Bava Kamma 73
חנן בישא תקע ליה לההוא גברא אתא לקמיה דרב הונא א"ל זיל הב ליה פלגא דזוזא הוה ליה זוזא מכא בעי למיתבה ליה מיניה פלגא דזוזא לא הוה משתקיל ליה תקע ליה אחרינא ויהביה נהליה:
since Rabban Gamaliel and his Court of law are the representatives<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'father'. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמרו לפני רבי יהודה ה"ז מועד לשבתות ואינו מועד לחול אמר להם לשבתות משלם נזק שלם לימות החול משלם חצי נזק
The scoundrel Hanan, having boxed another man's ear, was brought before R. Huna, who ordered him to go and pay the plaintiff half a <i>zuz</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated by the anonymous view. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר רב זביד אמר ואינו מועד תנן רב פפא אמר אינו מועד תנן
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF AN OX WAS <i>MU'AD</i> TO DO DAMAGE TO ITS OWN SPECIES BUT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i> TO DO DAMAGE TO ANY OTHER SPECIES [OF ANIMALS] OR IF IT WAS <i>MU'AD</i> TO DO DAMAGE TO THE HUMAN SPECIES BUT NOT <i>MU'AD</i> TO ANY SPECIES OF BEASTS, OR IF IT WAS <i>MU'AD</i> TO SMALL [CATTLE] BUT NOT <i>MU'AD</i> TO LARGE [CATTLE], IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE SPECIES TO WHICH IT WAS <i>MU'AD</i> THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, BUT IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THAT TO WHICH IT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i>, THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disciples. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
רב זביד אמר ואינו מועד תנן הא סתמא הוי מועד רב פפא אמר אינו מועד תנן דסתמא לא הוי מועד
SAID BEFORE R. JUDAH: HERE IS ONE WHICH WAS <i>MU'AD</i> TO DO DAMAGE ON SABBATH DAYS BUT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i> TO DO DAMAGE ON WEEK DAYS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently we are to supply the words, 'what is the rule regarding it' the remark being intended as a question. But v. infra p. 208. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
רב זביד דייק מסיפא רב פפא דייק מרישא
HE SAID TO THEM: FOR DAMAGE DONE ON SABBATH DAYS THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, WHEREAS FOR DAMAGE DONE ON WEEK DAYS THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. WHEN [CAN THIS OX] RETURN TO THE STATE OF <i>TAM</i>? WHEN IT REFRAINS [FROM GORING] ON THREE [CONSECUTIVE] SABBATH DAYS.
רב זביד דייק מסיפא דקתני מועד לקטנים ואינו מועד לגדולים אי אמרת בשלמא ואינו מועד קתני הא סתמיה הוי מועד הא קמ"ל דאפי' מקטנים לגדולים נמי מסתמא הוי מועד
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was stated: R. Zebid said: The proper reading of the Mishnah [in the first clause is], 'BUT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i> …';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed rendered in the Mishnaic text. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אלא אי אמרת אינו מועד קתני סתמא לא הוי מועד
whereas R. Papa said: The proper reading is 'IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] <i>MU'AD</i> … '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah should accordingly open thus: 'If an ox is Mu'ad to do damage to its own species, it is not (therefore) Mu'ad to any other species (of animals)' etc., etc. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
השתא י"ל מקטנים לקטנים דעלמא סתמא לא הוי מועד מקטנים לגדולים צריכא למימר דלא הוי מועד
R. Zebid, who said that' … BUT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i> …'is the proper reading of the Mishnah, maintained that until we know the contrary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., by letting other animals pass in front of it and seeing that it does not gore them. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ורב פפא אמר לך אצטריך סלקא דעתיך אמינא הואיל ופרץ ביה בההוא מינא פרץ ביה לא שנא גדולים דידיה ולא שנא קטנים דידיה קמ"ל דלא הוי מועד
