Bava Kamma 25a — the Talmud in English

If so,

I ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

will not derive the liability for Horn from Horn,

that is: I will not derive by means of a kal va-chomer as I initially said, that since the Torah was stringent with regard to Horn in the public domain, we should likewise be stringent with regard to it in the domain of the injured party—

Rather,

I will derive the liability for Horn from Foot,

and I will reason as follows:

And if, in a place where the Torah was lenient

with regard to

Tooth and Foot in the public domain,

that is: and if, in the public domain, where the Torah was lenient by exempting one from liability for damage caused by Tooth and Foot, it

was stringent

with regard to it

in the case of Horn,

for which one pays half-damages—

in a place where the Torah was stringent

with regard to it

concerning Tooth and Foot in the domain of the injured party,

that is: the domain of the injured party, with regard to Tooth and Foot, on which the Torah imposed greater stringency than in the public domain,

is it not all the more so that we should be stringent

with regard to it

in the case of Horn,

to require payment of full damages, as with Tooth and Foot?

And with regard to this kal va-chomer, you cannot say: “The law of dayyo: that which is derived from the inference may be no greater than the subject from which it is derived,” because the stringency is that the domain of the injured party is more stringent with regard to Tooth and Foot, requiring payment of full damages; from this we derive that it is likewise more stringent with regard to Horn, requiring payment of full damages.

The Sages said to him

that even so, since ultimately you require that which the Torah made stringent concerning Horn, imposing liability for it in the public domain—and there one pays only half-damages—then

“the law of dayyo: that which is derived from the inference may be no greater than the subject from which it is derived.”

Just as

Horn

in the public domain entails half-damages,

he pays,

so too

Horn

in the domain of the injured party entails half-damages

only does he pay.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

And

is it so?

Does Rabbi Tarfon not accept

the principle of dayyo?

That is, does he not hold that one may not impose greater stringency upon the conclusion derived than upon the source from which it is derived?

But

“dayyo”

is of Torah origin,

as it is derived from the Torah!?

As it was taught

in the Sifre, in the beraita explaining the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded, one of which is kal va-chomer:

“The principle of kal va-chomer: how

do we derive one matter from another by means of a kal va-chomer?

It is written [Numbers 12:14] concerning Miriam, who spoke against Moses, causing the anger of the Lord to flare against her, and she became leprous: “

And the Lord said

to Moses: Had her father but spat in her face,

that is: had her father spat in her face,

would she not be humiliated for seven days?

And by a kal va-chomer, if the Divine Presence was angry with her, therefore she shall be confined outside the camp for seven days, and afterward she shall be gathered in.” From this we learn the principle of kal va-chomer: for if the Torah had not come to teach that one expounds a kal va-chomer everywhere, why did the Torah mention at all her father’s rebuke? And one may further derive from this verse that we say dayyo, for we should reason:

A kal va-chomer with regard to the Divine Presence,

which spat in her face, that she should be humiliated for

fourteen days,

because the exalted status of the Divine Presence is greater than that of her father; yet the Torah stated only that she would be confined for seven days—

Rather,

from here you say:

“The law of dayyo: that which is derived from the inference may be no greater than the subject from which it is derived,”

and since the source from which the inference is derived—her father’s spitting—causes humiliation for only seven days, so too the anger of the Divine Presence causes humiliation for only seven days.

Thus we have learned the principle of “the law of dayyo” from the Torah. If so, how could Rabbi Tarfon disagree with it!?

And we answer: Rabbi Tarfon did not disagree with the fundamental principle of dayyo. Rather,

Rabbi Tarfon accepts

the principle of

“dayyo”

only

where the kal va-chomer would thereby be undermined,

so that if you say dayyo, the kal va-chomer teaches nothing, as he proceeds to explain. But

where the kal va-chomer is not undermined,

so that even when you say dayyo, the kal va-chomer is still necessary to teach something that we would not have known without it, even Rabbi Tarfon

accepts “dayyo.”

