Bava Kamma 31

Chapter 31

א כולה רבי טרפון היא רישא בחצר המיוחדת לפירות לאחד מהן ולזה ולזה לשורים דלגבי שן הויא לה חצר הניזק ולגבי קרן הויא רשות הרבים
1 The whole Mishnah is in accordance with R. Tarfon. The commencing clause deals with premises set aside for the keeping of the plaintiff's fruits whereas both plaintiff and defendant may keep there their cattle. In respect of Tooth the premises are considered [in the eye of the law] the plaintiff's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As nobody else had the right to keep there fruits. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אמר רב כהנא אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא ואמר לי מי מצית מוקמת לה כולה כרבי טרפון הקתני השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה ראוי לה אין שאין ראוי לה לא
2 whereas in respect of Horn they are considered their common premises.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both plaintiff and defendant had the right to keep there their cattle. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ואי ר' טרפון האמר משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם משלם
3 R. Kahana said: I repeated this statement in the presence of R. Zebid of Nehardea, and he answered me, 'How can you say that the whole Mishnah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? Has it not been stated TOOTH IS <i>MU'AD</i> TO CONSUME WHAT EVER IS FIT FOR IT? That which is fit for it is included,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the category of Tooth. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אלא לעולם רבנן היא וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין
4 but that which is unfit for it is not included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the category of Tooth, but being unusual falls under the category of Horn; cf. supra 15b; infra 16b and 19b. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן והיכן העדתן בחצר הניזק
5 But did not R. Tarfon say that for the unusual damage done by Horn on the plaintiff's premises full compensation must be paid?' — It must, therefore, still be maintained that the Mishnah is in accordance with the Rabbis, but there are some phrases missing there; the reading should be thus: 'There are five cases of <i>Tam</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'goring', 'colliding', 'biting', 'falling down' and 'kicking'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו מתקיף לה רבינא הא קתני לקמן שור המזיק ברשות הניזק כיצד אי אמרת בשלמא איירי בה משום הכי קתני כיצד אלא אי אמרת לא איירי בה מאי כיצד
6 all the five of them may eventually become <i>Mu'ad</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These constitute the five cases of Mu'ad. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז אלא אמר רבינא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין
7 Tooth and Foot are however <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio, and their liability is confined to damage done on the plaintiff's premises.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXII, 4, and supra, 5b. ['OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES' refers thus to Tooth and not to Horn.] ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן וזהו שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת ר' טרפון ורבנן ויש מועדים אחרים כיוצא באלו הזאב והארי והדוב והברדלס והנמר והנחש
8 Rabina demurred: We learn later on: What is meant by [the statement] OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES [etc.]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [With reference to damage done by Horn, infra, 24b.] ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט תניא נמי הכי חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן וזהו שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת רבי טרפון ורבנן ויש מועדין אחרים כיוצא באלו הזאב והארי הדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש
9 It is all very well if you say that this damage has previously been dealt with;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In Our Mishnah, i.e., the damage of Horn on the plaintiff's premises.] ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י איכא דרמו לה מירמא תנן חמשה תמים וחמשה מועדים ותו ליכא והאיכא הזאב הארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש
10 we may then well ask 'What is meant by it?' But if you say that this damage has never been dealt with previously, how could it be asked 'What is meant by it?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 24b. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא ומשני אמר רבינא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן וזהו שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת רבי טרפון ורבנן ויש מועדין אחרים כיוצא באלו הזאב והארי הדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש
11 — Rabina therefore said: The Mishnah is indeed incomplete, but its meaning is this: 'There are five cases of <i>Tam</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'goring', 'colliding', 'biting', 'falling down' and 'kicking'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יב ולא לרבוץ אמר רבי אלעזר לא שנו אלא פכין גדולים אבל פכין קטנים אורחיה הוא
12 all the five of them may eventually become <i>Mu'ad</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The first clause of the Mishnah thus enumerates the five cases of Mu'ad as well as of Tam.] ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג לימא מסייע ליה הבהמה מועדת להלך כדרכה ולשבר ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים
13 — Tooth and Foot are <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [But are not included in the 'five cases of Mu'ad', the clause being added only in parenthesis.] ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד דלמא מן הצד
14 In this way Ox is definitely <i>Mu'ad</i>. As to Ox doing damage on the plaintiff's premises there is a difference of opinion between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As infra p. 125. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו איכא דאמרי א"ר אלעזר לא תימא פכין גדולים הוא דלאו אורחיה אבל פכין קטנים אורחיה הוא אלא אפילו פכין קטנים נמי לאו אורחיה הוא
15 There are other damage-doers which like these cases are similarly <i>Mu'ad</i>, as follows: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard. the panther, and the snake.' This very text has indeed been taught: 'There are five cases of <i>Tam</i>; all the five of them may eventually become <i>Mu'ad</i>. Tooth and Foot are <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio. In this way Ox is definitely <i>Mu'ad</i>. As to Ox doing damage on the plaintiff's premises there is a difference of opinion between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis. There are other damage-doers which like these are similarly <i>Mu'ad</i>, as follows: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake.'
טז מיתיבי ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים
16 Some arrived at the same interpretation by having first raised the following objection: We learn THERE ARE FIVE CASES OF <i>TAM</i> AND FIVE CASES OF <i>MU'AD</i>; are there no further instances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Mu'ad. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יז אמר רבי אלעזר דלמא מן הצד
17 Behold there are the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are Mu'ad ab initio. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יח איכא דרמי לה מירמא תנן ולא לרבוץ והתניא ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים אמר רבי אלעזר לא קשיא כאן בפכין גדולים כאן בפכין קטנים
18 — The reply was: Rabina said: The Mishnah is incomplete and its reading should be as follows: There are five cases of <i>Tam</i>; all the five of them may eventually become <i>Mu'ad</i> — Tooth and Foot are <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio. In this way Ox is definitely <i>Mu'ad</i>. As to Ox doing damage on the plaintiff's premises there is a difference of opinion between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis. There are other damage-doers which like these are similarly <i>Mu'ad</i>, as follows: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake.
יט הזאב והארי וכו' מאי ברדלס אמר רב יהודה נפרזא מאי נפרזא אמר רב יוסף אפא
19 NOR TO FALL DOWN. R. Eleazar said: This is so only when it falls down on large pitchers, but in the case of small pitchers it is a usual occurrence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would thus not fall under the category of Horn but under that of Foot; cf, supra p. 4. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כ מיתיבי רבי מאיר אומר אף הצבוע רבי אלעזר אומר אף הנחש ואמר רב יוסף צבוע זו אפא
20 May we support him [from the following teaching]: 'Animal is <i>Mu'ad</i> to walk in the usual manner and to break or crush a human being, or an animal, or utensils'? — This however may mean, through contact sideways.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas to fall down upon pitchers may perhaps in all cases be unusual. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כא לא קשיא כאן בצבוע זכר כאן בצבוע נקיבה
21 Some read: R. Eleazar said: Do not think that it is only in the case of large pitchers that it is unusual, whereas in the case of small pitchers it is usual. It is not so, for even in the case of small pitchers it is unusual. An objection was brought: '… or crush a human being, or an animal or utensils?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is usual. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כב דתניא צבוע זכר לאחר שבע שנים נעשה עטלף עטלף לאחר שבע שנים נעשה ערפד ערפד לאחר ז' שנים נעשה קימוש קימוש לאחר שבע שנים נעשה חוח חוח לאחר שבע שנים נעשה שד שדרו של אדם לאחר שבע שנים נעשה נחש והני מילי דלא כרע במודים
22 — This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So MS.M. Cur. edd, insert 'R. Eleazar said this etc.'] ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
כג אמר מר ר"מ אומר אף הצבוע
23 may perhaps mean through contact sideways.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 70. n. 5. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Some arrived at the same conclusion by having first raised the following objection: We have learnt: NOR TO FALL DOWN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is usual. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> But was it not taught: '… or crush a human being, or an animal or utensils'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is usual. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> R. Eleazar replied: There is no contradiction: the former statement deals with a case of large pitchers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is unusual. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> whereas the latter deals with small pitchers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is usual. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> THE WOLF, THE LION, THE BEAR, THE LEOPARD AND THE BARDALIS [PANTHER].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G] ');"><sup>23</sup></span> What is bardalis? — Rab Judah said: nafraza.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] D.S. [H] from [H] 'to run' or 'jump'. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> What is nafraza? — R. Joseph said: apa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] contraction of [H] (hyena)]. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> An objection was raised: R. Meir adds also the zabu'a.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit., 'the many-coloured'. Another term for hyena on account of its coloured stripes.] ');"><sup>26</sup></span> R. Eleazar adds, also the snake.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To those which are enumerated in the Mishnah as Mu'ad ab initio. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Now R. Joseph said that zabu'a means apa!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If zabu'a means apa, how could bardalis, which is mentioned independently, also mean apa. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — This, however, is no contradiction, for the latter appellation [zabu'a] refers to the male whereas the former [bardalis] refers to the female,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi's second interpretation; others reverse. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> as taught elsewhere: The male zabu'a [hyena] after seven years turns into a bat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The male zabu'a is subject to undergo constant and rapid changes in the evolution of its physique, so that on account of these various transformations it has various appellations, such as bardalis, nafraza and apa [For parallels in ancient Greek and Roman literature for this belief, v. Lewysohn. Zoologie, p. 77.] ');"><sup>30</sup></span> the bat after seven years turns into an arpad,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a species of bat; cf. Targum Jonathan Lev, XI, 19, where Heb. [H] is rendered [H]. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> the arpad after seven years turns into kimmosh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a species of thorn (Jast.). ');"><sup>32</sup></span> the kimmosh after seven years turns into a thorn, the thorn after seven years turns into a demon. The spine of a man after seven years turns into a snake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the symbol of ingratitude. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> should he not bow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus not appreciate the favours of eternal God bestowed upon mortal man. [This is but a quaint way of indicating the depths into which human depravity, which has its source in ingratitude to the Creator, may gradually sink.] ');"><sup>34</sup></span> while reciting the benediction, 'We give thanks unto Thee'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. P.B. p. 51. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> The Master said: 'R. Meir adds also the zabu'a;