Bava Kamma 2b — the Talmud in English

And one rendered impure through contact with a corpse -

a person who became impure through a corpse, by contact, or by carrying, or who was with it in the same tent.

And just as there are primary sources of impurity, so too there are derivative sources of impurity, which did not become impure from the corpse itself, but became impure through contact with an “av ha-tumah.”

However,

their derivatives -

are not like them.

The laws of the derivative sources are not equal to the laws of the primary sources of impurity.

For whereas a primary source

of impurity

renders a person and utensils impure,

it has the power to render impure the person or the utensil that touched it [as explained in the Mishna there].

Whereas the derivatives

of impurity, which became impure from a primary source of impurity, render impure only

food and liquids,

but

do not render a person and utensils impure.

The derivative sources of impurity do not have the power to render a person or utensils impure, but only food and liquids.

And if so, we find that there is a distinction between the different derivatives: on the one hand, we find that the law of the derivatives with regard to the labor of Shabbat is like the law of the primary sources; and on the other hand, we find that with regard to impurity, the law of the derivatives is not like the law of the primary sources. Therefore, there is room for doubt:

Here, what is it?

Here, with regard to damages, what is the law of the derivatives of damages? Is their law like the law of the primary sources, or not?

And the Gemara brings the words of Rav Pappa, who resolves the doubt:

Rav Pappa said: Some of them are like them -

there are derivatives of damages whose law is like that of the primary sources,

and some of them are not like them,

whose law differs from the law of the primary sources.

However, now there is a new doubt before the Gemara: what are the derivatives whose law is like that of the primary source, and what are those whose law is not like that of the primary source, since it was not explained what they are? And the Gemara attempts to resolve this doubt; in the course of the discussion, the derivatives of the primary sources are explained, and it is also explained from where the primary sources were learned, as well as the characteristics defining each primary source individually.

And the Gemara begins with the primary sources of damage caused by an ox, and brings a beraita:

The Sages taught: Three primary sources were stated with regard to an ox -

three types of damage were stated in the Torah, which are caused by an ox:

The horn -

to gore with its horn.

And the tooth -

to eat with its tooth [to cause damage by eating in other people’s fields].

And the foot -

to walk and trample utensils with its foot, and the like.

And the Gemara initially discusses the law of the horn, to examine whether its derivatives are like it or not, and it first asks about the source of the horn in the Torah:

Horn,

which is considered a primary source -

from where do we know it?

From where is the law of the horn learned in the Torah? -

As the Sages taught -

it is stated in the Torah: “And

when it gores

an ox a man,” Exodus 21:28], and the Torah did not explain what the goring is. However, from other places we learn that

goring is only with the horn,

that the ox gores forcefully and causes damage with its horn,

as it is stated

I Kings 22:11]:

“And Zedekiah son of Chenaanah made for himself horns of iron, and he said: So said the Lord: With these you shall gore Aram,” and so forth.

Thus, the act of goring is performed with the horn.

And it says -

another proof of this from the verse

Deuteronomy 33:17]:

“The firstborn of his ox, majesty is his, and the horns of a re’em are his horns; with them he shall gore peoples” - thus we have that goring is with the horn.

And the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

What is the meaning of “And it says”? -

Why was the tanna required to bring an additional proof from Scripture, and did not suffice with the first proof?

And if you would say,

perhaps you would say that the first proof should be rejected, on the grounds that

words of Torah are not learned from words of Kabbalah,

one does not learn from the words of Kabbalah [Prophets and Writings] laws concerning matters stated in the Torah. Therefore, the tanna added and said:

Come and hear: “The firstborn of his ox, majesty is his,”

for he brought an additional proof from a verse stated in the Torah itself.

But the Gemara rejects this explanation:

Is this a matter of learning!?

Is there here a learning of a law concerning liability or exemption, so that you would say that one does not learn from the words of Kabbalah to the words of Torah? After all, everything that we learned from the words of Kabbalah is only

a mere clarification of the matter

a mere clarification of the subject],

that goring is with the horn,

that in the place where Scripture says “goring,” its intention is an action performed with the horn, and this certainly may be learned from the words of Kabbalah. If so, the question returns: why did the tanna bring an additional verse?

Therefore, the Gemara explains another reason:

Rather,

there is another reason why the tanna added the second verse:

What might you have said?

Perhaps you would say,

when the Merciful One distinguished between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox,

the distinction that the Torah made between an innocuous ox, which pays only half-damages [“and they shall divide his money in half”], and a forewarned ox, which pays full damages [“he shall pay in full, an ox in place of the ox”]

these words

this distinction applies only

to a

horn

detached,

which the ox grasped between its teeth and with which it gored [as in the example of the iron horns made by Zedekiah, which were detached horns]. Only with this form of goring did the Torah distinguish between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox and say: since it is not the ox’s way to gore with a detached horn that it holds in its teeth, the owners were not required to guard it from this, and therefore the Torah did not obligate them to pay full damages.

