Bava Kamma 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

indeed,

the derivative of Fire

its law is

like Fire! And when Rav Pappa speaks, he is referring to the derivative of Foot

what Rav Pappa said concerned the derivative of Foot, whose law is not like that of its primary category.

The Gemara is astonished:

Did we not establish

that is, did we not already establish and conclude that

the derivative of Foot

its law is

like Foot?!

The Gemara explains its statement: Indeed, all derivatives of Foot are like Foot, except for

half-damage caused by pebbles

—where an animal was walking and kicked up pebbles with its feet, and these pebbles broke vessels, for which it pays only half-damage—

as it was learned as a halakha

that this is the halakha that Moses received at Sinai.

These pebbles that caused damage are a derivative of Foot, and nevertheless their law is not like Foot, and he pays only half-damage for them. This is what Rav Pappa said: There is a derivative that is not like its primary category, whose law is not like that of the primary category.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And why call it a derivative of Foot

since it does not pay full damage but only half-damage, like Horn, why is it called a derivative of Foot rather than a derivative of Horn?

The Gemara answers:

To make it exempt in the public domain

if it caused damage there and the damage exceeds the value of the damaging animal, the owners pay the damage from their own property, as is the law with Foot. Therefore, it is called a derivative of Foot and not a derivative of Horn, because for Horn one pays only “from its body”—that is, from the body of the damaging animal [or one pays from his own property only up to the value of the damaging animal; Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael dispute this matter below, in the chapter “The One Who Sets Aside”]. And if the value of the damaging animal is less than half the damage, the injured party bears the loss.

But the Gemara challenges this answer:

But Rava raised this as a doubt

for Rava was uncertain about this matter,

for Rava raised the question: With regard to half-damage

that is paid for

pebbles,

does he pay only

from the body

of the damager,

does he pay

as with Horn,

or does he pay from the upper estate?

And since it is uncertain whether he pays from the upper estate, certainly it is not for this reason that it is called a derivative of Foot! The Gemara answers: Indeed,

for Rava it is a matter of doubt

that is, he is uncertain; but

for Rav Pappa it is obvious

that he pays from the upper estate, and therefore it is called a derivative of Foot.

The Gemara asks: Nevertheless,

with regard to Rava, who is uncertain

whether he pays from the upper estate,

why call it a derivative of Foot

why is it called a derivative of Foot rather than a derivative of Horn?

The Gemara answers:

To make it exempt in the public domain

when it caused damage through pebbles in the public domain, it is exempt, just as Foot is exempt in the public domain [as derived from the verse, “And he sends forth, etc., and it consumes in another’s field,” from which they exclude damage not caused in the public domain]. But Horn is liable in the public domain. Since the law of pebbles in this respect is like that of Foot, pebbles are therefore called a derivative of Foot and not of Horn.

Now the Gemara proceeds to explain what “Maveh,” which we learned in the Mishna, means:

We learned in our Mishna, in the enumeration of the four primary categories of damages:

Maveh and Fire.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is Maveh?

The Gemara cites a dispute between Rav and Shmuel in interpreting “Maveh”:

Rav said: Maveh

that we learned in the Mishna

is a person

who causes damage with his body.

And Shmuel said: Maveh

that we learned in the Mishna

is Tooth

that is, an animal that eats for its benefit in another’s field.

The Gemara explains that both relied on biblical verses to explain their respective opinions:

Rav said: Maveh is a person,

for we find in the words of the prophet [Isaiah 21]:

“The watchman said”

that is, the Holy One, blessed be He:

“Morning has come”

the time of redemption for the righteous has arrived,

“and also night”

and darkness for the wicked.

“If you will seek, seek;

return and come”—[if you seek to hasten the end by making your request, return in repentance and ask forgiveness]. Thus, with regard to a person, the expression “seek” is mentioned, which is the expression underlying Maveh.

And Shmuel said: Maveh is Tooth, as it is written,

for we find in the words of the prophet [Obadiah 1]:

“How Esau was searched out; his hidden places were revealed”

that is, how they searched through the houses of Esau and sought what he had hidden and concealed.

The Gemara asks:

What is the indication,

how does this verse indicate that Maveh is Tooth?

