Bava Kamma 16a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara brings another answer:

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna is, in its entirety,

according to

the method of

Rabbi Tarfon, and therefore “an ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party,” which is mentioned at the end of the Mishna, initially pays full damage. However, what we learned at the

first clause, “The animal is not forewarned to gore,” for which it pays only half the damage—and we proved that this refers to the courtyard of the injured party—does not refer to a domain belonging entirely to the injured party. Rather, it refers to

beginning, “the animal is not forewarned to gore,” which pays only half-damage, and we proved that this refers to the courtyard of the injured party, does not refer to the injured party’s complete domain, but rather

one of them

to a courtyard designated for

one of them to place

produce only,

namely, for the injured party,

and for this one and for that one

both the damager and the injured party have permission

to

bring

oxen there.

For with regard to tooth, it is the courtyard of the injured party, since it is designated only for him for produce, it is considered, with regard to the produce, the courtyard of the injured party, for which tooth is liable.

.

But

however,

with regard to horn, it is the public domain, since both of them have permission in it, it is, with regard to them, like the public domain; therefore, it pays only half-damage.

.

But the Gemara asks about this answer:

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching

I stated this teaching [this answer]

before Rav Zevid of Nehardea,

before Rav Zevid,

and he said to me: Can you establish it

how can you establish that the Mishna

in its entirety is according to Rabbi Tarfon!?

And

For it teaches,

for we learned in our Mishna:

“Tooth is forewarned to eat that which is

fit for it.”

And it implies:

“fit for it”—yes,

this law, that tooth is forewarned to pay full damage, was stated only if it ate something fit for it, such as produce and vegetables; but if it ate something

that is not fit for it,

such as garments and vessels,

not

does it pay full damage, since, as it is unusual, it is horn, and it pays only half-damage, even though our Mishna is speaking of the courtyard of the injured party—for with regard to tooth it certainly refers to the courtyard of the injured party, as we established, that it is designated only for him for produce—and in that same situation, when it eats what is not fit for it, it pays only half-damage.

And if

our Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Tarfon,

a difficulty arises:

did he not say

Rabbi Tarfon, “Unusual

horn in the courtyard of the injured party pays full damage”?

Therefore, the Gemara gives another explanation of the Mishna:

Rather, in fact,

our Mishna in its entirety is according to the method of

the Rabbis, but something is missing, and this is what it teaches:

our Mishna is stated in an abbreviated formulation, and this is what it intends to say

There are five tame animals,

an animal that gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked: on the first occasions they are tame, and they pay half-damage.

And if they were forewarned,

after they did so three times, and were forewarned before a court and the owners, they became

all five forewarned,

and they pay full damage. And when the Mishna stated “five forewarned,” it meant these five tame animals that were forewarned. The Mishna now continues to teach the laws of damages:

“And tooth and foot are forewarned from the outset,”

and they pay full damage from the outset. And when the Mishna continues, “and a forewarned ox, and an ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party,” it does not refer to horn, which pays full damage in the domain of the injured party; rather, this is the meaning of the Mishna:

“And where is their forewarning”

where do tooth and foot pay full damage? When the ox causes damage

in the courtyard of the injured party.

The Gemara challenges this resolution:

The Gemara raises an objection to this answer:

Ravina challenged it

[he objected]

Ravina:

How is it possible to explain that “an ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party” refers to tooth and foot?

For it teaches below,

for in the second chapter the Mishna explains there the forewarned animals in our Mishna, and continues:

“An ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party—how so?”

And the Mishna brings the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Tarfon as to whether horn in the courtyard of the injured party pays full damage or only half-damage.

Granted, if you say that it deals with it,

if you say that “an ox that causes damage in the courtyard of the injured party,” stated in our Mishna, refers to horn, this is understandable

because of this it teaches “how so,”

it is appropriate that the Mishna in the second chapter, when coming to explain our Mishna, ask how the law stated in our Mishna applies, and explain the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis.

But

[however],

if you say that it does not deal with it,

if you say that “an ox that causes damage in the courtyard of the injured party” does not refer to horn,

what is “how so”?

What is the meaning of the Mishna’s question, “How so?” That is, concerning what does the question relate, such that the Mishna had to explain the law?

