Bava Kamma 24a — the Talmud in English

And

distanced

his

goring

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

was liable for full damages.

A bull that

brought closer

its

gorings,

for it gored three times on one day,

all the more so

that it became forewarned.

It is written in the section concerning the impurity of a zava [Leviticus 15:25]: "

And when a woman has an issue, the issue of her blood, for many days, not in 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 learned that there are three distinctions of law regarding a woman who sees impure blood.

Every woman has a fixed cycle of eighteen days: seven days that are "the time of her menstruation," and are called "the days fit for menstruation," and the eleven days that follow them, which are "not the time of her menstruation," and are called "the days fit for ziva."

A woman who sees menstrual blood during the first seven days out of the eighteen days is called a menstruant, and she must count seven days and immerse, and she is then pure. It is not necessary that the seven days be clean of seeing blood; rather, even if she saw blood during them, she may continue her counting.

After seven days, a period of eleven days begins, and during them, if she saw blood for only one day, she observes one day corresponding to it in cleanliness and immerses, and she is called a "minor zava."

And if she saw blood during these days for three consecutive days, she is a "major zava," and she must count seven days clean of blood and immerse. It follows that during the first seven days of the eighteen-day cycle, she becomes a menstruant through her seeing, while during the eleven days after them, she becomes a minor or major zava.

They said to him: A major zava

zava

proves it!

For

if she

distanced

her

sightings,

for she saw on three successive days,

she is impure,

and she must count seven clean days; but if she

brought her sightings closer,

for she saw several times on one day, then she observes one day corresponding to it in cleanliness from 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 is the one that becomes forewarned, but if it brought its gorings closer, it does not.

Rabbi Meir said to them

Rabbi Meir:

Behold, it says

in the section concerning a man with an issue [Leviticus 15:3]: "

And this shall be his impurity in his issue,

whether his flesh runs with his issue, or his flesh is stopped from his issue, it is his impurity."

And we expound: First, since it is written three times, "his issue,"

the verse made

the impurity of

the man with an issue dependent on the

number of

sightings,

so that if he saw three times, he is impure even if his three sightings occurred on one day. Second, from the fact that it is written "and this," the Sages expounded that the man with an issue becomes impure according to the number of sightings.

But

the

impurity of

the zava

the verse made dependent

on

seeing three

days,

and three sightings on one day are insufficient.

And since the impurity of the zava depends on days by a decree of the verse, we do not learn from it concerning a forewarned bull.

And we ask:

From where [do we know] that this

which the verse says, "

and this

shall be the impurity of the man with an issue," comes

to exclude the zava

who does not become impure through three

sightings

alone, unless they occurred on three days?

Say:

This that it says, "and this," comes

to exclude the man with an issue

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

from

three

days.

But concerning the zava, we do not exclude her by means of this verse.

And since there is no decree of the verse concerning the zava, and we hold that if she distanced her sightings she is impure, while if she brought them closer she is pure, then the same law applies to a bull that became forewarned: if it brought its gorings closer, it will not be forewarned. And this is difficult for Rabbi Meir!

And we answer:

The verse says

there [Leviticus 15:32]: "This is the law of the man with an issue, and of him who has an emission of

issue, for male and female."

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

becomes impure if she saw three sightings

on

three

days, so the male

becomes impure if he saw three sightings on three days.

And it is proven that the verse made their sightings dependent on days; except that concerning the male there is an exclusion, from the fact that it is written [Leviticus 15:3], "This is the law of the man with an issue," so that he becomes impure through three sightings that occurred on one day.

It follows that the male becomes impure through three sightings, while the female becomes impure through three sightings on three days. And since there is a decree of the verse concerning the zava, we do not learn from her concerning a forewarned bull.

And we refute:

Then compare

let us compare

the female to the male:

Just as the male

becomes impure

through

three

sightings

on one day,

so the female

shall become impure

through

three

sightings

on one day.

And we answer:

The Merciful One excluded this

since it is written, "

and this

is the law of the man with an issue": only the male becomes impure according to sightings, whereas the female becomes impure according to the count of days.

And we consider it:

And what did you see

to exclude the female from "and this is the law of the man with an issue," so that she becomes impure according to days? And why not compare her to the male, and learn from "and this is the law of the man with an issue" that the sighting of the man with an issue does not depend on days, but on sightings—and the same law should apply to the female?

And we answer:

It is logical

that this verse, "and this is the law of the man with an issue," which

deals with sightings

[of the man with an issue],

excludes 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 [bull]? Any bull concerning which witnesses testified

that it gored three times on

three days.