The Gemara answers that the proof is from the translation of the verse:

The proof is

as Rav Yosef translates

as Rav Yosef would cite in the name of the Targum of Jonathan

“How Esau’s hidden things were searched out,”

that is, how they searched through the houses of Esau;

“his hidden treasures were revealed,”

his concealed treasures were exposed. Thus, in the language of the translation, “were revealed” is an expression of uncovering. Accordingly, he explains that “Maveh” is Tooth, since Maveh derives from an expression of being exposed, and this is Tooth, which is sometimes exposed and sometimes covered.

And the Gemara explains:

And as for Rav, why did he not say in accordance with Shmuel? Since it is possible to interpret the term mav'e also as an expression of revealing, with reference to the tooth, why did Rav not interpret it in this manner?

Since the word can also be understood as meaning “revealing,” referring to the tooth, why did Rav not explain it in that way?

Rav

Rav could say to you:

Did we recite “niv'a”?! That is, if it is as you say, that mav'e is an expression of revealing, the tanna should have called the tooth niv'a, meaning that it itself is revealed, and not mav'e, meaning that it reveals something else.

Did we learn the word “niva'a” in the Mishna? In other words, if it is as you say—that mav'eh means “revealing”—the tanna should have called the tooth niva'a, meaning that it itself is revealed, and not mav'eh, meaning that it reveals something else.

And the Gemara returns and asks:

And as for Shmuel, why did he not say in accordance with Rav? Since it is possible to interpret the term as referring to a person who causes damage, why did Shmuel not interpret it in this manner? The Gemara answers:

Since it is also possible to explain that the reference is to a person who causes damage, why did Shmuel not explain it in that way? The Gemara answers:

Shmuel

Shmuel could say to you:

Did we recite “bo'a”? That is, according to your view, that the tanna called the person mav'e in accordance with the language of the verse, it would have been appropriate to call him bo'a, from the expression ba'e.

Did we learn the word “bo'a” in the Mishna? In other words, according to you, since the tanna called the person mav'eh in the language of the verse, it would have been more appropriate to call him bo'a, from the expression meaning “requesting”.

And the Gemara returns and asks according to Rav’s reasoning:

Granted, the verses are precise neither according to this Master nor according to that Master, meaning that the verses do not correspond precisely either to Rav’s interpretation or to Shmuel’s interpretation; and if so, the question returns:

the verses do not correspond precisely either to Rav’s interpretation or to Shmuel’s interpretation. The question therefore arises again:

And as for Rav, why did he not say in accordance with Shmuel?

The Gemara answers:

The tanna

the tanna in the Mishna recites

“an ox,” and

this includes

all the types of ox-caused damage—all the types of damage caused by an ox, namely, horn, tooth, and foot. If so, the tooth has already been taught in our Mishna. Therefore, Rav interprets mav'e as referring to a person.

The Gemara raises an objection:

The Gemara challenges this:

But as for Shmuel as well, the Mishna has already taught “an ox,” meaning that “an ox” includes the tooth; so how does he interpret mav'e as referring to the tooth?!

The Mishna taught “an ox,” which includes the tooth; how, then, does Shmuel explain that mav'eh refers to the tooth?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Yehuda said:

Shmuel maintains that

the tanna taught “an ox” with regard to its horn; the ox mentioned in the Mishna refers only to “horn,” and the tooth is not included in it.

the ox mentioned in the Mishna refers only to the horn, and the tooth is not included in it;

And

therefore he taught

“mav'e” with regard to its tooth.

The Mishna establishes a tzrikhta between “an ox” and mav'e: “The case of an ox is not like the case of mav'e.” As explained above, this means that an ox is more stringent than mav'e. After Rav Yehuda explained what “an ox” and mav'e refer to, the Gemara presents how he interprets the tzrikhta according to Shmuel.

The case of horn is not like

the more stringent case of horn,

which

thus

does not derive benefit from causing damage, unlike the case of tooth

the less stringent case,

which derives benefit from causing damage. Therefore, if the Torah had written only the obligation to pay for damage caused by horn, we could not have derived from it the obligation to pay for damage caused by tooth.

Therefore, if the Torah had stated only the obligation to pay for damage caused by the horn, we could not have derived from it the obligation to pay for damage caused by the tooth.