And the Gemara explains its statement:

There,

with regard to Miriam,

seven

days

concerning the Divine Presence are not written

that is: there is no written source teaching that anger from the Divine Presence entails seven days of humiliation. Therefore:

The kal va-chomer came and brought fourteen,

that is: the kal va-chomer came to teach that she should be humiliated for fourteen days, and

the

“dayyo”

removed seven and established seven

that is: the dayyo removed the additional seven days and left the kal va-chomer in force with regard to seven days. It follows that although we say dayyo, the kal va-chomer still teaches seven days; therefore, we say dayyo.

But here,

with regard to Horn in the courtyard of the injured party,

half-damages

are already

written

in the passage concerning an innocuous ox, for the verse does not specify that it is speaking only of the public domain,

and the kal va-chomer came and brought another half-damage,

that is: the kal va-chomer came to teach and add half-damages in the domain of the injured party,

and

Horn in the domain of the injured party

became full damages—

It follows that

if you expound

“dayyo,”

the kal va-chomer is undermined,

that is: there is no longer anything to learn from it; therefore, we do not say dayyo.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Tarfon and hold that even where the kal va-chomer is undermined one says dayyo, say to you:

Even with regard to Miriam the kal va-chomer is undermined, for if you come to learn only seven days, then

the seven concerning the Divine Presence

are already

written,

«

“She shall be confined for seven days.”

And Rabbi Tarfon

would say to you:

That

“she shall be confined

for seven days”

is expounded as

“dayyo”

;

that is, this verse was written only to teach you to say dayyo.

And the Rabbis

would say to you:

In any event,

another verse is written

there, verse 15:

“And Miriam was confined

outside the camp for seven days.”

And Rabbi Tarfon

would say to you:

That verse, “And Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days,” was written in order to derive from the redundancy of the verse

стих «И была Мирьям заперта вне стана семь дней» написан для того, чтобы из избыточности стиха учить,

that even in general,

apart from this incident involving Miriam,

we expound

“dayyo,”

and

in order

that you should not say: Here,

with regard to Miriam, we expound dayyo

because of the honor of Moses, but elsewhere we do not

expound dayyo—

Therefore,

it teaches us

through the redundancy of the verse that everywhere we expound dayyo.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

Is it so? Is there not a tanna who holds that one never says dayyo, even where the kal va-chomer is not nullified, such that we had to say, regarding Rabbi Tarfon, that he concedes that in such a case one says dayyo!?

But there is this tanna

who holds

that he does not expound dayyo, even though the kal va-chomer is not undermined

and behold, the tanna of the following beraita holds that one never says dayyo, even where the dayyo does not nullify the kal va-chomer—

as it was taught:

a. The discharge and saliva of a zav impart ritual impurity through contact and through carrying.

b. The semen [keri] of a ritually pure man imparts impurity through contact, but does not impart impurity through carrying.

With regard to the semen of a zav

the semen that issues from a zav,

from where

do we know that the semen is impure?

It is a matter of inference

derived by a kal va-chomer:

And if

saliva that is

pure in a pure person,

that is: it is pure when it issues from a ritually pure person,

is impure

when it is

in an impure person,

that is: it is impure when it issues from the impure zav, as the saliva of a zav imparts impurity;

semen that is

impure

even

in a pure person,

as semen imparts impurity even when it issues from a pure person,

is it not all the more so that it should be

the semen

impure in an impure person?

And

behold, this tanna of the beraita

brings it,

deriving by a kal va-chomer that the semen of a zav is impure

both

with regard to impurity through

contact

and

both through

impurity through

carrying, just like the saliva of a zav from which it is derived—

И если этот таннай считает, что, во всяком случае, там, где вывод по принципу «тем более» не рушится, применяется правило «достаточно», то почему

And

if this tanna holds that at least where the kal va-chomer is not undermined one says dayyo, then

why

did the tanna derive from the kal va-chomer that the semen of a zav is impure even through carrying? He should

say

that:

The kal va-chomer is effective with regard to contact,

that is: after you say dayyo, the kal va-chomer teaches that the semen of a zav imparts impurity through contact, and

the

“dayyo”—

that the semen of an impure person should be only like the semen of a pure person—

excludes

the impurity of

carrying,

so that it does not become impure like the saliva of a zav, but only like the semen of a pure person, which does not impart impurity through carrying. In this way, the kal va-chomer has not been undermined, for in any event we have learned from it that the semen of a zav imparts impurity through contact.