such an ox is considered <i>Mu'ad</i> [to all species]. But R. Papa, who said that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] <i>MU'AD</i> … is the correct reading of the Mishnah, maintained that even though we do not know the contrary the ox is not considered <i>mu'ad</i> [save to the species to which it had actually been <i>Mu'ad</i>]. R. Zebid inferred his view from the later clause [of the Mishnah], whereas R. Papa inferred his view from the opening clause. R. Zebid inferred his view from the later clause which states, IF IT WAS <i>MU'AD</i> TO SMALL [CATTLE] BUT NOT <i>MU'AD</i> TO LARGE [CATTLE]. Now this is quite in order if you maintain that BUT WAS NOT MU'AD' is the reading in the Mishnah, implying thus that in the absence of definite knowledge to the contrary the ox should be considered <i>Mu'ad</i> [to all species]. This clause would then teach us [the further point] that even where the ox was <i>mu'ad</i> to small [cattle] it would be <i>mu'ad</i> also to large [cattle] in the absence of knowledge to the contrary. But if you maintain that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] <i>MU'AD</i> …' is the correct reading of the Mishnah, implying that even though we know nothing to the contrary the ox would not be considered <i>mu'ad</i>, could it not then be argued thus: Since in the case where the ox was <i>mu'ad</i> to do damage to small creatures of one species it would not be considered <i>mu'ad</i> with reference to small creatures of another species even if we have no definite knowledge to the contrary, was there any need to state that where the ox was <i>mu'ad</i> to small [cattle] it would not be considered <i>mu'ad</i> to big [cattle]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is much less likely to attack big animals than small ones. Why then, on R. Papa's reading, have this clause at all in the Mishnah? ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
רב פפא דייק מרישא דקתני מועד לאדם אינו מועד לבהמה אי אמרת בשלמא אינו מועד תנן סתמא לא הוי מועד הא קמ"ל דאפילו מאדם לבהמה נמי סתמא לא הוי מועד
— R. Papa, however, may say to you: It was necessary to state this, since otherwise you might have been inclined to think that since the ox started to attack a particular species, it was going to attack the whole of that species without making a distinction between the large creatures of that species and the small creatures of that species, it was therefore necessary to let us know that [with reference to the large creatures] it would not be considered <i>Mu'ad</i>. R. Papa on the other hand based his view on the opening clause, which states: WHERE IT WAS <i>MU'AD</i> TO THE HUMAN SPECIES IT WOULD NOT BE <i>MU'AD</i> TO ANY SPECIES OF BEASTS. Now this would be quite in order if you maintain that 'IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] <i>MU'AD</i> …' is the text in the Mishnah denoting that even where we have no knowledge to the contrary the ox would not be considered <i>mu'ad</i> [to other species]; it was therefore necessary to make it known to us that even where the ox was <i>mu'ad</i> to the human species and though we knew nothing to the contrary, it would still not be <i>Mu'ad</i> to animals. But if you maintain that '… BUT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i> …' is the correct reading of the Mishnah, implying that in the absence of knowledge to the contrary the ox would be considered <i>mu'ad</i> [to all species], could we not then argue thus: Since in the case where the ox was <i>Mu'ad</i> to one species of beast it would in the absence of knowledge to the contrary be considered <i>mu'ad</i> also to any other species of beast, was there any need to state that where the ox was <i>mu'ad</i> to the human species it would also be considered <i>mu'ad</i> to animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which it would be more ready to attack than human beings. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אלא אי אמרת ואינו מועד קתני הא סתמא הוי מועד השתא י"ל מבהמה לבהמה סתמא הוי מועד מאדם לבהמה צריכא למימר דהוי מועד
— R. Zebid may, however, say to you: The opening clause refers to the reversion of the ox to the state of <i>Tam</i>, as, e.g., where the ox had been <i>mu'ad</i> to man and <i>mu'ad</i> to beast but has subsequently refrained from [doing damage to] beast, having stood near cattle on three different occasions without goring. It might then have been argued that since it has not refrained from injuring men, its refraining from goring cattle should [in the eye of the law] not be considered a proper reversion [to the state of <i>Tam</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 119. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ורב זביד אמר לך רישא אחזרה קאי כגון דהוה מועד לאדם ומועד לבהמה והדר ביה מבהמה דקאי גבי בהמה תלתא זימני ולא נגח מהו דתימא כיון דלא הדר ביה מאדם חזרה דבהמה לאו חזרה היא קמ"ל דחזרה דבהמה מיהא חזרה היא
We are therefore told that the refraining from goring cattle is in fact a proper reversion.