But

when the ox gores

with a

horn

attached,

which is its way,

say that the whole of it is forewarned,

I would say that the law of a forewarned ox applies to it from the outset, and already with the first goring it pays full damages, and therefore, in order to reject this reasoning, the tanna added and brought the second verse, and said:

Come

and hear: “The firstborn of his ox, majesty is his,” and so forth,

for from this verse we learn that the goring of the horns of the re’em, which are attached to its head, is also called goring. And since when the Torah distinguished between an innocuous ox, which pays half-damages, and a forewarned ox, which pays full damages, the Torah spoke of goring without qualification, it includes goring with an attached horn as well, and the Torah said that an innocuous ox pays half-damages for it. And now the Gemara clarifies what the derivatives of the horn are:

What is a derivative of the horn? -

Pushing -

the animal caused damage intentionally by pushing with its body.

Biting -

it bit with its teeth in order to cause damage.

Lying down -

an animal saw utensils in its path, went and lay down upon them with the intention of breaking them.

And kicking —

that it kicked utensils with its feet in order to break them.

And the Gemara will later ask concerning each of these manners why it is considered a derivative of keren.

The Gemara first raises an objection concerning butting: Why is it not considered an av?

What is different about butting, that it calls it an av,

in what way is butting with the “horn” different, that it is called the av? Certainly it is because

it is written

explicitly in the Torah

“when it gores”.

And if so, this is difficult:

but pushing also

is written in the Torah, for

it is written

“when it pushes”.

And why is pushing not considered an av!? The Gemara answers: The verse [Exodus 21:28] that speaks of an ox that killed or injured a person opens with “And when an ox gores a man,” whereas the verse that speaks of an ox that injured an ox [and there, verse 35] opens with “And when an ox pushes a man’s ox, his fellow’s.”

This pushing,

“And when it pushes,” which Scripture said concerning an ox that pushes its fellow’s ox, is not pushing in which the ox thrusts with its body, but

butting

with its horn

it is.

Therefore, the av of damages of keren is only butting with the horn, whereas pushing with its body is only a derivative of keren.

The Gemara supports this from the words of the beraita:

For it was taught: It opened

Scripture

with pushing,

the verse [verse 35] that speaks of an ox that injured an ox opens with “And when it pushes,”

and concluded with butting, “Or it became known that it is a goring ox.” Why did Scripture not conclude with what it began with, and not use the wording “that it is a pushing ox,” as it said at first? Rather, Scripture came

comes to tell you: This Pushing is this Goring.

to tell you: This is pushing; this is butting.

For this pushing mentioned here is butting with the horn, and is not thrusting with the body.

But the Gemara asks: Since it has been explained that butting and pushing in the words of Scripture have one meaning, butting with the horn, if so,

what is different concerning a person,

in what way is an ox that gored a person different,

that it is written, “when it gores,”

that the wording used concerning it is the wording of butting,

and what is different concerning an animal

in what way is an ox that gored an ox different,

that it is written, “when it pushes,”

that the wording used concerning it is the wording of pushing?

The Gemara answers:

A person, who has a mazal,

a person who has the awareness to guard his body,

“when it gores” is written concerning him,

the wording of butting, whose meaning is that the ox came against the person with great force, for certainly the ox intended to harm him. But

an animal, which does not have a mazal,

which does not have the awareness of a person to guard itself, and is easy to injure,

“when it pushes” is written concerning it,

for the meaning of this wording is that the damaging ox found the ox being damaged standing, and pushed it lightly with its horns [butting with lesser force], for in order to injure another animal, the damaging ox need not prepare itself and come toward it with great force.

And incidentally, it teaches us,

by way of an incidental matter the Torah teaches us something else through the fact that it changed its wording between a person and an animal:

An ox that killed a person: If the ox was innocent, the ox is stoned and its owners are exempt. And if the ox was forewarned [having succeeded in killing three people before it was brought to judgment], the ox is stoned, and the owner of the ox pays “ransom” to the heirs of the deceased.

An ox that killed an ox: If the damaging ox was innocent, its owners pay half-damage; and if it was forewarned, they pay full damage.

Therefore, the Torah used the wording of butting with regard to a person and the wording of pushing with regard to injury to an ox, in order to say that it is easier to injure an ox than a person, and it teaches us

that an ox forewarned with regard to a person is forewarned with regard to an animal:

An ox that killed three people and became forewarned with regard to a person is considered forewarned with regard to an animal as well, and from now on it will pay full damage for butting an animal, according to the law of a forewarned ox, for if it was forewarned to kill a person, all the more so it is forewarned to kill an animal, which is easier to kill.

