Bava Kamma 48

אלא אי אמרת לייעודי גברא לימרו הנך קמאי אנן מי הוה ידעינן דבתר שלשה יומי אתו הני ומייעדי ליה

But if it be suggested that the three days refer to the warning given the owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the three sets dealt with could not have given their evidence in one and the same day, but each set on the day the respective goring took place. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא ואמר לי ולייעודי תורא מי ניחא ולימרו הנך בתראי אנן מנא ידעינן דכל דקאי בי דינא לאסהודי בתורא קאתו אנן לחיובי גברא פלגא נזקא אתינן

why should not the first set say: 'Could we have known that after three days there would appear other sets to render the cattle <i>Mu'ad</i>?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the first set ever be made responsible for the subsequent rendering of the cattle Mu'ad. ');">²</span>

דקמרמזי רמוזי רב אשי אמר כשבאו רצופים

— R. Ashi thereupon said: I repeated this argument to R. Kahana, and he said to me: 'And even if the three days refer to [the goring of] the cattle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the three pairs may have given their evidence in one day. ');">³</span>

רבינא אמר במכירין בעל השור ואין מכירין את השור

is the explanation satisfactory? Why should not the last set say: "How could we have known that all those present at the Court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the witnesses that constituted the former sets. ');">⁴</span>

אלא היכי מייעדי ליה דאמרי תורא נגחנא אית לך בבקרך אבעי לך לנטורי לכוליה בקרא

had come to give evidence against the [same] ox? Our aim in coming was only to make the defendant liable for half damages."?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former sets, however, cannot plead thus since they waited with their evidence until the last day, when they appeared to the summons of the plaintiff of that day, in which case it is more than evident that all that concerned that plaintiff regarding the evidence of the earlier times of goring was solely to render the ox Mu'ad. ');">⁵</span>

אבעיא להו המשסה כלבו של חבירו בחבירו מהו משסה ודאי פטור בעל כלב מאי מי אמרינן מצי א"ל אנא מאי עבידנא ליה או דלמא אמרינן ליה כיון דידעת בכלבך דמשסי ליה ומשתסי לא אבעי לך לאשהוייה

— [But we may be dealing with a case where] all the sets were hinting to one another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And all gave evidence in one and the same day. Rashi a.l. maintains that this would still prove that the three days refer to the goring of the cattle and not to warning the owner. According to an interpretation suggested by Tosaf., however, the first and second sets who also appeared on the third day together with the third set, had already given their evidence on the first and second day respectively. The requirement of the three days could thus accordingly refer to warning the owner. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבי זירא ת"ש ותם שיהו התינוקות ממשמשין בו ואינו נוגח הא נוגח חייב אמר אביי מי קתני נגח חייב דלמא הא נגח לא הוי תם ובההיא נגיחה לא מחייב

[thus definitely conspiring to act concurrently]. R. Ashi further said that we may deal with a case where all the sets appeared [in Court] simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 2. ');">⁷</span>

ת"ש שיסה בו את הכלב שיסה בו נחש פטור מאי לאו פטור משסה וחייב בעל כלב לא אימא פטור אף משסה

Rabina even said: 'Where the witnesses know only the owner but could not identify the ox.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the sole intention of all the sets of witnesses was the declaration of Mu'ad. They could not have intended to make the defendant liable for half damages since half damages in the case of Tam is paid only out of the body of the goring ox which the witnesses in this case were unable to identify. This explanation holds good only regarding the intention of the last set of witnesses, whereas the former sets, if for the declaration of Mu'ad they would necessarily have to record their evidence before the third time of goring, could then not have foreseen that the same ox (whose identity was not established by them) would continue goring for three and four times. Rashi thus proves that the three days refer not to warning the owner but to the times of goring committed by the cattle. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא אם תמצי לומר המשסה כלבו של חבירו בחבירו חייב שיסהו הוא בעצמו פטור מאי טעמא כל המשנה ובא אחר ושינה בו פטור

How then can they render it <i>Mu'ad</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the identity of the goring ox could not be established. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל רב פפא לרבא איתמר משמיה דריש לקיש כוותיך דאמר ריש לקיש שתי פרות ברשות הרבים אחת רבוצה ואחת מהלכת ובעטה מהלכת ברבוצה פטורה רבוצה במהלכת חייבת

— By saying: 'As you have in your herd an ox prone to goring, it should be your duty to control the whole of the herd.'

