Commentary for Bava Kamma 46:19

ור"מ מ"ט דתניא א"ר מאיר

Now if you maintain that [whatever is kept in] the mouth of the defendant's cattle is considered [to be in] the defendant's premises, why should not the owner of the serpent say to the plaintiff: 'What is your hand doing in the mouth of my serpent?' — Regarding [the] killing [of the serpent] we certainly do not argue thus. Whence can you derive [this]? — For it was taught: Where a man enters another's premises without permission and is gored there to death by the owner's ox, the ox is stoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. XXI, 28-29. ');">¹⁴</span> but the owner is exempted [from paying] <i>kofer</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'atonement', v. Glos. ');">¹⁶</span> [for lost life].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary to the ruling of Ex. XXI, 30. ');">¹⁷</span> Now 'the owner is exempted [from paying] <i>kofer</i>.' Why? Is it not because he can say, 'What were you doing on my premises?' Why then regarding the ox should not the same argument be put forward [against the victim]: 'What had you to do on my premises?' — Hence, when it is a question of killing [obnoxious beasts] we do not argue thus. The goats of Be Tarbu<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A p.n. of a certain family. ');">¹⁸</span> used to do damage to [the fields of] R. Joseph. He therefore said to Abaye: 'Go and tell their owners that they should keep them indoors.' But Abaye said: 'What will be the use in my going? Even if I do go, they will certainly say to me "Let the master construct a fence round his land."' But if fences must be constructed, what are the cases in which the Divine Law imposed liability for Tooth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII. 4. ');">¹⁹</span> — [Perhaps only] when the cattle pulled down the fence and broke in, or when the fence collapsed at night. It was, however, announced by R. Joseph, or, as others say, by Rabbah: 'Let it be known to those that go up from Babylon to Eretz Yisrael as well as to those that come down from Eretz Yisrael to Babylon, that in the case of goats that are kept for the market day but meanwhile do damage, a warning is to be extended twice and thrice to their owners. If they comply with the terms of the warning well and good, but if not, we bid them: "Slaughter your cattle immediately<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without waiting for the market day. ');">²⁰</span> and sit at the butcher's stall to get whatever money you can."' <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHAT IS <i>TAM</i>, AND WHAT IS <i>MU'AD</i>? — [CATTLE BECOME] <i>MU'AD</i> AFTER [THE OWNER HAS] BEEN WARNED FOR THREE DAYS [REGARDING THE ACTS OF GORING],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Committed by his cattle. ');">²¹</span> BUT [RETURN TO THE STATE OF] <i>TAM</i> AFTER REFRAINING FROM GORING FOR THREE DAYS; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. MEIR, HOWEVER, SAYS: [CATTLE BECOME] <i>MU'AD</i> AFTER [THE OWNER HAS] BEEN WARNED THREE TIMES [EVEN ON THE SAME DAY], AND [BECOME AGAIN] <i>TAM</i> WHEN CHILDREN KEEP ON TOUCHING THEM AND NO GORING RESULTS. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the reason of R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making the law of Mu'ad depend upon the days of goring. ');">²²</span> — Abaye said: [Scripture states, Or, if it be known from yesterday, and the day before yesterday, that he is a goring ox, and yet his owner does not keep him in&nbsp;…<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 36. ');">²³</span> ]: 'Yesterday', denotes one day; 'from yesterday' — two;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew term [H] denoting 'From yesterday' is thus taken to indicate two days. ');">²⁴</span> and 'the day before yesterday' — three [days]; 'and yet his owner does not keep him in' — refers to the fourth goring. Raba said: 'Yesterday' and 'from yesterday'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Expressed in the one Hebrew word [H]. ');">²⁵</span> denote one day; 'the day before yesterday' — two, 'and he [the owner] does not keep him in,' then, [to prevent a third goring,] he is liable [in full].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi a.l. even for the third goring. But Tosaf. a.l. and Rashi B.B. 28a explain it to refer only to the goring of the fourth time and onwards. ');">²⁶</span> What then is the reason of R. Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the number of days is immaterial. ');">²⁷</span> — As it was taught: R. Meir said:

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 46:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.