Bava Kamma 17a — the Talmud in English

And

one

said:

said

seven

days,

and some say,

and there were those who said

thirty

day.

And the Gemara brings another interpretation:

The Sages taught

in a

beraita:

"And they accorded him honor at his death"—this is Hezekiah, king of Judah,

before his bier

thirty-six thousand

men who were

bare-shouldered,

bare-shouldered, for they tore their garments until their shoulders were visible, this was the honor that they accorded him,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Nehemiah said to him:

What greatness is there in this?

But before Ahab

king of Israel they

also did so!?

Rather,

the special honor that they accorded Hezekiah was

that they placed a Torah scroll upon his bier and said: "This one fulfilled

the deceased

what is written in this

Torah scroll!"

The Gemara asks:

But nowadays

we also do so!?

For even now they do so for the great men of Israel; what greatness was there in doing this for Hezekiah?

The Gemara answers:

We do take it out,

indeed, we take out a Torah scroll also for other great men of Israel, but

we do not place it,

we do not place the Torah scroll upon their bier; only with Hezekiah did they do so.

And if you wish, another answer:

And if you wish you may say,

and if you wish, say another resolution:

we also place it,

indeed, we take out a Torah scroll and even place it upon the bier of other great men of Israel, but

"fulfilled

what is written in this"

we do not say,

and only with Hezekiah did they do so.

And the Gemara brings another answer:

Rabba bar bar Hanna said: I was going together with Rabbi Yohanan to ask a halakhic teaching,

I joined Rabbi Yohanan in order to ask him a halakhic matter.

When he entered

when Rabbi Yohanan entered

the lavatory,

and came out of it,

and I would ask him a matter,

and I asked him the question,

he did not resolve it for us,

he would not resolve the question

until he washed his hands, put on tefillin,

until he washed his hands and put on the tefillin that he had removed upon entering the lavatory,

and recited the blessing

over the tefillin,

and afterward he said to us,

only afterward did he say to us: Nowadays they place a Torah scroll upon the bier of a great person, and

even "

fulfilled

what is written in this"

we say,

but

"taught,"

that this deceased person taught others what is written in this,

we do not say.

And only with Hezekiah did they do so.

The Gemara asks: Is "taught" indeed preferable to "fulfilled"?

But the Master said

in a

beraita:

Great is Torah study, for study brings to action. And since the importance of study lies in the fact that it brings to action, it follows that action is preferable; and if so, "fulfilled" is more important than "taught." What is the greatness that they said this only concerning Hezekiah?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. This

what follows to mean that action is preferable to study refers to

to learn

when he studies for himself. But

this,

what follows from Rabbi Yohanan's words, that "taught" is more important than action, refers

to teach

others.

And now the Gemara interprets the verse mentioned at the beginning of the chapter:

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: What is the meaning of that which is written

that which Scripture said [Isaiah 32]:

"Happy are you who sow beside all waters, who send forth

the foot of the ox and the donkey,"

this is its interpretation:

Whoever engages in Torah and acts of kindness merits the inheritance of two tribes.

The Gemara explains where this is hinted at in the verse, and what the inheritance of two tribes is:

As it is stated: "Happy are you who sow

beside all waters";

and "sowing" means nothing other than

performing

charity, for

it is

stated

in Hosea [10]:

"Sow for yourselves for charity, and reap according to kindness."

And "water" means nothing other than Torah, for

it is

stated

in Isaiah [55]:

"Ho, everyone who is thirsty, go to the waters."

And from here, "who sow beside all waters" is a reference to those who engage in Torah and acts of kindness, who

merit the inheritance of two tribes,

that is,

merit a canopy

[a bridal pavilion], meaning that he merits sons.

Like Joseph,

who is called "ox"

as it is written

in Genesis [49]:

"Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful son by the spring; daughters strode over the wall," and he merits the inheritance of Issachar

who is called "donkey," which is wealth,

as it is written

[there]:

"Issachar is a strong-boned donkey"

and Onkelos translates: "Issachar is wealthy in possessions" [wealthy in possessions]. Another interpretation of the inheritance of the two tribes:

There are those who say,

there were those who said that the meaning is that

his enemies fall before him, like Joseph, as it is written

concerning him [Deuteronomy 33]:

"With them he shall gore peoples, together, the ends of the earth."

And he merits understanding, like Issachar, as it is written

in I Chronicles [12]:

"And of the descendants of Issachar, those who know understanding for the times, to know what Israel should do."

We shall return to you, chapter Four Fathers

Mishna:

The first Mishna comes to explain what we learned in the first chapter: that the leg is “forewarned” from the outset. That is, there is no aspect of “innocence” in it, requiring payment of only half-damages; rather, immediately upon the first damage that a person’s animal caused with its leg, its owner is obligated to pay the injured party full damages.

In what manner is the leg forewarned?

That is, the “leg” concerning which we learned in the earlier Mishna [9b] which is forewarned, and whose owner pays full damages: for what damage is it forewarned?

To break while walking in its usual manner,

to trample vessels while walking in its usual manner, and to break them.

And likewise,

the animal is forewarned to walk in its usual manner and to break

vessels incidentally to its walking, by means of its body or by means of a load upon it. And if it caused damage in the injured party’s domain, its owner pays full damages. But if it caused damage in the public domain, he is exempt.

If it was kicking

with its leg and caused damage, then, since it is not the usual manner of an animal to kick and cause damage, whereas this animal did so with the intention of causing damage, this is not a derivative of “leg,” but a derivative of “horn,” and the animal’s owner pays only half-damages, as is the law of an innocent “horn.”

Or if there were pebbles [

small stones ]

projecting from beneath its feet,

while it was walking,

and it broke the vessels,

although this damage is a derivative of “leg,” since it occurs through its walking, and it is its usual manner to cause damage in this way, nevertheless, it is a law given to Moses at Sinai that for damage caused by the projection of “pebbles” [which is caused only by its force, and not by its body], the animal’s owner does not

pay

the injured party more than

half-damages.

And the obligation applies only if it caused damage in the injured party’s domain, as is the law of “leg.” But if it was “kicking,” which is a derivative of “horn,” then one is liable for it even in the public domain, as is the law of “horn.”

It trampled a vessel

while walking in its usual manner within the injured party’s domain,

and broke it, and it fell

the broken vessel

upon another vessel,

another,

and broke it,

and it follows that the first vessel was broken by the trampling of its leg, while the second vessel was broken only by the “pebbles” projected from the first vessel, then

for

the vessel

first

that it broke

the owner of the animal pays

the owner of the animal

full damages,

as is the law of all damages of “leg,”

and for

the vessel

the owner pays for the last

the animal only

half-damages,

as is the law of pebbles.

Also

roosters

and the other birds,

are forewarned to walk in their usual manner and to break.

That is, they too are forewarned from the outset to cause damages of leg.

If there was a delil [

a rope or cord ] tied to the feet of a rooster, and it threw it onto a vessel, and broke it,

or

a rooster

that was dancing [

dancing, and projected pebbles ],

and breaks [

and the pebbles broke ]

the vessels, the owner pays

the rooster’s owner

half-damages,

as is the law of pebbles.