And

in contrast,

an ox forewarned with regard to an animal is not forewarned with regard to a person,

for if the ox became forewarned to kill three animals, it is still not considered forewarned with regard to a person; and if it gores a person and kills him, its law is like that of an innocent ox that killed a person, so that its owners do not pay the ransom. For although it was forewarned to kill an animal, it is still not considered forewarned to kill a person, since he is more difficult to kill.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the other derivatives of keren mentioned in the beraita: Why are they not considered derivatives of other avot?

Biting —

when the animal bites with its teeth,

it is a derivative of shen!

Since the biting is done with the teeth, it resembles shen, and it ought to be considered a derivative of shen, and not a derivative of keren.

The Gemara explains:

No.

The biting does not resemble shen, for the av of damages of

shen

is defined by the fact that

there is benefit in its damage,

that the animal eats and derives benefit from its eating, and through this the damage is caused. And

this [

this biting ],

there is no benefit in its damage,

for it does not do so for its benefit, but only in order to cause damage; therefore it is not a derivative of shen.

The Gemara continues to discuss:

Crouching and kicking,

why are they considered derivatives of keren? After all, crouching is done by bending the legs, and likewise kicking, and if so,

it is a derivative of regel.

They more closely resemble being a derivative of regel!?

The Gemara explains:

No.

They do not resemble regel, for

the damage of regel is frequent,

for at every moment it walks and tramples everything beneath its feet, and this is what characterizes it as an av of damages, while

these

crouching and kicking, which are not done in the course of walking,

their damage is not frequent

at every moment; therefore they are not considered a derivative of regel.

Now, after the derivatives of keren have been clarified, the Gemara returns to discuss which derivatives are not like them among the avot of damages:

Rather,

“Their derivatives are not like them,” as Rav Pappa said,

what Rav Pappa said, that there are derivatives whose law is not like that of the av,

with regard to which?

With regard to which derivatives did he say this?

If you say it refers to these,

if we say that the intention is these derivatives of keren, this is not reasonable, for

what is different about keren, that its intention is to cause damage

in what way is the av keren different, whose special severity is that the goring ox intends to cause damage,

and

since it is

your property, and

the obligation of

guarding it

so that it not cause damage is

upon you,

therefore you are liable for the damage of keren.

If so,

these too,

these derivatives of keren also have the same reasons, since their damage is done out of

their intention to cause damage, and

likewise they are

your property, and

therefore the obligation of

guarding them

so that they not cause damage is

upon you.

And since they are entirely similar to the av, there is no reason to say that their law should differ from the law of the av; rather, certainly their law is like it.

The Gemara concludes:

Rather,

indeed

a derivative of keren

is like it,

like keren.

And since Rav Pappa’s words were not said concerning the derivatives of keren, the Gemara establishes as a premise:

And when Rav Pappa said,

what Rav Pappa said, “Their derivatives are not like them,”

he said it concerning shen and regel [

concerning shen and regel ], that the law of the derivatives is not like the law of the av. [

And the Gemara says this as a premise, but later it will become clear whether this is indeed so.]

The Gemara first clarifies the source of the teaching concerning shen and regel:

“Shen,”

that the ox causes damage through its eating,

and “regel,”

that the ox causes damage by trampling in the course of its walking, which are considered avot,

how are they written —

where are they written in the Torah?

The Gemara brings a beraita that explains this:

It is stated in the Torah [Exodus 22:4]: “When a man grazes a field or a vineyard, and he sends out his animal, and it grazes in another’s field, he shall pay from the best of his field and the best of his vineyard.” This verse speaks of a person who leads his animals into his fellow’s field and vineyard and damages it in one of two ways: either by sending out his animal, or by grazing.

And the Torah’s intention was not explained: what is the damage of “sending out the animal,” and what is the damage of “grazing in another’s field”? The beraita explains this: “

And he shall send out

his animal”:

this is regel,

damage done through the treading of the sole of the foot. And support for the matter:

And so it says [

Isaiah 32:20 ], “

sending out the foot of the ox and the donkey.”

Thus, the wording “sending out” is used concerning regel.

And what is stated, “

and it shall graze

in another’s field,”

this is shen,

which eats and consumes. And support for the matter:

And so it says [

I Kings 14:10 ], “

as the refuse is consumed completely,”

as the tooth consumes the food completely [“refuse” is shen, from the expression “revealed,” for the tooth is sometimes revealed and sometimes covered]. Thus, the wording “consuming” is used concerning the eating of shen.

And what is stated, “

and it shall graze

in another’s field,”

this is shen.

That is, the damages of shen, which eats and consumes.