מיתיבי סומכוס אומר מועד לאדם מועד לבהמה מק"ו ומה לאדם מועד לבהמה לכ"ש מכלל דת"ק אינו מועד קאמר
An objection was raised [from the following]: Symmachus says: If an ox is <i>Mu'ad</i> to man it is also <i>Mu'ad</i> to beast, <i>a fortiori</i>: if it is <i>Mu'ad</i> to injure man, how much more so is it <i>Mu'ad</i> to injure beast? Does this not prove that the view of the previous Tanna was that it would not be <i>Mu'ad</i>?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In contradiction to the view of R. Zebid. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
א"ל רב זביד סומכוס אחזרה קאי והכי קא"ל לת"ק דקאמרת חזרה דבהמה חזרה היא חזרה דבהמה לאו חזרה היא מק"ו מאדם ומה מאדם לא קא מהדר ביה מבהמה לא כ"ש
— R. Zebid may, however, say to you: Symmachus was referring to the reversion to the state of <i>Tam</i>, and what he said to the previous Tanna was this: 'Referring to your statement that the refraining [from goring] beasts is a proper reversion, [I maintain that] the refraining [from goring] beasts is not a proper reversion, [and can prove it] by means of an argument <i>a fortiori</i> from the case of man. For since it has not refrained from [attacking] man, will it not assuredly continue attacking beasts?
אמר רב אשי ת"ש אמרו לפני רבי יהודה ה"ז מועד לשבתות ואינו מועד לימות החול אמר להן לשבתות משלם נזק שלם לימות החול משלם חצי נזק
R. Ashi said: Come and hear: THEY SAID BEFORE R. JUDAH: HERE IS ONE WHICH IS <i>MU'AD</i> TO DO DAMAGE ON SABBATH DAYS BUT NOT <i>MU'AD</i> TO DO DAMAGE ON WEEK DAYS. HE SAID TO THEM: FOR DAMAGE DONE ON SABBATH DAYS, THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, WHEREAS FOR DAMAGE DONE ON WEEK DAYS THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. Now this is quite in order if you maintain that '… BUT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i> …' is the correct reading. The disciples were thus putting a question before him and he was replying to them accordingly. But If you contend that '… IS NOT [THEREFORE] <i>MU'AD</i> …' is the correct text, [would it not appear as if his disciples] were giving instruction to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we have to read their remark as a statement and not as a question. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
אי אמרת בשלמא ואינו מועד קתני שיולי הוא דקא משיילי [ליה] והוא נמי קמהדר להו אלא אי אמרת אינו מועד קתני אגמורי הוא דקא מגמרי ליה ותו איהו מאי קא מהדר להו
Again, what would then be the meaning of his reply to them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After they had already decided the question in the wording of the problem. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אמר רב ינאי מרישא נמי דיקא דקתני את שמועד לו משלם נזק שלם ואת שאינו מועד לו [משלם] ח"נ
R. Jannai thereupon said: The same can also be inferred from the opening clause, where it is stated: IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE SPECIES TO WHICH IT WAS <i>MU'AD</i>, THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, BUT IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THAT TO WHICH IT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i>, THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. Now, this would be in order if you maintain that 'BUT IT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i> …'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 205, n. 6. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אי אמרת בשלמא ואינו מועד קתני פרושי קא מפרש לה
is the correct text, in which case the clause just quoted would be explanatory. But if you maintain that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] <i>MU'AD</i> …'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 206, n. 1 ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אלא אי אמרת אינו מועד קתני פסקה מאי תו את שמועד לו משלם נזק שלם ואת שאינו מועד לו משלם ח"נ עד השתא לא אשמעינן דהתם משלם ח"נ ומועד משלם נזק שלם
is the correct text, this statement is complete in itself, and why then the further statement 'IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE SPECIES TO WHICH IT WAS <i>MU'AD</i>, THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, BUT IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THAT TO WHICH IT WAS NOT <i>MU'AD</i>, THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY? Have we not been told before how that in the case of <i>mu'ad</i> the payment is for half the damage whereas in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> the payment has to be in full?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 73. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ת"ר ראה שור נגח שור לא נגח שור נגח שור לא נגח שור נגח שור לא נגח נעשה מועד לסירוגין לשוורים:
where the animal gored an ox, an ass and a camel [successively] it would still become <i>mu'ad</i> to all [species of beasts].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we should not require three gorings for each. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
ת"ר ראה שור נגח חמור לא נגח סוס נגח גמל לא נגח פרד נגח ערוד לא נגח נעשה מועד לסירוגין לכל
Our Rabbis taught: If the animal sees an ox and gores it, another ox and does not gore it, a third ox and gores it, a fourth ox and does not gore it, a fifth ox and gores it, a sixth ox and does not gore it, the animal becomes <i>Mu'ad</i> to alternate oxen.
איבעיא להו נגח
Our Rabbis taught: If an animal sees an ox and gores it, an ass and does not gore it, a horse and gores it a camel and does not gore it, a mule and gores it, a wild ass and does not gore it, the animal becomes <i>Mu'ad</i> to alternate beasts of all species. The following question was raised: If the animal [successively] gored