Bava Kamma 3aבבא קמא ג׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Kamma 3a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
3aג׳ א

הגלל עד תומו

the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10).

אמר מר ושלח זו הרגל וכן הוא אומר משלחי רגל השור והחמור טעמא דכתב רחמנא משלחי רגל השור והחמור הא לאו הכי במאי מוקמת לה

The Master said in the baraita just cited: “And he sends forth,” this is a reference to the category of Trampling, and likewise it says: “Happy are you that sow beside all waters that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase: “And he sends forth,” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Trampling is that the Merciful One writes: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what would you have interpreted that phrase?

אי קרן כתיב אי שן כתיב

If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Goring, that cannot be, as Goring is written in a different verse. If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Eating, that too cannot be, as Eating is written in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Trampling, and the baraita had no need to prove this from the phrase: “That send forth the feet.”

איצטריך סד"א אידי ואידי אשן והא דמכליא קרנא הא דלא מכליא קרנא קמ"ל

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the baraita to cite the verse: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey,” as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: “And he sends forth,” and that phrase: “And it consumed,” are referring to the primary category of Eating, and that phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is completely destroyed, and this phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is not completely destroyed. Therefore, the verse “that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” teaches us that the phrase “and he sends forth,” is referring to Trampling.

והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל שן דלא מכליא קרנא מנלן

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase “and he sends forth” is referring to Trampling, from where do we derive that one is liable with regard to acts categorized as Eating in a case where the object damaged is not completely destroyed? The primary category of Eating is derived from the phrase “and it consumed.” The connotation of that phrase is damage in which the object is completely destroyed.

דומיא דרגל מה רגל לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא אף שן לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא

The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Eating is juxtaposed to and therefore similar to the category of Trampling: Just as with regard to liability for the category of Trampling, it is no different if the object damaged is completely destroyed and it is no different if the object damaged is not completely destroyed; so too, with regard to liability for the category of Eating, it is no different whether the object damaged is completely destroyed and it is no different whether the object damaged is not completely destroyed.

אמר מר (שמות כב, ד) ובער זו השן וכן הוא אומר (מלכים א יד, י) כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו טעמא דכתב רחמנא כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו הא לאו הכי במאי אוקימנא לה

The Master said in that baraita: When the verse states: “And it consumed” (Exodus 22:4), this is a reference to the category of Eating. And likewise it states: “And I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase “and it consumed” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Eating is that the Merciful One writes: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what case would you have interpreted that phrase?

אי קרן כתיב אי רגל כתיב איצטריך סד"א אידי ואידי ארגל הא דאזיל ממילא הא דשלח שלוחי קמ"ל

If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Goring, that cannot be, as Goring is written in a different verse. And if you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Trampling, that too cannot be, as Trampling, is written in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Eating. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the baraita to cite the verse: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone,” as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: “And it consumed,” and that phrase: “And he sends forth,” are referring to the primary category of Trampling, and this phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, and that phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage. Therefore, the verse “as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” teaches us that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring to Eating.

והשתא דאוקי אשן רגל דאזלה ממילא מנלן

The Gemara asks: And now that we have interpreted that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring to Eating, from where do we derive that one is liable with regard to actions categorized as Trampling in a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own? The primary category of Trampling is derived from the phrase “and he sends forth.” The connotation of that phrase is a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage.

דומיא דשן מה שן לא שנא שלחה שלוחי ל"ש דאזל ממילא אף רגל לא שנא שלחה שלוחי לא שנא אזלה ממילא

The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Trampling is juxtaposed to and therefore similar to the category of Eating: Just as with regard to liability for the category of Eating, it is no different if the owner sent the animal to cause damage and it is no different if the animal went and caused damage on its own, so too, with regard to liability for the category of Trampling, it is no different if the owner sent the animal to cause damage and it is no different if the animal went and caused damage on its own.

ולכתוב רחמנא ושילח ולא בעי וביער דמשמע רגל ומשמע שן משמע רגל דכתיב (ישעיהו לב, כ) משלחי רגל השור והחמור ומשמע שן דכתיב (דברים לב, כד) ושן בהמות אשלח בם

The Gemara suggests: And let the Merciful One write only the first phrase, “and he sends forth,” and there would be no need to write the second phrase, “and it consumed,” as the phrase “and he sends forth” connotes Trampling and connotes Eating. It connotes Trampling, as it is written: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20), and it connotes Eating, as it is written: “And the teeth of animals I will send forth against them” (Deuteronomy 32:24).

אי לאו קרא יתירה ה"א או הא או הא או רגל דהזיקו מצוי או שן דיש הנאה להזיקו

The Gemara answers: If not for the additional phrase in the verse, “and it consumed,” I would say that the verse refers either to this category of damage or to that category of damage: It refers either to Trampling, where its damage is commonplace, or to Eating, where there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage.

מכדי שקולין הן ויבאו שניהם דהי מנייהו מפקת אצטריך סד"א הני מילי היכי דשלח שלוחי אבל אזלא ממילא לא קמ"ל

The Gemara asks: Since both interpretations are of equal validity, let both of them come and be derived from the verse, as which of them will you exclude? Since there is no reason to prefer one category over the other, perforce both are derived, and the phrase “and it consumed” is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: The additional phrase is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter of liability applies only in a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage, but in a case where the animal went and caused damage on its own, the owner would not be liable for the damage. Therefore, the phrase “and it consumed” teaches us that the owner is liable even in a case where the ox went and caused damage on its own.

תולדה דשן מאי היא נתחככה בכותל להנאתה וטינפה פירות להנאתה

Having clarified the sources for the primary categories of Eating and Trampling, the Gemara proceeds to identify their subcategories and to determine whether it was with regard to these primary categories of damage that Rav Pappa said: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them. What is a subcategory of Eating? It is a case where, for example, an animal rubbed against a wall for its pleasure and damaged the wall, or where it sullied produce by rolling on it for its pleasure.

מאי שנא שן דיש הנאה להזיקו וממונך ושמירתו עליך הני נמי יש הנאה להזיקן וממונך ושמירתן עליך אלא תולדה דשן כשן וכי קאמר רב פפא אתולדה דרגל

If so, what is different about Eating that it is defined as a unique primary category? What is different is that there is pleasure for the animal in the course of its causing damage, and the ox is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you, its owner. In these subcategories of Eating, as well, there is pleasure for the animals in the course of the damage that they cause and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent your oxen from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Therefore, the subcategories of Eating are not dissimilar to the primary category. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a sub-category of Eating is like that of the primary category of Eating, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Trampling.

תולדה דרגל מאי היא הזיקה בגופה דרך הילוכה בשערה דרך הילוכה בשליף שעליה בפרומביא שבפיה בזוג שבצוארה

The Gemara asks: What is a subcategory of Trampling? The classification is applied in a case where, for example, an animal caused damage with its body, not its legs, in the course of its walking; or caused damage with its hair that became entangled with an object in the course of its walking; or caused damage with a rope that is upon it; or caused damage with a bit [bifrumbiya] that is in its mouth; or caused damage with a bell that is around its neck.

מאי שנא רגל דהזיקו מצוי וממונך ושמירתו עליך הני נמי הזיקן מצוי וממונך ושמירתן עליך אלא תולדה דרגל כרגל וכי קאמר רב פפא אתולדה דבור

If so, what is different about Trampling that it is defined as a unique category? What is different is that its damage is commonplace, and the animal is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent upon you, its owner. In these subcategories of Trampling, as well, their damage is commonplace, and the oxen are your property, and responsibility for their safeguarding, to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent upon you. Therefore, the subcategories of Trampling are not dissimilar to the primary category. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Trampling is like that of the primary category of Trampling, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring to a subcategory of Pit.

תולדה דבור מאי ניהו אילימא אב י' ותולדה ט' לא ט' כתיבי ולא י' כתיבי

The Gemara examines that assertion: What is a subcategory of Pit? If we say that the primary category of Pit applies when, in the public domain, one leaves an uncovered pit that is ten handbreadths deep, and that is the pit mentioned in the Torah, and a subcategory of Pit applies when one leaves an uncovered pit that is nine handbreadths deep, there is no basis for that distinction, as neither nine handbreadths are written in the Torah, nor are ten handbreadths written in the Torah.

הא לא קשיא (שמות כא, לד) והמת יהיה לו אמר רחמנא וקים להו לרבנן י' עבדן מיתה ט' נזיקין עבדי מיתה לא עבדי

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the carcass shall be for him” (Exodus 21:34), and the Sages have an accepted tradition that a pit ten handbreadths deep causes the death of an animal that falls into it, but a pit nine handbreadths deep causes damage to an animal that falls into it but does not cause death. Accordingly, the pit written in the Torah (Exodus 21:33), which mentions the death of the animal that fell therein, is ten handbreadths deep. This is classified as the primary category of Pit, and a pit nine handbreadths deep is its subcategory.

סוף סוף זה אב למיתה וזה אב לנזקין

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, this pit that is ten handbreadths deep is a primary category of damage with regard to death, and that pit that is nine handbreadths deep is a primary category with regard to damage.

אלא אאבנו סכינו ומשאו שהניחן ברשות הרבים והזיקו

Rather, Rav Pappa’s statement: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, was stated in reference to these subcategories of Pit: His stone, his knife, or his load, any of which he placed in a public domain as obstacles, and they caused damage when people stumbled upon them.

היכי דמי אי דאפקרינהו בין לרב ובין לשמואל היינו בור

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where one is liable for damage caused by these obstacles? If it is a case where one declared these items ownerless, both according to the opinion of Rav and according to the opinion of Shmuel, cited later in the Gemara, these cases are a subcategory of Pit, as both Rav and Shmuel agree that any obstacle declared ownerless by its owner that causes damage in the public domain is a subcategory of Pit.