Bava Kamma 24a (כד.) — the Talmud in English

And

he distanced

his

goring incidents

from one another, so that he gored only once each day, he thereby became forewarned, and

he was liable for full damages.

A bull that

brought

its

goring incidents closer together,

goring three times on one day—

all the more so

does it become forewarned.

It is written in the passage concerning the ritual impurity of a zava [Leviticus 15:25]: “

And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days, not during the time of her menstruation, all the days of the issue of her impurity shall be as the days of her menstruation; she is impure.”

And from here the Sages derived that there are three distinct sets of laws concerning a woman who sees impure blood.

Every woman has a fixed cycle of eighteen days: seven days that are “the time of her menstruation,” called “the days fit for menstruation,” followed by eleven days that are “not the time of her menstruation,” called “the days fit for a ziva.”

A woman who sees menstrual blood during the first seven of the eighteen days is called a nida. She must count seven days and immerse, and she is then pure. The seven days need not be free of any sighting of blood; even if she sees blood during them, she may continue her count.

After seven days, a period of eleven days begins. During this period, if she sees blood for only one day, she observes the following day in purity, immerses, and is called a “minor zava.”

But if she sees blood during these days for three consecutive days, she is a “major zava,” and must count seven days free of blood and then immerse. It follows that during the first seven days of the eighteen-day cycle, she becomes a nida upon seeing blood, whereas during the following eleven days she becomes either a minor or a major zava.

They said to him: A major

zava

proves otherwise!

For

if

she distanced

her

sightings,

seeing blood on three consecutive days, she is

impure

and must count seven clean days; but if

she brought her sightings closer together,

seeing several times on a single day, she observes one day corresponding to it, free of blood, and immerses, and she is

pure,

and does not become a major zava.

Here, too, a bull that gored three times on three days becomes forewarned; but if it brought its goring incidents closer together, it does not.

Rabbi Meir said to them

Rabbi Meir:

For it says

in the passage concerning a man with a discharge [Leviticus 15:3]: “

And this shall be his impurity in his discharge:

whether his flesh runs with his discharge, or his flesh is stopped up from his discharge, it is his impurity.”

And we interpret the verse as follows: First, since the word “his discharge” is written three times,

the Torah made the

impurity of

a man with a discharge dependent on the

number of

sightings: if he saw three times, he is impure, even if all three sightings occurred on one day. Second, from the word “and this,” the Sages derived that the man with a discharge becomes impure according to the number of sightings.

if he saw blood three times, he is impure even if all three sightings occurred on one day. Second, from the word "and this," the Sages derived that the man with an abnormal discharge becomes impure according to the number of sightings.

But

the

impurity of

the zava

the Torah made dependent

on

seeing for three

days,

and three sightings on one day are insufficient.

Since the impurity of a zava is dependent on days by a scriptural decree, it cannot be derived from her law with regard to a forewarned bull.

And we ask:

From where do you know that this

which the verse says, “

and this

shall be the impurity of the man with a discharge,” comes

to exclude a zava,

who does not become impure through three

sightings

alone, but only when they occurred on three days?

Perhaps

when it says “and this,” it comes

to exclude a man with a discharge

who becomes impure through three sightings that occurred on one day, so that he need not have three sightings

from

three

days.

But as for a zava, we do not exclude her from this verse.

Since there is no scriptural decree concerning a zava, and we maintain that if she distances her sightings she is impure, while if she brings them closer together she is pure, the same should apply to a bull that has become forewarned: if it brought its goring incidents closer together, it should not become forewarned. This is difficult for Rabbi Meir!

And we answer:

The verse says

Numbers 15:32–33] “This is the law of the man with a discharge, and so on,

and the man with his discharge, for male and female.”

It juxtaposes the male to the female: Just as the female

becomes impure when she sees three sightings

on

three

days, so the male

becomes impure when he sees three sightings on three days.

It is thus proven that the Torah made their sightings dependent on days. However, the male has an exclusion, from the phrase [Leviticus 15:3] “This is the law of the man with a discharge”: he becomes impure through three sightings that occurred on one day.

It follows that a male becomes impure through three sightings, while a female becomes impure through three sightings on three days. Since there is a scriptural decree concerning a zava, her law cannot be derived for a forewarned bull.

And we challenge this:

Then juxtapose them;

let us juxtapose

the female to the male:

Just as the male

becomes impure

through

three

sightings

on one day,

so the female

should become impure

through

three

sightings

on one day.

And we answer:

The Merciful One excluded this

by writing, “

and this

is the law of the man with a discharge,” teaching that only a male becomes impure according to sightings, whereas a female becomes impure according to the number of days.

And we inquire:

What did you see

that led you to exclude the female from “This is the law of the man with a discharge,” so that she becomes impure according to days? Why not juxtapose her to the male and derive from “This is the law of the man with a discharge” that the male’s sighting is not dependent on days but on sightings—and the same should apply to the female?

And we answer:

It is logical

that this verse, “This is the law of the man with a discharge,” which

deals with the sightings [of the man with a discharge],

is

excluding the sightings

of the zava, which render her impure only if she saw on three days.