Therefore, the Gemara gives another explanation of the Mishna:

Rather, Ravina said:

Indeed, the entire Mishna is to be established according to the Rabbis, but

something is missing, and this is what it teaches: There are five tame animals,

an animal that gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked, and initially pays half-damage,

and if they were forewarned

and after they did so three times,

all five are forewarned.

And

however,

tooth and foot are forewarned from the outset,

and what the Mishna continues, “and a forewarned ox,” relates to those concerning whom it was stated at the beginning, “and if they were forewarned, all five are forewarned,”

and

the Mishna says that

this is

the

forewarned ox

written in the passage.

The Mishna now makes known an additional law:

and

it is

the ox that causes damage

by horn

in the domain of the injured party,

which is

the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis,

as will be explained in the second chapter.

The Mishna further adds to teach:

“And there are other forewarned animals similar to these,”

which pay full damage from the outset:

the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the tiger, and the snake.

The Gemara brings support for this interpretation from a baraita:

The Gemara brings support for this explanation from a beraita:

It was likewise taught,

we learned in a beraita as Ravina explains:

“There are five tame animals, and if they were forewarned, all five are

forewarned. And tooth and foot are forewarned from the outset. And this is the forewarned ox. And an ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party is the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other forewarned animals similar to these: the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the tiger, and the snake.”

Some said that Ravina’s words relate to another difficulty:

There are those who posed it as a difficulty,

some said that Ravina came to resolve another difficulty raised concerning our Mishna:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“Five tame animals and five forewarned animals,”

and it is difficult:

“And are there no more?”

Can there be no more forewarned animals than five?

For there is

and indeed there are

the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the tiger, and the snake,

which are forewarned from the outset?

And he answers,

and they bring an answer to this difficulty:

Ravina said: Something is missing, and this is what it teaches

our Mishna is stated in an abbreviated formulation, and it intends to say:

“There are five tame animals, and if they were forewarned, all five are forewarned. And tooth and foot are forewarned from the outset. And this is,

the five that were forewarned,

the forewarned ox

written in the Torah.

And an ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party

is

the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis.

And there are other forewarned animals similar to these,

and they are:

the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the tiger, and the snake.

Thus, the Mishna did not come to count five forewarned animals; it merely said that these five tame animals, if they are forewarned, become forewarned.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And not to lie down,”

an animal does not ordinarily lie down on vessels and break them; therefore, it pays half-damage, as the law of a tame horn.

The Gemara explains that this law does not apply to all vessels:

Rabbi Elazar said: They taught

that an animal’s lying down on vessels is an unusual act and is a derivative of horn

only

when the animal lay down on

large jars

[vessels]

But

if it lay down on

small jars,

this is not unusual,

for

it is its manner:

it is its way to lie down on small vessels; therefore, it is a derivative of foot, and consequently, in the public domain it is exempt, while in the domain of the injured party it pays full damage, like foot.

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof to Rabbi Elazar’s words:

Let us say that it supports him,

a proof may be brought for his words from the beraita that we learned: “

The animal is forewarned to walk in its usual manner and break, and

also

to crush

with its body

a person, and

also

an animal and vessels.”

It is thus explained that an animal is forewarned to crush with its body, namely, to lie down on vessels. But this is difficult: in our Mishna we learned that an animal is not forewarned to lie down on vessels. Rather, certainly one must distinguish, as Rabbi Elazar said, between lying down on large vessels and lying down on small vessels: an animal’s lying down on large vessels is unusual, and our Mishna speaks of this, whereas an animal’s lying down on small vessels is its manner, and the beraita speaks of this.

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

Perhaps,

perhaps when the beraita says that an animal is forewarned to crush the vessels with its body, it is not speaking of crushing them by lying down, but rather

from the side,

that is, when it walks and crushes the vessels situated between it and the wall, and this is a derivative of foot, but lying down is always unusual and is horn.

The Gemara brings another version of Rabbi Elazar’s words:

There are those who say,

some said that Rabbi Elazar said as follows:

Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say,

do not say that what we learned in our Mishna, that lying down on vessels is unusual and is horn, was stated only when it lay down on

large jars, which is not its manner, but

that lying down on

small jars is its manner,

that it is its way to lie down on them and is a derivative of foot, for this is not correct.

