Bava Kamma 37b — the Talmud in English

A. If

it gored

![](pamud.bmp "

an ox, an ox, and an ox

[three oxen one after the other], and then it gored

a donkey and a camel, what is the law?

Is it deemed a habitual gorer only with regard to oxen, like the law of one that gores three oxen, which is a habitual gorer only with regard to oxen, or perhaps its law is like that of one that gored three species one after the other, in which case it is a habitual gorer with regard to all species?

The sides of the doubt are:

Whether

this last ox, we assign after the oxen

, whether it is the law that we join the third ox to the two oxen before it, since they are of its species, and the donkey and the camel after it are found standing by themselves; and if so,

it has still become a habitual gorer with regard to oxen

but it has not become a habitual gorer with regard to other things

[it has become a habitual gorer only with regard to oxen and not with regard to other species], since it was habituated only twice with regard to other species.

Or perhaps this last ox, we assign after the donkey and the camel

[perhaps we join the third ox to the donkey and the camel after it],

and

if so,

it has become a habitual gorer with regard to all species

[it has become a habitual gorer with regard to all species], like the law of one that gores three species, who becomes a habitual gorer with regard to all of them. The members of the academy further raised this doubt in a case where the three oxen were at the end:

B. If it gored

a donkey and a camel, an ox and an ox, and an ox, what is the law?

The sides of the doubt are:

This first ox

[whether the first ox of the three oxen]

we assign after the donkey and the camel

[it joins the donkey and the camel before it],

and it has become a habitual gorer with regard to all species

[and it becomes a habitual gorer with regard to all species].

Or perhaps,

the law is that the first ox

after the oxen

after it

we assign it

[to join it to the oxen after it], since they are of its species,

and still

it has become a habitual gorer only with regard to oxen,

it has not become a habitual gorer with regard to another species [it has become a habitual gorer only with regard to oxen and not with regard to other species].

[it becomes an animal with a pattern only with regard to oxen and not with regard to other species].

The members of the academy further raised these two doubts with regard to becoming habituated to gore on Shabbat:

C. If it gored on

Shabbat,

and on

Shabbat

after it,

and

on

Shabbat

after it, and after them it gored on

the first day of the week and

on

the second day of the week, what is the law?

Is it made a habitual gorer only with regard to Shabbatot, like the law of one that gored on three successive Shabbatot, or perhaps it is made a habitual gorer with regard to all days, like an ox that gored on Shabbat, on Sunday, and on Monday? The sides of the doubt are:

This last Shabbat,

whether

we assign it after Shabbat,

whether we join the last Shabbat to the two Shabbatot before it, since the two Shabbatot are the same day,

and still

only

with regard to Shabbat has it become a habitual gorer,

but

with regard to the weekdays it has not become a habitual gorer [it follows that it has become a habitual gorer only with regard to Shabbatot].

[and it is found to have become an animal with a pattern only for Shabbatot].

Or perhaps, after Sunday and Monday

after it

we assign it [we join the Shabbat to the Sunday and Monday after it],

and

it has become a habitual gorer with regard to all days [it follows that it is a habitual gorer with regard to every day].

[and it is found to be an animal with a pattern for every day].

They further raised a doubt:

D. If it gored

on Thursday, on the eve of Shabbat, and on Shabbat, Shabbat, and Shabbat, what is the law?

The sides of the doubt are:

Whether

this first Shabbat, we assign it after Thursday and the eve of Shabbat

[we join the first Shabbat to Thursday and the eve of Shabbat preceding it],

and

if so,

it has become a habitual gorer with regard to all days [it becomes a habitual gorer with regard to every day].

[it becomes an animal with a pattern for every day].

Or perhaps: this first Shabbat, we assign it after the Shabbatot

[we join the first Shabbat to the Shabbatot after it], since they are one day,

and

if so,

with regard to Shabbatot

only

has it become a habitual gorer.

And we conclude with regard to all four questions:

teiku!

The Gemara now compares the establishment of the ox’s patterns of habituation to the establishment of a woman’s menstrual cycle, as will be explained below.

A. An ox that gores three times one after the other on a particular day of the month becomes a habitual gorer only with regard to that day of the month on which it gored, on all three occasions.

B. A woman from whose source of blood [the womb] blood emerges becomes impure with nida impurity.

It is the way of women to see menstrual blood in a monthly cycle.

Sometimes the cycle is fixed for a particular day of the month, or for a fixed interval of a number of days between sightings, and sometimes the cycle is not fixed.

Establishing the cycle for a particular day of the month, or for a particular interval of days between sightings, is called “establishing a veset.” The Gemara here compares establishing the veset for seeing blood to the goring patterns of a habitual ox.

Establishing a woman’s veset has several practical legal consequences.

One of them is the prohibition to her husband at the time of the veset, even if she has not yet seen menstrual blood.

The second concerns “her time is sufficient,” as will be explained below:

The blood emerging from her source of blood renders the woman impure from the moment it leaves the womb and enters the vestibule [from which the blood exits outside]. Therefore, the woman becomes impure with nida impurity even before she sees the blood emerging from her body. For sometimes the blood remains in the vestibule for some time before exiting outside, and it follows that the woman becomes impure before she knows of her impurity.

By Torah law, a pure woman need not be concerned that menstrual blood may have left her source of blood and entered the vestibule, and that she may be impure, because we are to maintain her presumptive status of purity.

Even if she saw menstrual blood, we need not be concerned that the blood left for the vestibule before the time of the sighting and rendered impure all the pure items that she touched from that time, because, as stated, we maintain her presumptive status of purity until the time that the blood left the body and she saw it. But the Sages were stringent to render retroactively impure all the pure items that the woman who saw blood touched, from the time that she last examined herself and found herself pure, or retroactively for twenty-four hours before the time of the sighting.

When do these words apply, that the Sages decreed retroactive “from one period to the next” impurity in the case of nida? In the case of a woman who does not have an established veset for seeing blood. But a woman who has an established veset need not be concerned regarding the pure items that she touched retroactively before the time of the sighting; rather, “her time is sufficient,” so that she becomes impure only from the time of the sighting, since she saw the blood at the time of her established veset.

How does a woman establish a veset for seeing blood?

A woman who sees menstrual blood three consecutive times, one after the other, on a particular day of the month establishes a “veset” for that day. From then onward, she is forbidden to her husband at that time, even if she did not see blood then. Likewise, we attribute it to say that specifically on this day is she accustomed to see blood, and not on another day.

Therefore, if she saw blood on this day, we say, “her time is sufficient.” We do not fear that perhaps the blood left the source and entered the vestibule one or two days before this date and remained in the vestibule, so that she was already impure beforehand; rather, we attribute it to say that only when she is accustomed to see on it did she see.

If

an ox gored on day nine

and on the seventeenth day of this month, and on day nine

and on the seventeenth day of this month, and on day ten

and on the seventeenth day of this month,

this law depends on

the dispute between Rav and Shmuel,

who disagreed about a similar matter concerning the vesatot of nida.

It was stated:

A woman who

saw

blood on

day nine

and

on the seventeenth day

of this month, and on day ten

and on the seventeenth day of this month:

Rav said: She established a veset

to see every month with a progression of one day; that is, in the following month she is expected to see on the eighteenth day, and in the month after that on the nineteenth day, and so on.

And Shmuel said:

This is not the establishment of a veset, since there was a progression of one day only twice. Therefore, she does not establish a veset to progress one day each month

until she progresses three times.

That is, until she also sees on the eighteenth day in the following month, at which point her veset will be established regarding the following month, on the nineteenth day.

The same law will apply with regard to a habitual ox: according to Rav, the ox is a habitual gorer with a progression of one day each month. But according to Shmuel, it is not a habitual gorer for a progression of one day until after the fourth time that it progresses.

Rava said:

If

it heard

the ox

the sound of a shofar, and it gored,

and again it heard

the sound of a shofar, and it gored,

and again it heard

the sound of a shofar, and it gored,

it has

become a habitual gorer with regard to shofars,

so that every time it hears the sound of a shofar, it is a habitual gorer and will gore.

We raise an objection against him: This matter is

obvious,

for it is demonstrated three times that the sounding of the shofar causes it to gore; why was it necessary for Rava to teach this to us?!

And we answer: There is a novelty in Rava’s words, since there was room to distinguish between an ordinary establishment of habituation and the establishment of habituation through hearing a shofar.

For

lest you say,

I might have said that the first goring, on account of the sounding of

this first shofar,

does not prove anything about the ox’s habit of goring as a result of the sounding of a shofar that it hears; rather,

it was merely a nightmare that seized it.

That is, hearing the first sounding caused it a nightmare, a sudden fright caused by fear, and it gored only because of that nightmare; but this goring does not join the other two gorings to prove that this ox is “accustomed” to goring because of the sounding of a shofar and is a habitual gorer for this. Only if there are three additional gorings, apart from the first goring, will the ox become a habitual gorer for gorings.

Therefore

ka mashma lan

Rava teaches us that the first goring also joins the two subsequent gorings, and together they are considered three gorings on account of which it becomes an “ox forewarned to gore because of hearing the sound of a shofar.”

Mishna:

In the passage concerning an innocuous ox it is written [Exodus 21:35]: “And when an ox of a man gores the ox of his fellow and it dies, they shall sell the living ox and divide its money, and also the dead one they shall divide.” And since “the ox of his fellow” is stated in it, one can learn from this to exclude the ox of a gentile, who is not his fellow—whether its ox gores our ox, or whether its ox is gored by our ox. The same law applies to an ox belonging to consecrated property, which is not considered an ox of “his fellow.”

And in the passage concerning a forewarned ox it is written [Exodus 21:36]: “Or it became known that the ox is a goring ox from yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner did not guard it; he shall surely pay an ox in place of the ox, and the dead one shall be his.” And this is the passage concerning a forewarned ox, in which “his fellow” was not stated.

An ordinary person's ox that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property, and

ox

belonging to consecrated property that gored an ordinary person's ox,

whether the ox was innocuous or whether the ox was forewarned,

is exempt

from paying—

because

it is stated

in the passage concerning damage by the horn

“his fellow’s ox”,

and the verse excludes “his fellow,”

but not an ox belonging to consecrated property.

An ox belonging to an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to a gentile,

whether the ox was innocuous or whether the ox was forewarned, the Israelite

is exempt

from paying the gentile.

And

if an ox

belonging to a gentile gored an ox belonging to an Israelite, whether

the ox was

innocuous,

and

whether

the ox was

forewarned,

the gentile

pays full damage

to the Israelite. And in the Gemara below, 38a, the reason for the distinction between an ox belonging to consecrated property and an ox belonging to a gentile will be explained, despite the fact that neither of them is included in “his fellow.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: An ordinary person's ox that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property, and an ox belonging to consecrated property that gored an ordinary person's ox, is exempt:

And the Gemara explains:

The Mishna,

our Mishna, which exempts the ordinary person from paying consecrated property, is

not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.

For he obligates the ordinary person, even when the ox was innocuous, to pay full damage to consecrated property.

For it was taught in a beraita: An ordinary person's ox that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property, and an ox belonging to consecrated property that gored an ordinary person's ox, is exempt, as it is stated

“his fellow’s ox”

but not an ox belonging to consecrated property,

and this is the view of the tanṇay of our Mishna.

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An ox belonging to consecrated property that gored an ordinary person's ox

indeed

is exempt.

But

an ox

belonging to an ordinary person that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property, whether innocuous or forewarned, pays full damage.

They said,

the students of the academy raised an objection:

What does Rabbi Shimon

ben Menasya hold?

For in either event the following objection can be raised:

If

Rabbi Shimon holds that

“his fellow”

is specifically meant,

then

even an ordinary person's ox that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property should be exempt [

even an ordinary person's ox that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property should be exempt]!

And if

Rabbi Shimon holds that

“his fellow”

is not specifically meant,

then

even

an ox

belonging to consecrated property, when it gored

an ordinary person's

ox, should be liable [

even an ox belonging to consecrated property that gored an ordinary person's ox should be liable].

But if you would say,

to resolve this, that

Rabbi Shimon always holds

ben Menasya that

“his fellow”

is specifically meant,

and we have no source to include consecrated property, so that consecrated property is exempt from paying.

However,

an ox

belonging to an ordinary person, when it gored an ox belonging to consecrated property,

even though it is not included in the Torah’s passage of damages, which deals only with an ox of his fellow, nevertheless,

this is the reason he is liable: because he derives it

to consecrated property

by a kal va-chomer from an ordinary person [

we must obligate one who damages consecrated property by a kal va-chomer from one who damages an ordinary person]:

And what

an ox belonging to

an ordinary person that gored

an

ordinary person’s

ox, it

is liable.

When

an ordinary person's ox gores the ox

belonging to consecrated property, all the more so it is liable!

It is also impossible to say this.

For it is an established principle for us that

“the law of what is derived by the argument must be no greater than that of what teaches it.” [

It is impossible for the law of the matter derived by a kal va-chomer to be greater than that of what teaches it; rather, it is sufficient that it be like it], and if so:

Here,

regarding an ox belonging to an ordinary person that gored an ox belonging to an ordinary person, if the ox was

innocuous, half-damage

alone does it pay.

Here,

regarding an ox belonging to an ordinary person that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property, which is derived by a kal va-chomer from an ox that gored an ox belonging to an ordinary person,

also,

if innocuous,

half-damage

alone should it pay.

And if so, how did Rabbi Shimon say that even the innocuous ox pays full damage to consecrated property?!

Rather, Resh Lakish said

in explanation of the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, who obligates an ox belonging to an ordinary person that gored an ox belonging to consecrated property, whether innocuous or forewarned, to pay full damage:

Everyone,

both the ox that gores an ox belonging to an ordinary person and the ox that gores an ox belonging to consecrated property,

was included in full damage

of the forewarned ox. That is, since “his fellow” was not stated at all in the passage concerning the forewarned ox, everyone was included in the obligation of the passage, both the goring of an ox belonging to an ordinary person and the goring of an ox belonging to consecrated property—

and

when the verse specified

“his fellow”

with regard to an innocuous ox,

we must say that the intention of the verse was not to exempt one who damages an ox belonging to consecrated property, but, on the contrary, the verse came to be stringent, teaching you that only with regard to

“his fellow”

is it

that the verse said

that an innocuous ox pays half-damage,

for only with regard to an ox of “his fellow” was an innocuous ox excluded from paying full damage.

And from this

you learn

that

with regard to

consecrated property, whether innocuous or forewarned, it pays full damage.

And the necessity for this is: