarned with regard to animals. Granted, if you say that we learned that the mishna states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, which would indicate that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, it is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then the mishna, in the next clause, teaches us this, that even from being forewarned with regard to people, in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals. The ox is considered innocuous with regard to animals, although it is more common for an ox to gore an animal than a person.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָתָנֵי – הָא סְתָמָא הָוֵי מוּעָד; הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: מִבְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה סְתָמָא הָוֵי מוּעָד, מֵאָדָם לִבְהֵמָה צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּהָוֵי מוּעָד?!
But if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case it is considered forewarned with regard to other species, then there is a difficulty with the following clause of the mishna. Now that it can be said that even from being forewarned with regard to one species of animal, in an ordinary case, it is thereby considered forewarned with regard to other species of animals, need it be said that from its being forewarned with regard to people it is also considered forewarned with regard to animals?
וְרַב זְבִיד אָמַר לָךְ: רֵישָׁא אַחֲזָרָה קָאֵי – כְּגוֹן דַּהֲוָה מוּעָד לְאָדָם וּמוּעָד לִבְהֵמָה, וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ מִבְּהֵמָה – דְּקָאֵי גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי וְלָא נָגַח. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ מֵאָדָם – חֲזָרָה דִבְהֵמָה לָאו חֲזָרָה הִיא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דַּחֲזָרָה דִבְהֵמָה מִיהָא חֲזָרָה הִיא.
And Rav Zevid could have said to you in response: The former clause in the mishna relates to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, i.e., a case where the ox was forewarned with regard to man and forewarned with regard to animals, and reverted to its innocuous status with regard to animals, as it stood in close proximity to an animal three times and did not gore. Lest you say that since it did not demonstratively revert to its innocuous behavior toward people, as it did not refrain from goring people, its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, the mishna teaches us that its reversal with regard to animals is nevertheless considered a reversal, and it no longer has the status of a forewarned ox with regard to goring animals.
מֵיתִיבִי, סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: מוּעָד לָאָדָם מוּעָד לִבְהֵמָה, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר – וּמָה לְאָדָם מוּעָד, לִבְהֵמָה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא ״אֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָאָמַר!
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Zevid’s opinion from a baraita: Sumakhos says: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is considered forewarned with regard to animals, due to an a fortiori inference: If it is forewarned with regard to people, is it not clear all the more so that it is forewarned with regard to animals? The Gemara elaborates: By inference, the first tanna, i.e., the tanna of the mishna, is saying that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב זְבִיד: סוֹמְכוֹס – אַחֲזָרָה קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא קַמָּא: דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ חֲזָרָה דִבְהֵמָה חֲזָרָה הִיא – חֲזָרָה דִבְהֵמָה לָאו חֲזָרָה הִיא, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מֵאָדָם: וּמָה מֵאָדָם לָא קָא (מ)הָדַר בֵּיהּ, מִבְּהֵמָה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid could have said to you that Sumakhos’s statement can be interpreted as relating to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, and this is what he is saying to the first tanna: Contrary to what you are saying, that the ox’s reversal with regard to animals is considered a reversal although it has not yet reversed its behavior toward people, I maintain that its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of an animal forewarned with regard to people: If the ox has not reverted to its innocuous behavior toward people, is it not clear all the more so that it has not truly reverted to its innocuous behavior toward animals?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד לְשַׁבָּתוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לִימוֹת הַחוֹל? אָמַר לָהֶן: לְשַׁבָּתוֹת – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, לִימוֹת הַחוֹל – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
Rav Ashi said: Come and hear a proof for Rav Zevid’s opinion from the mishna: The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָתָנֵי – שַׁיּוֹלֵי הוּא דְּקָא מְשַׁיְּילִי [לֵיהּ], וְהוּא נָמֵי קָמַהְדַּר לְהוּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״אֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָתָנֵי – אַגְמוֹרֵי הוּא דְּקָא מַגְמְרִי לֵיהּ?! וְתוּ, אִיהוּ מַאי קָא מַהְדַּר לְהוּ?
Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches: But was not forewarned with regard to weekdays, they were asking him about the halakha in that case, and likewise, he was answering them with a ruling. But if you say that it teaches: This ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot is not forewarned with regard to weekdays, the mishna would be understood as saying that an ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbat is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays. Is it possible that the Sages were teaching him this halakha? And furthermore, what was he responding to them? They had already stated themselves that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays.
אָמַר רַב יַנַּאי: מֵרֵישָׁא נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֶת שֶׁמּוּעָד לוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לוֹ – [מְשַׁלֵּם] חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
Rav Yannai said: Rav Zevid’s opinion can be inferred from the former clause of the mishna as well, as it teaches: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָתָנֵי – פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ לַהּ.
Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, this clause is explaining the halakha in that case, i.e., if the ox is forewarned only with regard to its species, its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage only if it gores another ox.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״אֵינוֹ מוּעָד״ קָתָנֵי, פַּסְקַהּ; מַאי תּוּ ״אֶת שֶׁמּוּעָד לוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק״? עַד הַשְׁתָּא – לָא אַשְׁמְעִינַן דְּהָתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם?
But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, and the halakha was already determined at the beginning of the mishna, namely, that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then what need is there for the mishna to further state: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage? Has the mishna not taught us until now that for an innocuous ox its owner pays half the cost of the damage and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage?
וְאִי תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר נָמֵי אִיתָא לִדְרַב פָּפָּא; נָגַח שׁוֹר חֲמוֹר וְגָמָל – נַעֲשָׂה מוּעָד לַכֹּל.
The Gemara comments: And even if you say that Rav Pappa’s opinion, which says that an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, is accepted, nevertheless, if an ox gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, it is thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all of them. The ox is rendered forewarned with regard to all three species, regardless of the fact that it did not gore each individual species three times.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: רָאָה שׁוֹר – נָגַח, שׁוֹר – לֹא נָגַח, שׁוֹר – נָגַח, שׁוֹר – לֹא נָגַח, שׁוֹר – נָגַח, שׁוֹר – לֹא נָגַח; נַעֲשָׂה מוּעָד לְסֵירוּגִין לִשְׁווֹרִים.
§ The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and subsequently saw another ox but did not gore it, again saw an ox and gored it and then saw an ox but did not gore it, and a third time saw an ox and gored it and saw an ox and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate oxen. The ox is considered forewarned with regard to goring every other ox that it sees and is considered innocuous with regard to the oxen in between. If it then gores two oxen in a row, the owner of the ox is liable for only half the cost of the damage for the second ox.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: רָאָה שׁוֹר – נָגַח, חֲמוֹר – לֹא נָגַח, סוּס – נָגַח, גָּמָל – לֹא נָגַח, פֶּרֶד – נָגַח, עָרוֹד – לֹא נָגַח; נַעֲשָׂה מוּעָד לְסֵירוּגִין לַכֹּל.
The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and then saw a donkey but did not gore it, and saw a horse and gored it, then saw a camel and did not gore it, and saw a mule and gored it, and then saw a wild donkey [arod] and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate animals of all species.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נָגַח
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox gored
שׁוֹר, שׁוֹר וָשׁוֹר, חֲמוֹר וְגָמָל, מַהוּ?
an ox, another ox, and a third ox, and then a donkey and a camel, with regard to what is it considered forewarned?
הַאי שׁוֹר בָּתְרָא – בָּתַר שְׁווֹרִים שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְאַכַּתִּי לִשְׁווֹרִים הוּא דְּאִיַּיעַד – לְמִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא אִיַּיעַד; אוֹ דִילְמָא, הַאי שׁוֹר בָּתְרָא – בָּתַר חֲמוֹר וְגָמָל שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִיַּיעַד לֵיהּ לְכוּלְּהוּ מִינֵי?
The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this last ox that was gored together with the donkey and the camel, do we place it together with the previously gored oxen, and accordingly the belligerent ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas with regard to other species it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place this last ox together with the donkey and the camel, and it was rendered forewarned with regard to all of the species it gored.