It follows that this tanna holds that one does not say dayyo even where the kal va-chomer is not undermined. If so, we too should say that Rabbi Tarfon does not accept dayyo at all, and agrees with this tanna!?

And if you would say

in answer: Actually, the reason that one does not say dayyo in this kal va-chomer is only because the kal va-chomer would be undermined, for

to

render impure—the semen of a zav—through

contact, the kal va-chomer is not necessary

to teach this,

as

a

ritually impure person is not inferior

to a

ritually pure person,

that is: the verse that teaches that semen is impure does not specify that it is speaking only of a pure person; consequently, you learn that even the semen of an impure person, such as a zav, is impure.

And since a kal va-chomer is not needed for this, it follows that if you do not render the semen of a zav impure even through carrying, the kal va-chomer is nullified, for it comes to teach nothing that we did not know without it. Therefore, this tanna holds that one does not say dayyo; but had the kal va-chomer not been nullified, even this tanna would concede that one says dayyo, as we say according to Rabbi Tarfon.

Do not answer this way, because

it

is

necessary

to employ the kal va-chomer even if it taught only about contact, because we would not derive that the semen of a zav is impure from the law concerning the semen of a pure person—

For

it might have entered your mind to say:

since it is written in the passage concerning a man from whom semen issues and who is thereby impure [Deuteronomy 23:11]:

“When there will be among you a man who will not be pure

because of a nocturnal emission,

he shall go outside the camp; he shall not enter the midst of the camp,” we have learned that this verse speaks only of

one whose semen causes him

not to be pure, as it says: “who will not be pure because of a nocturnal emission,” namely, a pure person who became impure through semen.

Excluded is this one

—a zav—

whose semen does not cause him

to become impure,

but something else had already caused him

not to be pure; therefore, were it not for the kal va-chomer, I would deem the semen of a zav pure even through contact—

It teaches us

that the kal va-chomer establishes that at least through contact it is impure. It follows that the kal va-chomer is not nullified by the dayyo; nevertheless, this tanna does not accept dayyo. Thus, even where the kal va-chomer is not nullified, one does not say dayyo, and we too should say that Rabbi Tarfon holds this way.

And we answer: Actually, the reason this tanna does not say dayyo is because if you say so, the kal va-chomer is nullified. For to teach that it is impure through contact, one does not need a kal va-chomer, but may derive this from the passage itself—the passage concerning the impurity of semen—even with regard to a zav, as:

Is it written

“and not something else”

there?

Is it written in the passage: “one whose semen caused him to be impure, and not one whom something else caused to be impure”? It is not written so, and consequently the zav is included in that passage as well. The kal va-chomer is needed only to add impurity through carrying for the zav; and if you say dayyo, we no longer need the kal va-chomer. Therefore, this tanna holds that one does not say dayyo.

And we raise an objection to what we took as obvious, that this tanna derives by means of a kal va-chomer that the semen of a zav is impure even through carrying:

And who is the tanna from whose statement you hear that the semen of a zav imparts impurity through carrying!?

That is: is there a tanna who holds that the semen of a zav imparts impurity even through carrying, such that you say this is the view of the tanna of the beraita!?

For if it is as you say,

it is neither Rabbi Eliezer

nor

Rabbi Yehoshua,

as according to both of them the semen of a zav does not impart impurity through carrying.

As it was taught:

The semen of a zav imparts impurity through contact, but does not impart impurity through carrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: It also imparts impurity through carrying, because it is impossible

for semen

to be without traces of discharge,

which cling to it, and they are what impart impurity through carrying.

You have therefore learned that, apart from Rabbi Eliezer, who certainly does not render the semen of a zav impure through contact, even Rabbi Yehoshua does not render the semen itself impure through carrying, for

Rabbi Yehoshua stated there only

that the semen of a zav imparts impurity through carrying

because

it is

impossible

for it

to be without traces of discharge; otherwise,

on account of the semen of the zav itself,

it does not

impart impurity through carrying—

If so, who is this tanna whom you say renders the semen of a zav himself impure through carrying by means of a kal va-chomer!?

Rather, it is this tanna, as we learned

in tractate Kelim [1:3]:

These are the primary sources of impurity that are

above them,

that is: they are more impure than the forms of impurity taught in the preceding mishnayot there: