Bava Kamma 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

For if [

not]

so,

and indeed the verse stated with regard to a tam came to exempt one who causes damage by means of his consecrated ox from liability for damages,

the verse should have written for this

“his fellow”

with regard to a mu'ad;

why, then, did the Torah write this limitation specifically with regard to a tam?

We learned in the Mishna:

If an ox belonging to a Jew gored an ox belonging to a gentile, he is exempt;

but if an ox belonging to a gentile gored an ox belonging to a Jew, whether it was a tam or a mu'ad, he pays full damages:

They said,

the members of the academy raised the following objection:

But

in either case, what is the basis of the matter!?

If

“his fellow”

is meant specifically,

then an ox

belonging to a gentile that gored

an ox

belonging to a Jew should also be exempt,

since the passage was stated only with regard to “his fellow”—

but if

“his fellow”

is not meant specifically,

then

even an ox

belonging to a Jew

that gored

an ox

belonging to a gentile should be liable—

And from where do we derive that we distinguish between the Jew, who is exempt for damage caused to a gentile’s property, and the gentile, who is liable for damage caused to a Jew’s property!?

Rabbi

explained,

Rabbi Abbahu:

“His fellow” is indeed meant specifically;

therefore, when an ox belonging to a Jew gored an ox belonging to a gentile, it is exempt. Nevertheless, when an ox belonging to a gentile gored an ox belonging to a Jew, it is liable for full damages, whether it was a mu'ad or a tam, because

the verse says: “

Smotri takzhe Maharshu.

He stood and measured the earth; He saw and released the nations,”

and we interpret it:

He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah had accepted upon themselves,

meaning: the Holy One, blessed be He, examined the observance of the mitzvot that the descendants of Noah had accepted upon themselves and saw that they did not observe them, and

since they did not observe them, He stood and permitted their property to the Jews.

Rabbi Yohanan said: From here

this may be learned from this verse: the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted their property to the Jews:

As it is stated (Deuteronomy 33:2): “The Lord came from Sinai and dawned upon them from Seir,

He appeared from Mount Paran,

and came from the myriads of holiness; from His right hand was a fiery law for them,” and we interpret it:

“From Paran”—

when the Holy One, blessed be He, went around with the Torah among all the nations and they did not accept it —

“He appeared”,

the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed

their property

of the nations and permitted it

to the Jews.

property of the nations and permitted it to Israel.

It was also taught so

as Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Yohanan explained:

As it was taught:

If an ox belonging to a Jew gored an ox belonging to a gentile, he is exempt, [

because it is stated: “his fellow”].

But

if an ox belonging to a gentile gored an ox belonging to a Jew, whether it was a tam or a mu'ad, he pays full damages,

because

it is stated: “

He stood and measured the earth; He saw and released the nations,”

as we interpreted above: He permitted their property to the Jews.

And the verse further says: “The Lord came from Sinai and dawned upon them from Seir,

He appeared from Mount Paran

and came from the myriads of holiness; from His right hand was a fiery law for them,” as we interpreted above: from Paran, He revealed their property and permitted it to Israel.

a Ty prishel s tysiachami svyatykh, iz ego desnitsy — ogon zakona dlia nikh», kak my tolkovali vyshe: iz Paran On raskryl imushchestvo i razreshil ego izrailitam.

And the Gemara explains the beraita:

What is the meaning of

“and the verse further says”—

that is, why do we need an additional verse!?

And if you would say: This

“He stood and measured the earth”

is needed to teach

the lesson

of Rav Mattana and

to teach

the lesson of Rav Yosef [

and the Gemara proceeds to explain them], and the verse did not come to permit their property to Israel, nevertheless

come and hear

another verse that teaches this, as it is stated: “

He appeared from Mount Paran,”

from Paran He revealed their property to Israel.

And the Gemara explains:

What is Rav Mattana’s interpretation—what did Rav Mattana learn from the verse “He stood and measured the earth; He saw and released the nations”?

What is Rav Mattana’s teaching, what did Rav Mattana learn from the verse “He stood and measured the earth; He saw and permitted the nations”?

For Rav Mattana said:

This is what is written: “

He stood and measured the earth; He saw

and released the nations”;

what did He see?

He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah had been commanded, but did not observe them; He stood and exiled them from their land.

And

the Gemara explains:

What indicates that this

“released”

is an expression of exile [

it is an expression of exile]?

Because

it is written here: “He

released

the nations”—

and it is written there: “Which has legs above its feet,

“to spring”

to leap

with them upon the earth,”

and

Onkelos translates: “

to leap with them upon the ground” [

to leap with them upon the ground]. Thus, “He released the nations” is likewise an expression of leaping and departing into exile.

The Gemara further explains:

What is Rav Yosef’s interpretation—what is the exposition that Rav Yosef learned from the verse “He stood and measured the earth; He saw and released the nations”?

The meaning of that which is written: “

For Rav Yosef said:

This is what is written: “

He stood and measured the earth; He saw

and released the nations”;

what did He see?

He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah had accepted upon themselves but did not observe; He stood and permitted them to them.

We objected to this: Is it because they did not observe them that

they profited [

they gained] by becoming free of the mitzvot!? After all,

if so, we find a sinner

who

profits!?

He said,

Mar,

son of Ravina, explained: The verse came only

to say that

even when the gentiles

observe them, [

the seven mitzvot], they

are no longer granted a reward

as one who is commanded and performs;

that is, He did not exempt them from punishment if they fail to observe them, but they receive no reward if they observe them. Thus, they gained nothing.

We objected to this:

And

is it really the case that they

do not

receive a reward for observing them!?

But it was taught: Rabbi Meir says:

From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah

is like a High Priest?

Therefore,

the verse states: “

That a person shall perform them and live by them,” and it does not say, “That

they shall perform them,

priests, Levites, and Israelites”—

that is, Jews alone—but

“a person”,

which includes a gentile as well!

You have therefore learned: even a gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest.

They said,

the members of the academy attempted to reconcile the matter:

They indeed receive a reward for them, but

they do not receive a reward as one who is commanded and performs, but

a reward

as one who is not commanded and performs.

For Rabbi Hanina said: Greater is one who is commanded and performs than one who is not commanded and performs.

and they came and said to them: “

The Sages taught:

The wicked kingdom had already sent two officers to the Sages of Israel,

and they came and said to them: “

Teach us your Torah.”

They read,

they taught them the entire Torah,

and repeated it,

with them,

and reviewed it a third time,

in order to teach it to them thoroughly.

At the time of their departure,

when those officers came to take leave of the Sages of Israel,

they said to them,

the officers said to the Sages of Israel:

We examined your entire Torah, and it is true, except for this matter that you say: If an ox belonging to a Jew gored an ox belonging to a gentile, he is exempt;

whereas

if an ox belonging to a gentile gored an ox belonging to a Jew, whether it was a tam or a mu'ad, he pays full damages—

this is not true, because

in either case:

If

“his fellow”

is meant specifically,

then

even when an ox belonging to a gentile gored one belonging to a Jew, it should be exempt; and if

“his fellow”

is not meant specifically, even when an ox belonging to a Jew gored one belonging to a gentile, it should be liable—

nevertheless

And

nevertheless,

this matter—

this law that you rule concerning gentiles—

we will not report to the kingdom

that sent us.

There was an incident involving

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda,

whose

daughter died [

his daughter passed away].

The Sages said to Ulla [

the Sages said to Ulla]:

Come, let us go comfort him [

let us go console him].

He said to them,

Ulla said to the Babylonian Sages who had made this suggestion:

What do I have to do with the consolation of Babylonians, which is blasphemy [

why should I go with the Babylonians, whose words of consolation are blasphemous toward Heaven]—

because

they say

the Babylonians in their consolation:

What can be done [

what can be done]!? This wording implies:

If something could be done, they would do it, [

if it were in their power to prevent the death, they would do so], and this is blasphemy toward Heaven, since He is the One who causes death.

Therefore,

he went alone to him [

Ulla went alone to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda].

He said to him,

Ulla said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, to console him:

It is written (Deuteronomy 2:9): “

And the Lord said

to me: Do not distress Moab, and do not provoke them to war [

for I will not give you any of his land as an inheritance, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as an inheritance].” Since the Holy One, blessed be He, needed to tell him not to wage war against them, it follows that he had intended to wage war against them.

But what could have entered Moses’ mind, that he would wage war without permission!?

Rather, Moses derived a kal va-chomer for himself,

and

said: If, concerning the Midianites, who came only to assist Moab,

the Torah said [

Numbers 25:17]: “

Harass the Midianites and smite them”—