Bava Kamma 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara presents another resolution:

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna can always be understood as referring

entirely

to the view of

Rabbi Tarfon; therefore, “an ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party,” mentioned in the latter clause of the Mishna, initially pays the full damage. However, what we learned in 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

a courtyard designated for

one of them

to place

his produce there

alone, namely, the injured party,

and

for both of them—the one causing the damage as well as the injured party—

there is permission

to

bring

oxen there.

For with regard to tooth, it is considered the courtyard of the injured party,

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

But

with regard to

horn, it is considered the public domain,

since both of them have permission to use it, it is considered, with regard to them, like the public domain. Therefore, he pays only half the damage.

But the Gemara raises an objection to this resolution:

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching

I stated this teaching [this resolution]

before Rav Zevid of Nehardea,

before Rav Zevid,

and he said to me: Can you establish it

how can you establish that the Mishna

entirely follows Rabbi Tarfon?

And

it teaches,

for we learned in our Mishna:

“Tooth is forewarned to eat that which is

fit for it.”

And this implies:

“That which is fit for it”—yes,

this law, that tooth is forewarned and pays full damage, applies only when it ate something fit for it, such as produce and vegetables; but if it ate something

not fit for it,

such as garments or utensils,

it does not

pay full damage. Since this is atypical behavior, it is horn, and it pays only half the damage, despite the fact that 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 for him alone for produce. In that same situation, when it eats something unfit for it, it pays only half the damage.

And if

our Mishna

follows Rabbi Tarfon,

it is difficult:

Does he not say

Rabbi Tarfon said: “Atypical

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

Therefore, the Gemara offers another interpretation of the Mishna:

Rather, always

our Mishna entirely follows the view of the

Sages, but it is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

our Mishna is formulated in an abbreviated manner, and this is what it intends to say

There are five innocuous animals,

an animal that gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked is innocuous on the first occasions, and pays half the damage.

And if they become forewarned,

after they have done so three times, and have been forewarned before a court and the owners,

all five of them become forewarned,

and pay full damage. When the Mishna states, “There are five forewarned animals,” it refers to these five innocuous animals that became forewarned. The Mishna now continues to teach the laws of damages:

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

and pay full damage from the outset. As for the continuation of the Mishna, “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:

Ravina challenged it

:

Ravina asked: How can it be explained that “an ox that causes damage in the domain of the injured party” refers to tooth and foot

?

It teaches below,

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

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

The Mishna then presents the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Tarfon as to whether horn in the courtyard of the injured party pays full damage or only half the 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 that it teaches, “How so?”

It is appropriate that when the Mishna in the second chapter comes to interpret our Mishna, it asks how the law taught in our Mishna applies, and explains the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Sages.

But

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 subject of the Mishna’s question, such that the Mishna had to explain the law?

Therefore, the Gemara offers another interpretation of the Mishna:

Rather, Ravina said:

Indeed, the entire Mishna should be established as following the Sages, but

it is incomplete, and this is what it teaches: There are five innocuous animals,

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

and if they became forewarned,

after they have done so three times,

all five of them become forewarned.

And

however,

tooth and foot are forewarned from the outset,

and the continuation of the Mishna, “and a forewarned ox,” refers to those mentioned earlier: “And if they became forewarned, all five of them become forewarned,”

and

the Mishna says that

this is

the

forewarned ox

written in the passage.

The Mishna now teaches an additional law: And

it is

an ox that causes damage

by means of horn

in the domain of the injured party,

which is

the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Sages,

as will be explained in the second chapter.

The Mishna adds another teaching:

“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 cheetah, and the snake.

The Gemara brings support for this interpretation from a baraita:

It was taught likewise,

we learned in a baraita in accordance with Ravina’s interpretation

:

“There are five innocuous animals, and if they become forewarned, all five of them

become 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 subject of the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Sages. And there are other forewarned animals similar to these: the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the cheetah, and the snake.”

Some say that Ravina’s statement was directed at another difficulty:

There are those who raise this as a contradiction,

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

We learned

in our Mishna:

“There are five innocuous animals and five forewarned animals,”

and it is difficult:

“Are there no more?”

Are there no more than five forewarned animals?

But there are

also

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

which are forewarned from the outset?

And they resolve it, and they offer a resolution to this difficulty:

Ravina said: The Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches

: Our Mishna is formulated in an abbreviated manner, and its intention is:

“There are five innocuous animals, and if they become forewarned, all five of them become forewarned. And tooth and foot are forewarned from the outset. And this is,

the five that became 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 Sages.

And there are other forewarned animals similar to these,

namely:

the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the cheetah, and the snake.”

Thus, the Mishna did not come to enumerate five forewarned animals; rather, it merely stated that these five innocuous animals, if they become forewarned, become forewarned.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And not to lie down,”

an animal is not accustomed to lie down on utensils and break them. Therefore, it pays half the damage, as the law of an innocuous horn.