חֲמוֹר וְגָמָל, שׁוֹר, שׁוֹר וָשׁוֹר, מַהוּ? הַאי שׁוֹר קַמָּא – בָּתַר חֲמוֹר וְגָמָל שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִיַּיעַד לֵיהּ לְכוּלְּהוּ מִינֵי; אוֹ דִילְמָא בָּתַר שְׁווֹרִים שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְאַכַּתִּי לִשְׁווֹרִים הוּא דְּאִיַּיעַד – לְמִינָא אַחֲרִינָא לָא אִיַּיעַד?
The Gemara adds a similar dilemma: If an ox gored a donkey and a camel, and then an ox, an ox, and another ox, what is the halakha? The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this first ox that it gored, do we place it together with the camel and donkey, and the belligerent ox was accordingly rendered forewarned with regard to all species? Or perhaps we place it together with the two oxen that it gored afterward, and accordingly, it was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas it was not rendered forewarned with regard to other species.
שַׁבָּת, שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת, אֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וְשֵׁנִי בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ? הָא שַׁבָּת בָּתְרָיְיתָא – בָּתַר שַׁבָּת הוּא דְּשָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְאַכַּתִּי לְשַׁבָּת הוּא דְּאִיַּיעַד – לִימוֹת הַחוֹל לָא אִיַּיעַד; אוֹ דִילְמָא בָּתַר אֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וְשֵׁנִי בְּשַׁבָּת שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִיַּיעַד לֵיהּ לְכוּלֵּי יוֹמָא?
Similarly, if it gored on Shabbat, on Shabbat, and on Shabbat, i.e., on three consecutive Shabbatot, and then on Sunday and on Monday, what is the halakha? With regard to this last Shabbat, do we place it together with the previous Shabbat, and the ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbat, whereas with regard to weekdays it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place it together with the goring on Sunday and Monday, and it was thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week.
חֲמִישִׁי בְּשַׁבָּת וְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת, שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ? הָא שַׁבָּת קַמַּיְיתָא – בָּתַר חֲמִישִׁי בְּשַׁבָּת וְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִיַּיעַד לְכוּלְּהוּ יוֹמֵי; אוֹ דִילְמָא הָא שַׁבָּת קַמַּיְיתָא – בָּתַר שַׁבָּתוֹת הוּא דְּשָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וּלְשֶׁבָּתוֹת הוּא דְּאִיַּיעַד?
If an ox gored on Thursday, and Friday, and Shabbat, and then the next Shabbat and the next Shabbat after that, what is the halakha? With regard to this first Shabbat, do we place it together with Thursday and Friday, and thereby hold that the ox was rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week? Or perhaps we place this first Shabbat together with the other Shabbatot, and the ox is rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbatot?
תֵּיקוּ.
These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
נָגַח שׁוֹר יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּחוֹדֶשׁ זֶה, וְיוֹם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּחוֹדֶשׁ זֶה, וְיוֹם שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּחוֹדֶשׁ זֶה – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל,
§ If an ox gored on the fifteenth day of this month, and subsequently gored on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and then on the seventeenth day of the month after that, the halakha is subject to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to a parallel discussion concerning a woman whose menstrual cycle begins on a different day each month.
דְּאִתְּמַר: רָאֲתָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה, וְיוֹם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה, וְיוֹם שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה – רַב אָמַר: קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עַד שֶׁתְּשַׁלֵּשׁ בְּדִילּוּג.
As it was stated: If a woman saw menstrual blood on the fifteenth day of this month, and on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and on the seventeenth day of the month after that, Rav says: She has thereby established her menstrual cycle [veset], i.e., a month and one day. And Shmuel says: Her menstrual cycle is not established until she skips a day three times. According to Shmuel, the cycle is established in this case not by the date per se, but rather by the pattern of one additional day every month. Only when this occurs for three consecutive months, i.e., when she menstruates in the fourth month, is this pattern established.
אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁמַע קוֹל שׁוֹפָר וְנָגַח, קוֹל שׁוֹפָר וְנָגַח, קוֹל שׁוֹפָר וְנָגַח – נַעֲשָׂה מוּעָד לְשׁוֹפָרוֹת.