And

what is a bull that became forewarned that returns to being

innocent?

Any

that children handle and it does not gore, the words of Rabbi Yose.

Rabbi Shimon says: It is forewarned

when it is

any bull concerning which witnesses testified

that it gored

three times,

and even if the gorings were on one day, it is called forewarned.

And they said

that it requires

three days only

with regard to a bull that became forewarned and stopped goring, which requires three days in order that it return to its innocence. Only for

return alone

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

Rav Naḥman said that Rav Abba bar Avuh said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda concerning forewarning,

for only after three days is it called forewarned.

for Rabbi Yose agrees with him

and holds like him.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir concerning

a bull that became forewarned and returned to being

innocent,

for any bull that children handle and that does not gore returns to being innocent, but it is not necessary that it fail to gore for three days in order to become innocent,

for Rabbi Yose agrees with him.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Let the master say

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir concerning

a bull that became

forewarned

through three gorings on one day,

for Rabbi Shimon agrees with him; and the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda concerning

a bull that returns and becomes

innocent

once it returns [to its former behavior] and does not gore for three days,

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

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

I hold in accordance with Rabbi Yose, for Rabbi Yose's reasoning accompanies him

!

They raised a question before them:

This that Rabbi Yehuda said, that a bull becomes forewarned if witnesses testified concerning it that it gored three times on three days—those

three days that it teaches,

is their purpose

to forewarn the bull,

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

Or

perhaps the bull is called a gorer already on the first day. And the Torah required that it gore on three days only

to forewarn the owner,

so that he does not pay full damages until they warn him for three days.

What is the practical difference? Three groups of witnesses came,

and they all testified

on one day

that the bull of so-and-so gored three times on three days.

If you say

that the Torah required three days

to forewarn the bull,

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

forewarned

on the basis of their testimony.

And if you say

that those three days were stated

to forewarn the owner,

so that they warn him for three days, here it is

not forewarned,

because

he can say:

The three testimonies

are only now being testified to me,

and the Torah said that the testimonies must be on three days.

What [is the answer]?

Come and hear

from what we learned: A.

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 without the presence of the owners,

or

in the presence of the owners and without the presence of the court, it does not become

a bull

forewarned until they testify concerning it in the presence of the court

and in the presence of the owners.

B.

Two testified concerning it

that it gored on the first day

at the first time, and two

others testified that it gored on the second day

at the second time, and two

others testified concerning it that it gored on the third day

at the third time,

and through the third testimony it became forewarned.

Here there are three testimonies

separate from one another, and if one of them is invalidated, the other testimonies are not invalidated.

C.

And

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

they are one testimony with regard to

the matter of

conspiracy.

For we hold that when witnesses testified, and others came and said, "You were with us in that place at that time, elsewhere," the conspiring witnesses are believed, and the witnesses accused of conspiracy pay as they intended to do; and the witnesses do not become conspiring witnesses until all of them are shown to be conspirators.

Therefore, if

it is found that

only

the first group is conspiring, then

there are

here two testimonies

that were not shown to be conspiratorial, which obligate the owner of the bull to pay half-damages.

And he is exempt

from paying full damages,

while they—

that group that was shown to be conspiring—are

exempt

from paying the owner of the bull full damages under the law of "as they conspired to do," for they conspired to testify against him once that his bull gored, and to obligate him to pay half-damages. Therefore, they too pay half-damages.

And likewise, if

it is found that also

the

second group is conspiring, then

there is

here one testimony

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. Likewise,

they—

the conspiring witnesses—are

exempt,

for they conspired only to obligate him to pay half-damages.

But if

it is found that also

the

group

of the

third

who testified concerning the final goring, is a

conspiring group, it follows that

it follows that

all of them

are conspirators, and

are liable for full damages

,

and concerning this it is said: "And you shall do to him as he conspired to do

to his brother."

And now we infer:

If you say

that the Torah required three gorings on three days in order

to forewarn the bull,

it follows

well

that which we say, that all of them pay full damages. For the purpose of forewarning the bull, it is possible that all three groups should come at once, with each group testifying about one goring on one day, and the bull would thereby become forewarned. Since so, it can be said that when the three groups that testified on one day were shown to be conspiring, there is a basis for saying that each one knew about the others and that all intended to combine the gorings so that the bull would become forewarned. Therefore, every group that was shown to be conspiring has a share in the bull's conspiracy, and pays full damages for its conspiracy.