Bava Kamma 32

Chapter 32

א רבי אלעזר אומר אף הנחש והא אנן תנן ר' אלעזר אומר בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדים והנחש מועד לעולם
1 R. Eleazar adds also the snake.' But have we not learned: R. ELEAZAR SAYS, IF THEY HAD BEEN TAMED, THEY ARE NOT <i>MU'AD</i>; THE SNAKE, HOWEVER, IS ALWAYS <i>MU'AD</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Which seems to exclude the other animals enumerated in the Mishnah?] ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב תני נחש
2 — Read 'the snake'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do not read 'also the snake', but 'the snake', i.e. 'only the snake', excluding 'the hyena' introduced by R. Meir, as well as the other animals enumerated. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אמר שמואל ארי ברה"ר דרס ואכל פטור טרף ואכל חייב
3 Samuel said: In the case of a lion on <i>public</i> ground seizing and devouring [an animal], there is exemption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex XXII, 4 and supra 5b. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד דרס ואכל פטור כיון דאורחיה למידרס הוה ליה כמו שאכלה פירות וירקות דהוה ליה שן ברשות הרבים ופטור טרף לאו אורחיה הוא
4 but for tearing it to pieces and then devouring it there is liability to pay. In 'seizing and devouring there is exemption' on account of the fact that it is as usual for a lion to seize its prey as it is for an animal to consume fruits and vegetables; it therefore amounts to Tooth on public ground where there is exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex XXII, 4 and supra 5b. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה למימרא דטריפה לאו אורחיה הוא והכתיב (נחום ב, יג) אריה טורף בדי גורותיו בשביל גורותיו ומחנק ללבאותיו בשביל לבאותיו וימלא טרף חוריו בשביל חוריו ומעונותיו טריפה בשביל מעונותיו
5 The 'tearing' [of the prey into pieces] is however not unusual with the lion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And falls thus under the category of Horn which is not immune even on public ground, cf. supra p. 67 and infra 19b. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו והתניא וכן חיה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק טרפה בהמה ואכלה בשר משלם נזק שלם
6 Should it thus be concluded that the tearing of prey is unusual [with the lion]? But behold, it is written: <i>The lion did tear in pieces enough for his whelps</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nah. II, 13. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז הכא במאי עסקינן שטרפה להניח הא אכלה קתני בשנמלכה ואכלה
7 — This is usual only when it is for the sake of his whelps. [But the text continues:] <i>And strangled for his lionesses</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nah. II, 13. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ח מנא ידעינן ועוד דשמואל נמי דלמא הכי הוא
8 — This again is only when it is for the sake of his lionesses. [But the text further states:] <i>And filled his holes with prey</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nah. II, 13. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ט אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לצדדין קתני שטרפה להניח או דרסה ואכלה משלמת נזק שלם
9 — [This too is usual only when it is done] with the intention of preserving it in his holes. But the text concludes: <i>And his dens with ravin</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nah. II, 13. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
י רבינא אמר כי קאמר שמואל בארי תרבות ואליבא דרבי אלעזר דאמר לאו אורחיה
10 — [This again is only] when the intention is to preserve it in his dens. But was it not taught: 'Similarly in the case of a beast entering the plaintiff's premises, tearing an animal to pieces and consuming its flesh, the payment must be made in full'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 19b. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
יא אי הכי אפי' דרסה נמי ליחייב
11 — This Baraitha deals with a case where the tearing was for the purpose of preservation. But behold, it is stated: 'consuming [its flesh]'? — It was by an afterthought that the beast consumed [it]. But how could we know that? Again, also in the case of Samuel why not make the same supposition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Why then doses he state that, where the lion tore and consumed, there is payment?] ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יב אלא דרבינא לאו אשמואל אתמר אלא אמתניתא כי תני מתניתא בארי תרבות ואליבא דר' אלעזר דאמר לאו אורחיה
12 — R. Nahman b. Isaac therefore said: Alternative cases are dealt with [in the Baraitha]:&nbsp;… If it either tears to pieces for the purpose of preservation, or seizes and devours [it], the payment must he in full.' Rabina, however, said that Samuel dealt with a case of a tame lion, and was following the view of R. Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 68. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יג א"ה ח"נ בעי לשלומי דאייעד
13 that that was unusual [with such a lion] If so, even in the case of seizing there should be liability! — Rabina's statement has, therefore, no reference to Samuel's case but to the Baraitha, which we must thus suppose to deal with a tame lion and to follow the view of R. Eleazar, that that was unusual [with such a lion].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And comes therefore within the category of Horn, for which there is liability even on public grounds. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יד א"ה מאי האי דקתני לה גבי תולדה דשן גבי תולדה דקרן בעי למיתנייה קשיא
14 If so, [no more than] half-damages should be paid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of Horn only half-damages are paid on the first three occasions. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
טו <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מה בין תם למועד
15 — [The lion dealt with] has already become <i>Mu'ad</i>. If so, why has this Baraitha been taught in conjunction with the secondary kinds of Tooth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., infra 19b. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
טז אלא שהתם משלם חצי נזק מגופו ומועד משלם נזק שלם מן העלייה
16 whereas it should have been taught in conjunction with the secondary kinds of Horn? This is indeed a difficulty.
יז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי עלייה אמר רבי אלעזר במעולה שבנכסיו
17 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE [IN LAW] BETWEEN <i>TAM</i> AND <i>MU'AD</i>? IN THE CASE OF <i>TAM</i> ONLY HALF-DAMAGES ARE PAID AND ONLY OUT OF THE BODY [ OF THE TORT-FEASENT CATTLE], WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF <i>MU'AD</i> FULL PAYMENT IS MADE OUT OF ['ALIYYAH]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יח וכן הוא אומר (דברי הימים ב לב, לג) וישכב חזקיהו עם אבותיו ויקברוהו במעלה קברי בני דוד ואמר ר' אלעזר במעלה אצל מעולים שבמשפחה ומאן נינהו דוד ושלמה
18 THE BEST [OF THE ESTATE].
יט (דברי הימים ב טז, יד) ויקברוהו בקברותיו אשר כרה לו בעיר דוד וישכיבוהו במשכב אשר מלא בשמים וזנים מאי בשמים וזנים רבי אלעזר אמר זיני זיני ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר בשמים שכל המריח בהן בא לידי זימה
19 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is 'Aliyyah? — R. Eleazar said: The best of the defendant's estate as stated in Scripture: And Hezekiah slept with his fathers and they buried him [be-ma'aleh] in the best of the sepulchres of the sons of David;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XXXII, 33. [The word [H] (E.V.: 'ascent') is tendered as 'the best' from [H] 'to go up', 'to excel'.] ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כ (ירמיהו יח, כב) כי כרו שוחה ללכדני ופחים טמנו לרגלי רבי אלעזר אמר שחשדוהו מזונה ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר שחשדוהו מאשת איש
20 and R. Eleazar said: be-ma'aleh means, near the best of the family, i.e., David and Solomon. [Regarding King Asa it is stated:] And they buried him in his own sepulchres which he had made for himself in the city of David and laid him in the bed which was filled with [besamim u-zenim]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כא בשלמא למ"ד שחשדוהו מזונה היינו דכתיב (משלי כג, כז) כי שוחה עמוקה זונה אלא למ"ד שחשדוהו מאשת איש מאי שוחה אטו אשת איש מי נפקא מכלל זונה
21 sweet odours and divers kinds of spices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XVI, 14. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כב בשלמא למ"ד שחשדוהו מאשת איש היינו דכתיב (ירמיהו יח, כג) ואתה ה' ידעת את כל עצתם עלי למות אלא למאן דאמר שחשדוהו מזונה מאי למות שהשליכוהו לבאר טיט
22 What is besamim u-zenim? — R. Eleazar said: Divers kinds of spices. But R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: Scents which incite all those who smell them to immorality.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Deriving [H] from [H] to commit whoredom'.] ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כג דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו יח, כג) יהיו מוכשלים לפניך בעת אפך עשה בהם אמר ירמיה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם אפילו בשעה שעושין צדקה הכשילם בבני אדם שאינן מהוגנים כדי שלא יקבלו עליהן שכר
23 [Regarding Jeremiah it is stated:] <i>For they have digged a ditch to take me and hid snares for my feet</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XVIII, 22. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כד (דברי הימים ב לב, לג) וכבוד עשו לו במותו מלמד שהושיבו ישיבה על קברו
24 R. Eleazar said: They maliciously accused him of [having illicit intercourse with] a harlot. But R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: They maliciously accused him of having [immoral connections with] another man's wife. No difficulty arises if we accept the view that the accusation was concerning a harlot, since it is written: <i>For a harlot is a deep ditch</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXIII, 27. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כה פליגי בה ר' נתן ורבנן חד אמר שלשה
25 But according to the view that the accusation was concerning another man's wife, how is this expressed in the term '<i>ditch'</i> [employed in Jeremiah's complaint]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XVIII, 22. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> — Is then another man's wife [when committing adultery] excluded from the general term of 'harlot'? [On the other hand] there is no difficulty on the view that the accusation was concerning another man's wife, for Scripture immediately afterwards says: <i>Yet Lord, Thou knowest all their counsel against me to slay me</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XVIII, 23; referring to the death penalty prescribed for such an offence. See Lev. XX, 10. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> but according to the view that the accusation was concerning a harlot, how did they thereby intend 'to slay him'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no death penalty is attached to that sin, ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — [This they did] by throwing him into a pit of mire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XXXVIII, 6. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Raba gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the concluding verse: <i>But let them be overthrown before Thee; deal thus with them in the time of Thine anger</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 23. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — Jeremiah thus addressed the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, even when they are prepared to do charity, cause them to be frustrated by people unworthy of any consideration so that no reward be forthcoming to them for that charity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. however Keth. 68a. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> [To come back to Hezekiah regarding whom it is stated:]<i> And they did him honour at his death</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XXXII, 33. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> this signifies that they set up a college<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Of students to study the law.] ');"><sup>25</sup></span> near his sepulchre. There was a difference of opinion between R. Nathan and the Rabbis. One said: For three days,
Previous ChapterNext Chapter