§ Rava said: If an ox heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and again heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and a third time heard the sound of a shofar and gored, it is rendered forewarned with regard to the sound of shofarot.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָךְ שׁוֹפָר קַמָּא – סְיוּטָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּנַקְטֵיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this first shofar merely startled [siyyuta] the ox, prompting it to gore, and that consequently it should not count for the purpose of rendering the ox forewarned, Rava teaches us that since the ox repeatedly gored upon hearing the sound of a shofar, this sound is considered a consistent impetus for its goring.
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
MISHNA: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored a consecrated ox, and conversely, a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, i.e., an ox owned by a Jew, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation, as it is stated: “And if one man’s ox hurts the ox of another” (Exodus 21:35). It is derived from the phrase “the ox of another” that one is liable only if it is a non-sacred ox, but not if it is a consecrated ox, which belongs to the Temple treasury, regardless of whether the latter was the ox that gored or the ox that was gored.
שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר. וְשֶׁל גּוֹי שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability. But with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, regardless of whether the goring ox was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage.
גּמ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט – פָּטוּר; וְשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
GEMARA: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, or a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability, as it is stated: “The ox of another,” indicating: But not a consecrated ox. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: With regard to a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
אָמְרִי: מַאי קָא סָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אִי ״רֵעֵהוּ״ דַּוְקָא – אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּגַח שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ לִיפְּטַר! וְאִי ״רֵעֵהוּ״ לָאו דַּוְקָא – אֲפִילּוּ דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ נָמֵי, כִּי נָגַח דְּהֶדְיוֹט לִיחַיַּיב!
The Sages said: What does Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya hold? Why does he distinguish between a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox and a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox? If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, then even with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox the owner of the belligerant ox should be exempt from liability, as the victim is not the ox of another, but belongs to the Temple treasury. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, but rather, includes all oxen, then a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox should render the Temple treasury liable as well.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר ״רֵעֵהוּ״ דַּוְקָא, וּמִיהוּ דְּהֶדְיוֹט כִּי נָגַח דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּמִיחַיַּיב – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר דְּהֶדְיוֹט: וּמָה הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּגַח שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט – חַיָּיב, כִּי נָגַח דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמִיחַיַּיב?
And if you would say that actually Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya holds that “of another” is meant in a precise manner, and accordingly, if a consecrated ox gores a non-sacred ox the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but nevertheless, when a non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, this is the reason its owner is liable: Because Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya infers it a fortiori from the case of a non-sacred ox, as follows: If in the case of a non-sacred ox that gores another non-sacred ox the owner of the belligerent ox is liable, is it not clear all the more so that when it gores a consecrated ox the owner of the ox is liable?
דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין – לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן! מָה לְהַלָּן – תָּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, הָכָא נָמֵי חֲצִי נֶזֶק!
If this is Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya’s reasoning, then his ruling that the owner of the ox pays the Temple treasury the full cost of the damage, whether his ox was innocuous or forewarned, is problematic, as it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the halakha of the source from which it is derived. Therefore, just as there, in a case where an individual’s innocuous non-sacred ox gores another non-sacred ox, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage, here too, if an innocuous non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, its owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם; כְּשֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ גַּבֵּי תָם – רֵעֵהוּ הוּא דְּתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק; מִכְּלָל דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ – בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם;
Rather, Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya’s reasoning is as follows: In principle, all cases of damage were included among those in which the owner pays the full cost of the damage. The halakha that in a case of an innocuous ox the owner pays only half the cost of the damage is an exception to the rule, and when the verse specified the term “of another” with regard to an innocuous ox, it intended that it is specifically when one’s innocuous ox gores the ox of another that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage. And by inference, if it gores a consecrated ox, whether the belligerent ox is innocuous or forewarned its owner pays the full cost of the damage.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Oceanside NY, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
New York, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Bava Kamma 37
ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ.
do not require a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] by transferring the right of collection to the court. The reason that orphans do not require this document is because the court is legally considered to be their steward, and their debts are therefore transferred to the court automatically, even without a prosbol.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ.
Similarly, Rami bar αΈ€ama taught: Orphans do not require a prosbol, as Rabban Gamliel and his court were tantamount to the fathers of orphans, as they were vigilant to collect all of the debts owed to orphans. Subsequently, the courts in every generation have this status.
ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ’ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ’ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara relates: αΈ€anan the wicked slapped a certain man. He then came before Rav Huna for judgment. Rav Huna said to him: Go give him a half-dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an act. αΈ€anan the wicked had a clipped dinar, and wanted to give him a half-dinar from it, but there was no one who wanted to take it from him to give him smaller coins for it. αΈ€anan the wicked then gave him another slap, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of half a dinar, and gave him the clipped dinar as payment.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ; ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§.
MISHNA: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species, as it already gored other oxen three times, but is not forewarned with regard to other species; or an ox that is forewarned with regard to people, but is not forewarned with regard to animals; or one that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species; in all these cases, if the ox gores the type of animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§.
The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ.
When is it rendered innocuous again after being forewarned with regard to Shabbat? It reverts to its innocuous status when its behavior reverts to normal, i.e., when it refrains from goring for three days of Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat in three successive weeks.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨, Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ. Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ.
GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Zevid said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, referring to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species, if it gores another species, its owner pays only half the cost of the damage. Rav Pappa said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species. Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that the fact that it is forewarned with regard to goring one species does not render it forewarned with regard to goring other species, until it is proven otherwise.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara explains: Rav Zevid said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that it is referring specifically to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species. This implies that in an ordinary case, where there is no such proof, the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all species. Rav Pappa, by contrast, said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ.
Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause of the mishna, whereas Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause, as it teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species. Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all animals, this clause of the mishna teaches us that even from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, in an ordinary case the ox is thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species, which is a more far-reaching statement, as an ox is less likely to gore large animals.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ,
But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, there is a difficulty with the latter clause of the mishna.
ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ; ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ?
The Gemara explains: Now that it can be said that from being forewarned with regard to small oxen, in an ordinary case, the ox is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to small animals in general, need it be said that from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species it is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species? It must be that the mishna reads: But is not forewarned, indicating that only when the ox is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species and then it gores another species is its owner liable to pay only half the cost of the damage. Otherwise, he must pay the full cost of the damage.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ°, Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ; Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
And Rav Pappa could have said to you in response that even if the mishna reads: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, the latter clause is necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it breached the norm by attacking one of that species, it is considered to have breached the norm entirely with regard to that species, and there is no difference with regard to large members of the species and there is no difference with regard to small members of it, as the ox is now likely to gore any of them. Therefore, this clause of the mishna teaches us that it is not considered forewarned with regard to the large animals of that species.
Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ β Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
As stated previously, Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause of the mishna. As the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is not forewarned with regard to animals. Granted, if you say that we learned that the mishna states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, which would indicate that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, it is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then the mishna, in the next clause, teaches us this, that even from being forewarned with regard to people, in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals. The ox is considered innocuous with regard to animals, although it is more common for an ox to gore an animal than a person.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ; ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ?!
But if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case it is considered forewarned with regard to other species, then there is a difficulty with the following clause of the mishna. Now that it can be said that even from being forewarned with regard to one species of animal, in an ordinary case, it is thereby considered forewarned with regard to other species of animals, need it be said that from its being forewarned with regard to people it is also considered forewarned with regard to animals?
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ; Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
And Rav Zevid could have said to you in response: The former clause in the mishna relates to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, i.e., a case where the ox was forewarned with regard to man and forewarned with regard to animals, and reverted to its innocuous status with regard to animals, as it stood in close proximity to an animal three times and did not gore. Lest you say that since it did not demonstratively revert to its innocuous behavior toward people, as it did not refrain from goring people, its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, the mishna teaches us that its reversal with regard to animals is nevertheless considered a reversal, and it no longer has the status of a forewarned ox with regard to goring animals.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨!
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Zevidβs opinion from a baraita: Sumakhos says: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is considered forewarned with regard to animals, due to an a fortiori inference: If it is forewarned with regard to people, is it not clear all the more so that it is forewarned with regard to animals? The Gemara elaborates: By inference, the first tanna, i.e., the tanna of the mishna, is saying that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ (Χ)ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ?
The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid could have said to you that Sumakhosβs statement can be interpreted as relating to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, and this is what he is saying to the first tanna: Contrary to what you are saying, that the oxβs reversal with regard to animals is considered a reversal although it has not yet reversed its behavior toward people, I maintain that its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of an animal forewarned with regard to people: If the ox has not reverted to its innocuous behavior toward people, is it not clear all the more so that it has not truly reverted to its innocuous behavior toward animals?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ: ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§.
Rav Ashi said: Come and hear a proof for Rav Zevidβs opinion from the mishna: The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦ΄Χ [ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ], ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ?! ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ?
Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches: But was not forewarned with regard to weekdays, they were asking him about the halakha in that case, and likewise, he was answering them with a ruling. But if you say that it teaches: This ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot is not forewarned with regard to weekdays, the mishna would be understood as saying that an ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbat is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays. Is it possible that the Sages were teaching him this halakha? And furthermore, what was he responding to them? They had already stated themselves that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΧ: ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ β [ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ] ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§.
Rav Yannai said: Rav Zevidβs opinion can be inferred from the former clause of the mishna as well, as it teaches: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ.
Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, this clause is explaining the halakha in that case, i.e., if the ox is forewarned only with regard to its species, its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage only if it gores another ox.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ, Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌ; ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§Χ΄? Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§, ΧΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ?
But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, and the halakha was already determined at the beginning of the mishna, namely, that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then what need is there for the mishna to further state: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage? Has the mishna not taught us until now that for an innocuous ox its owner pays half the cost of the damage and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ; Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ.
The Gemara comments: And even if you say that Rav Pappaβs opinion, which says that an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, is accepted, nevertheless, if an ox gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, it is thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all of them. The ox is rendered forewarned with regard to all three species, regardless of the fact that it did not gore each individual species three times.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ; Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
Β§ The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and subsequently saw another ox but did not gore it, again saw an ox and gored it and then saw an ox but did not gore it, and a third time saw an ox and gored it and saw an ox and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate oxen. The ox is considered forewarned with regard to goring every other ox that it sees and is considered innocuous with regard to the oxen in between. If it then gores two oxen in a row, the owner of the ox is liable for only half the cost of the damage for the second ox.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ‘ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ; Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ.
The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and then saw a donkey but did not gore it, and saw a horse and gored it, then saw a camel and did not gore it, and saw a mule and gored it, and then saw a wild donkey [arod] and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate animals of all species.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox gored
Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ?
an ox, another ox, and a third ox, and then a donkey and a camel, with regard to what is it considered forewarned?
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ?
The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this last ox that was gored together with the donkey and the camel, do we place it together with the previously gored oxen, and accordingly the belligerent ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas with regard to other species it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place this last ox together with the donkey and the camel, and it was rendered forewarned with regard to all of the species it gored.
ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨, Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ?
The Gemara adds a similar dilemma: If an ox gored a donkey and a camel, and then an ox, an ox, and another ox, what is the halakha? The Gemara presents the possibilities: With regard to this first ox that it gored, do we place it together with the camel and donkey, and the belligerent ox was accordingly rendered forewarned with regard to all species? Or perhaps we place it together with the two oxen that it gored afterward, and accordingly, it was still rendered forewarned only with regard to oxen, whereas it was not rendered forewarned with regard to other species.
Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ?
Similarly, if it gored on Shabbat, on Shabbat, and on Shabbat, i.e., on three consecutive Shabbatot, and then on Sunday and on Monday, what is the halakha? With regard to this last Shabbat, do we place it together with the previous Shabbat, and the ox was still rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbat, whereas with regard to weekdays it was not rendered forewarned? Or perhaps we place it together with the goring on Sunday and Monday, and it was thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ·Χ?
If an ox gored on Thursday, and Friday, and Shabbat, and then the next Shabbat and the next Shabbat after that, what is the halakha? With regard to this first Shabbat, do we place it together with Thursday and Friday, and thereby hold that the ox was rendered forewarned with regard to all days of the week? Or perhaps we place this first Shabbat together with the other Shabbatot, and the ox is rendered forewarned only with regard to Shabbatot?
ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΌ.
These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ,
Β§ If an ox gored on the fifteenth day of this month, and subsequently gored on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and then on the seventeenth day of the month after that, the halakha is subject to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to a parallel discussion concerning a woman whose menstrual cycle begins on a different day each month.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧ β Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ.
As it was stated: If a woman saw menstrual blood on the fifteenth day of this month, and on the sixteenth day of the month after that, and on the seventeenth day of the month after that, Rav says: She has thereby established her menstrual cycle [veset], i.e., a month and one day. And Shmuel says: Her menstrual cycle is not established until she skips a day three times. According to Shmuel, the cycle is established in this case not by the date per se, but rather by the pattern of one additional day every month. Only when this occurs for three consecutive months, i.e., when she menstruates in the fourth month, is this pattern established.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ β Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ.
Β§ Rava said: If an ox heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and again heard the sound of a shofar and gored, and a third time heard the sound of a shofar and gored, it is rendered forewarned with regard to the sound of shofarot.
Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ; Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: Isnβt this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this first shofar merely startled [siyyuta] the ox, prompting it to gore, and that consequently it should not count for the purpose of rendering the ox forewarned, Rava teaches us that since the ox repeatedly gored upon hearing the sound of a shofar, this sound is considered a consistent impetus for its goring.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ.
MISHNA: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored a consecrated ox, and conversely, a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, i.e., an ox owned by a Jew, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation, as it is stated: βAnd if one manβs ox hurts the ox of anotherβ (Exodus 21:35). It is derived from the phrase βthe ox of anotherβ that one is liable only if it is a non-sacred ox, but not if it is a consecrated ox, which belongs to the Temple treasury, regardless of whether the latter was the ox that gored or the ox that was gored.
Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability. But with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, regardless of whether the goring ox was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage.
ΧΦΌΧΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨; ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
GEMARA: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, or a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability, as it is stated: βThe ox of another,β indicating: But not a consecrated ox. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: With regard to a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦ΄Χ Χ΄Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨! ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ΄Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ!
The Sages said: What does Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya hold? Why does he distinguish between a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox and a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox? If the phrase βof anotherβ is meant in a precise manner, then even with regard to a non-sacred ox that gored a consecrated ox the owner of the belligerant ox should be exempt from liability, as the victim is not the ox of another, but belongs to the Temple treasury. And if the phrase βof anotherβ is not meant in a precise manner, but rather, includes all oxen, then a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox should render the Temple treasury liable as well.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ?
And if you would say that actually Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya holds that βof anotherβ is meant in a precise manner, and accordingly, if a consecrated ox gores a non-sacred ox the Temple treasury is exempt from liability; but nevertheless, when a non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, this is the reason its owner is liable: Because Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya infers it a fortiori from the case of a non-sacred ox, as follows: If in the case of a non-sacred ox that gores another non-sacred ox the owner of the belligerent ox is liable, is it not clear all the more so that when it gores a consecrated ox the owner of the ox is liable?
ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ! ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§!
If this is Rabbi Shimon ben Menasyaβs reasoning, then his ruling that the owner of the ox pays the Temple treasury the full cost of the damage, whether his ox was innocuous or forewarned, is problematic, as it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the halakha of the source from which it is derived. Therefore, just as there, in a case where an individualβs innocuous non-sacred ox gores another non-sacred ox, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage, here too, if an innocuous non-sacred ox gores a consecrated ox, its owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ; ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΌΧ: Χ΄Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§; ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ;
Rather, Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasyaβs reasoning is as follows: In principle, all cases of damage were included among those in which the owner pays the full cost of the damage. The halakha that in a case of an innocuous ox the owner pays only half the cost of the damage is an exception to the rule, and when the verse specified the term βof anotherβ with regard to an innocuous ox, it intended that it is specifically when oneβs innocuous ox gores the ox of another that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage. And by inference, if it gores a consecrated ox, whether the belligerent ox is innocuous or forewarned its owner pays the full cost of the damage.