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

Rabbi Elazar said: They taught

that an animal’s lying down on utensils is atypical behavior and is a derivative of horn

only

when the animal lay down on

large jars

[utensils]

. But

if it lay down on

small jars,

this is not a deviation

, for

it is its normal behavior:

it is accustomed to lie down on small utensils. Therefore, it is a derivative of foot, and consequently it is exempt in the public domain and pays full damage in the domain of the injured party, as in the case of foot.

The Gemara attempts to bring support for Rabbi Elazar’s statement:

Shall we say that this supports him,

that support can be brought from the baraita that we learned: “

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

also

to crush

with its body

a person, and

also

an animal and utensils.” This indicates that an animal is forewarned to crush with its body, meaning to lie down on utensils. But this is difficult, as our Mishna teaches that an animal is not forewarned to lie down on utensils. Rather, one must certainly distinguish, as Rabbi Elazar said, between lying down on large utensils and lying down on small utensils: lying down on large utensils is atypical, and this is the case discussed in our Mishna, whereas lying down on small utensils is normal behavior, and this is the case discussed in the baraita.

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

Perhaps,

what the baraita said—that an animal is forewarned to crush utensils with its body—does not refer to crushing them by lying down, but rather

from the side,

that is, when it walks and crushes utensils located between it and the wall,

which is a derivative of foot, whereas lying down is always atypical and is a form of horn. The Gemara brings another version of Rabbi Elazar’s statement: There are those who say that this is what Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say

that what we learned in our Mishna—that lying down on utensils is atypical behavior and is horn—was said only when it lay down on

large jars, which is not its normal behavior. But

to lie down on

small jars is its normal behavior,

as it is accustomed to lie down on them and it is a derivative of foot; for this is not correct.

Rather, even

lying down on

small jars is not its normal behavior,

and this too is not the animal’s normal conduct. It is therefore atypical and is a derivative of horn.

The Gemara raises an objection

from what we learned in a baraita: An animal is forewarned to walk in its normal manner and break,

and to crush

with its body

a person and

also

an animal and utensils.

It follows that it is forewarned to crush utensils with its body, meaning by lying down on them. But this is difficult: our Mishna explained that lying down is not its normal conduct and is atypical. It must therefore be distinguished: our Mishna is speaking when it lay down on large utensils, on which it is not accustomed to lie down, whereas the baraita is speaking when it lay down on small utensils, on which it is accustomed to lie down and which is a derivative of foot—contrary to Rabbi Elazar’s statement that even lying down on small jars is atypical and a derivative of horn.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Elazar said:

This cannot be proven from the baraita, because

perhaps

the baraita is not speaking of an animal crushing utensils by lying down, but rather

from the side,

that is, while walking it crushed utensils that were between it and the wall. This is its normal conduct and is a derivative of foot, whereas it is not accustomed to lie down on utensils, not even small ones.

There were those who said that Rabbi Elazar came to resolve the contradiction:

There are those who raise it as a contradiction,

some raised the following contradiction:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“And not to lie down,”

meaning that an animal is not accustomed to lie down on utensils.

But it was taught,

in a baraita we learned: “

And to crush,

an animal is forewarned to crush with its body

a person, an animal, and utensils.”

This is difficult, since it contradicts our Mishna.

Rabbi Elazar came to resolve the contradiction:

Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult; here

our Mishna is speaking

of large jars,

on which an animal is not accustomed to lie down;

and here

the baraita is speaking

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 cheetah,

and so on;

these are forewarned.

What

is a

cheetah?

Rav Yehuda said:

A cheetah is

a nifraza.

What

is

a nifraza?

Rav Yosef said:

A nifraza is

an afa

[and it will be explained below that this refers to a hyena].

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Yosef from a baraita that adds to what our Mishna states—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 baraita that Rabbi Meir adds the hyena, namely, “afa,” how can it be explained that a cheetah is an afa, meaning a hyena? Rabbi Meir adds the hyena, which proves that a cheetah is not a hyena!

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult,

as this is not a difficulty, because

here,

in our Mishna, where a cheetah is mentioned, it refers

to a male hyena,

which alone is called an afa.

And here,

where Rabbi Meir in the baraita adds the hyena, he is speaking

of a female hyena,

which is not called an afa.

And when Rav Yosef said, “This hyena is an afa,” he did not say this with regard to Rabbi Meir’s statement, but with regard to a male hyena. The reason that a male hyena is called an afa, and also a cheetah and a nifraza, is that it changes into several species,

as is explained in a baraita:

For it was taught

in a baraita:

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 dies

becomes a snake.

And these words

—that it becomes a snake—apply only to a person

who did not bow during Modim,

who, while standing in the Amida prayer [the Eighteen], did not bow when he reached “We gratefully thank You,” as the Sages instituted.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning Rabbi Elazar’s statement in the baraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

Rabbi Meir says: even the hyena.

Rabbi Elazar says: even the snake.

The beraita is referring to what was stated in the Mishna: “The wolf, the lion, and the bear,” etc., which are mu’ad from the outset. And if it is referring to Rabbi Elazar, who said: “Even the snake,” this implies that he came to add that not only those mentioned in the Mishna are mu’ad from the outset, but the snake as well,