But is it possible to say:

It deals with sightings and excludes days!?

The Sages taught: Who is a forewarned animal? Any animal concerning which testimony was given

that it gored three times on

three days.

And

which is the forewarned bull that returns to being

innocent?

Any bull

that children handle and it does not gore; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Shimon says: A forewarned bull

is

any bull concerning which testimony was given

that it gored

three times,

even if the goring incidents occurred on one day; it is called forewarned.

And they did not say

that

three days are required except

with regard to a bull that became forewarned and then stopped goring: three days are required for it to return to its former innocence. Only with regard to

returning alone

are three days required; but to become forewarned, it becomes so through three gorings on one day.

Rav Naḥman said that Rav Abba bar Avuha said: The halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda with regard to becoming forewarned,

for it is called forewarned only after three days.

For Rabbi Yosei agrees with him

and holds as he does.

And the halakha follows Rabbi Meir with regard to

a bull that became forewarned and returned to being

innocent:

any bull that children handle and that does not gore returns to being innocent; it need not refrain from goring for three days in order to become innocent,

for Rabbi Yosei agrees with him.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Let the master say

that

the halakha follows Rabbi Meir with regard to

a bull that became

forewarned

through three gorings on one day,

for Rabbi Shimon agrees with him; and that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda with regard to

a bull that returns and becomes

innocent

when it returns to its former state and does not gore for three days,

for Rabbi Shimon agrees with him. Why did you prefer Rabbi Yosei over Rabbi Shimon?

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Rav Naḥman:

I hold in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, for Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning is compelling !

!

They raised a dilemma:

As for Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that a bull becomes forewarned when testimony is given that it gored three times on three days, those

three days that he teaches—

is their purpose

to make the bull forewarned,

so that if it gored on one day it does not become forewarned until it gores on three days?

Or

perhaps the bull is already called a gorer from the first day. The Torah required it to gore on three days only

to make the owner forewarned,

so that he does not pay full damages until he has been warned on three days.

What practical difference is there? If three sets of witnesses come,

and all testify

on one day

that so-and-so’s bull gored three times on three days.

If you say

that the Torah required three days

to make the bull forewarned,

so that a bull that gored on three days becomes a gorer, then it is

made forewarned

on the basis of their testimony.

And if you say

that those three days were stated

to make the owner forewarned,

so that he must be warned on three days, here it is

not made forewarned,

because

he can say:

the three testimonies

are only now being given against me,

whereas the Torah said that the testimonies must be given on three days.

What is the ruling?

Come and hear

from what we learned: First,

a bull does not become forewarned until witnesses testify concerning it

that it gored three times

in the presence of the owners and in the presence of the court.

But if

the court testified concerning it not in the presence of the owners,

or

in the presence of the owners but not in the presence of the court, it does not become

a

forewarned bull until testimony is given concerning it before the court

and before the owners.

Second.

Two witnesses testified concerning it

that it gored on the first day

for the first time, and two

other witnesses testified that it gored on the second day

for the second time, and two

others testified concerning it that it gored on the third day

for the third time,

and through the third testimony it became forewarned.

Here there are three separate testimonies,

and if one of them is invalidated, the remaining testimonies are not invalidated.

Third.

And

on the other hand, since the bull became forewarned through all three groups together,

they constitute one testimony for purposes of

the law of

conspiring witnesses.

For we maintain that when witnesses testify and others come and say, “You were with us at that time in another place,” the discrediting witnesses are believed, and the conspiring witnesses pay as they intended to cause the defendant to pay. The witnesses do not become conspiring witnesses until all of them are discredited.

Therefore, if

it is found that

only

the first group is conspiring, then

there are

two testimonies here

that were not discredited and that obligate the owner of the bull to pay half-damages.

He is exempt

from paying full damages, while

they—

that discredited group—are

exempt

from paying the owner of the bull full damages under the law of “as they intended,” since they intended to testify once that his bull had gored and thereby obligate him to pay half-damages. Therefore, they too pay half-damages.

And likewise, if

it is found that

the

second group as well is conspiring, then

there is

one testimony here

that obligates the owner of the bull to pay half-damages;

and he

pays half-damages on their testimony

and is exempt

from full damages. And likewise,

they—

the conspiring witnesses—are

exempt,

since they intended only to obligate him to pay half-damages.

But if

it is found that

the

third

group

as well

that testified concerning the final goring is a group of

conspiring witnesses,

it follows that

all of them are conspiring witnesses, and

are conspiring witnesses, and

they are liable

for full damages ,

and concerning this it is stated: “You shall do to him as he intended to do”

to his brother.

And now we analyze:

If you say

that the Torah required three gorings on three days in order

to make the bull forewarned,

then

it works well

that we say that all of them pay full damages. For the purpose of making the bull forewarned, the three groups could have come simultaneously, with each group testifying about one goring on one day, and the bull would thereby become forewarned. Consequently, it can be said that when the three groups that testified on one day are found to be conspiring witnesses, there is substantial reason to assume that each knew of the others and that all intended to combine the gorings so that the bull would become forewarned. Therefore, every group that is discredited has a share in the conspiracy concerning the bull, and pays full damages for its conspiracy.