א"ל אנא בההיא חיובי מחייבנא דאמרינן ליה כי אית לך רשותא לסגויי עלי לבעוטי בי לית לך רשותא:

There arose the following question: In the case of a neighbour's dog having been set on a third person, what is the law? The inciter could undoubtedly not be made liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he, not having actually done the damage, is but an accessory. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שור המזיק ברשות הניזק כיצד נגח נגף נשך רבץ בעט ברשות הרבים משלם חצי נזק ברשות הניזק רבי טרפון אומר נזק שלם וחכמים אומרים חצי נזק

but what about the owner of the dog? Are we to say that the owner is entitled to plead: 'What offence have I committed here?' Or may we retort: 'Since you were aware that your dog could easily be incited and do damage you ought not to have left it [unguarded]'?

אמר להם רבי טרפון ומה במקום שהקל על השן ועל הרגל ברשות הרבים שהוא פטור החמיר עליהן ברשות הניזק לשלם נזק שלם מקום שהחמיר על הקרן ברה"ר לשלם חצי נזק אינו דין שנחמיר עליו ברשות הניזק לשלם נזק שלם

R. Zera [thereto] said: Come and hear: [CATTLE BECOME AGAIN] <i>TAM</i>, WHEN CHILDREN KEEP ON TOUCHING THEM AND NO GORING RESULTS, implying that were goring to result therefrom there would be liability [though it were caused by incitement]! — Abaye however said: Is it stated: If goring results therefrom there is liability? What perhaps is meant is: If goring does result therefrom there will be no return to the state of <i>Tam</i>, though regarding that [particular] goring no liability will be incurred.

אמרו לו דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה ברה"ר חצי נזק אף ברשות הניזק חצי נזק

Come and hear: If he incited a dog or incited a serpent against him, there is exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 117. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר להם אף אני

Does this not mean that the inciter is free, but the owner of the dog is liable? — No, read: '… the inciter too is free.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning thus that both inciter and owner are free. ');">¹²</span> Raba said: Assuming that in the case of inciting a neighbour's dog against a third person, the owner of the dog is liable, if the incited dog turns upon the inciter, the owner is free on the ground that where the plaintiff himself has acted wrongly, the defendant who follows suit and equally acts wrongly [against the former] could not be made liable [to him]. R. Papa thereupon said to Raba: A statement was made in the name of Resh Lakish agreeing with yours; for Resh Lakish said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 98. ');">¹³</span> 'In the case of two cows on public ground, one lying and the other walking, if the walking cow kicks the other, there is no liability [as the plaintiff's cow had no right to be lying on the public ground], but if the lying cow kicks the other cow there will be liability.' Raba, however, said to him: In the case of the two cows I would always order payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of the walking cow kicking the lying cow. ');">¹⁴</span> as [on behalf of the plaintiff] we may argue against the defendant: 'Your cow may be entitled to tread upon my cow, she has however no right to kick her.' <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b> WHAT IS MEANT BY 'OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to supra p. 68. ');">¹⁵</span> IN CASE OF GORING, PUSHING, BITING, LYING DOWN OR KICKING, IF ON PUBLIC GROUND THE PAYMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While in the state of Tam; cf. supra p. 73. ');">¹⁶</span> IS HALF, BUT IF ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES R. TARFON ORDERS PAYMENT IN FULL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 68. ');">¹⁷</span> WHEREAS THE SAGES ORDER ONLY HALF DAMAGES. R. TARFON THERE UPON SAID TO THEM: SEEING THAT, WHILE THE LAW WAS LENIENT TO TOOTH AND FOOT IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC GROUND ALLOWING TOTAL EXEMPTION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 17. ');">¹⁸</span> IT WAS NEVERTHELESS STRICT WITH THEM REGARDING [DAMAGE DONE ON] THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES WHERE IT IMPOSED PAYMENT IN FULL, IN THE CASE OF HORN, WHERE THE LAW WAS STRICT REGARDING [DAMAGE DONE ON] PUBLIC GROUND IMPOSING AT LEAST THE PAYMENT OF HALF DAMAGES, DOES IT NOT STAND TO REASON THAT WE SHOULD MAKE IT EQUALLY STRICT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PLAINTIFFS PREMISES SO AS TO REQUIRE COMPENSATION IN FULL? THEIR ANSWER WAS: IT IS QUITE SUFFICIENT THAT THE LAW IN RESPECT OF THE THING INFERRED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Horn doing damage on the plaintiff's premises. ');">¹⁹</span> SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO THAT FROM WHICH IT IS DERIVED:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Horn doing damage on public ground. ');">²⁰</span> JUST AS FOR DAMAGE DONE ON PUBLIC GROUND THE COMPENSATION [IN THE CASE OF HORN] IS HALF, SO ALSO FOR DAMAGE DONE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES THE COMPENSATION SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN HALF. R. TARFON, HOWEVER, REJOINED: BUT NEITHER DO I