Rather, even

lying down on

small jars is also not its manner,

this too is not the way of an animal, and it is unusual; therefore, it is a derivative of horn.

He objected

from what we learned in a beraita: the animal is forewarned to walk in its usual manner and break,

and to crush

with its body

a person and

also

an animal and vessels.

It is thus clear that it is forewarned to crush vessels with its body, namely, by lying down on them. But this is difficult: in our Mishna it was explained that this is not its manner and is unusual. It must therefore be distinguished: our Mishna speaks when it lay down on large vessels, which is not its manner, whereas the beraita speaks when it lay down on small vessels, which is its manner and is a derivative of foot—contrary to Rabbi Elazar’s words, that even lying down on small jars is unusual and a derivative of horn.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Elazar said:

This cannot be proven from the beraita, because

perhaps

the beraita is not speaking when the animal crushed the vessels by lying down, but rather

from the side,

that is, when it was walking, it crushed the vessels that were between it and the wall. This is its manner and is a derivative of foot; but lying down on vessels is not its manner, even on small vessels.

Some said that Rabbi Elazar came to resolve the contradiction:

There are those who posed it as a difficulty,

some presented the contradiction:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“And not to lie down,”

that an animal is not accustomed to lie down on vessels,

and it was taught,

and in a beraita we learned: “

And to crush,

that an animal is forewarned to crush with its body, namely, by lying down,

a person, an animal, and vessels”;

and this is difficult, since it contradicts the words of our Mishna.

Rabbi Elazar came to answer the contradiction:

Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult; here

in our Mishna it speaks

of large jars,

on which an animal is not accustomed to lie down,

and here

in the beraita it speaks

of small jars,

on which an animal is accustomed to lie down.

We learned in our Mishna:

“The wolf and the lion”

and the bear, the leopard, and the tiger

“and so on,”

these are forewarned.

What is

what is

the tiger?

Rav Yehuda said:

The tiger is

a nefrazah.

What is

what is

a nefrazah?

Rav Yosef said:

A nefrazah is

an afa

[and it will be explained later that this refers to the hyena].

He objected,

they objected to Rav Yosef from a beraita, which adds to what our Mishna said, that the lion, wolf, bear, and so on are forewarned from the outset, for it was taught:

Rabbi Meir says: Even the hyena

is included among those forewarned from the outset.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even the snake.

And Rav Yosef said: This hyena is

the animal called

an afa.

Since we learned in the beraita that Rabbi Meir adds the hyena to what is stated in our Mishna, namely, “afa,” how can it be explained that this tiger is an afa, namely, a hyena? Rabbi Meir comes to add the hyena, and it is proven that the tiger is not a hyena!

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult,

this is not a difficulty, because

here,

in our Mishna, where the tiger is mentioned, it speaks

of a male hyena,

and only it is called an afa.

And here,

Rabbi Meir in the beraita, who adds the hyena, speaks

of a female hyena,

and it is not called an afa.

And when Rav Yosef said, “This hyena is an afa,” he did not say this concerning Rabbi Meir’s statement, but concerning a male hyena. The reason that a male hyena is called an afa, and likewise a tiger and a nefrazah, is that it changes into several species, as explained in a beraita:

For it was taught,

in a beraita:

A male hyena, after seven years, becomes a bat.

A bat, after seven years, becomes an arpad.

An arpad, after seven

years, becomes a kimosh. A kimosh, after seven years, becomes a hoah.

A hoah, after seven years, becomes a demon.

The backbone of a person, after seven years,

after he has

died, becomes a snake.

And these words,

that it becomes a snake, were said only of a person

who did not bow during Modim,

who, while standing in the Standing Prayer [the Eighteen], did not bow when he reached “We acknowledge You,” as the Sages ordained. The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s words in the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

Rabbi Meir says: even the hyena.

Rabbi Elazar says: even the snake.

The words of the beraita refer to what is stated in the Mishna, “the wolf, the lion, and the bear,” etc., that they are forewarned from the outset. And if they refer to the words of Rabbi Elazar, who said, “also the snake,” it follows that he came to add that not only those mentioned in the Mishna are forewarned from the outset, but also the snake