Bava Kamma 46

כחצר הניזק דמי דאי כחצר המזיק דמי לימא ליה מאי בעי רפתך בפומא דכלבאי

is still considered [kept in] the plaintiff's premises.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And liability for the consumption of the food is not denied. ');">¹</span>

דאיבעיא להו פי פרה כחצר הניזק דמי או כחצר המזיק דמי

For if it is considered to be in the defendant's premises why should not he say to the plaintiff: What is your bread doing in the mouth of my dog?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., why should I be liable for the bread consumed in my (the defendant's) premises?] ');">²</span>

ואי אמרת כחצר המזיק דמי שן דחייב רחמנא היכי משכחת לה

For there had been propounded a problem: Is [the plaintiff's food carried in] the mouth of [the defendant's] cattle considered as kept in the premises of the plaintiff, or as kept in the premises of the defendant? (Now if you maintain that it is considered to be in the defendant's premises, how can Tooth, for which the Divine Law imposes liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">³</span>

אמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא כגון שנתחככה בכותל להנאתה וטנפה פירות להנאתה

ever have practical application? — R. Mari the son of R. Kahana, however, replied: [It can have application] in the case where [the cattle] scratched against a wall for the sake of gratification [and pushed it down], or where it soiled fruits [by rolling upon them] for the purpose of gratification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 6. ');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה מר זוטרא והא בעינא כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו וליכא רבינא אמר דשף צלמי רב אשי אמר דפסעי פסועי

But Mar Zutra demurred: Do we not require, As a man taketh away dung till it all be gone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XIV, 10. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ש שיסה בו את הכלב שיסה בו את הנחש פטור מאן פטור משסה פטור וחייב בעל כלב ואי אמרת כחצר המזיק דמי לימא ליה מאי בעי ידך בפומיה דכלבאי

which is not the case here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the fact that the corpus is in any of these cases not being destroyed; v. supra pp. 4-5. ');">⁶</span>

אימא פטור אף משסה ואיבעית אימא דאפקיה לניביה וסרטיה

— Rabina therefore said; [It has application] in the case where [the cattle] rubbed paintings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is total destruction of the corpus. ');">⁷</span>

ת"ש השיך בו את הנחש רבי יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרים

off [the wall]. R. Ashi similarly said: [It may have application] in the case where the cattle trampled on fruits [and spoilt them completely].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is total destruction of the corpus. ');">⁷</span>

ואמר רב אחא בר יעקב כשתימצי לומר לדברי ר' יהודה ארס נחש בין שיניו הוא עומד לפיכך מכיש בסייף ונחש פטור לדברי חכמים ארס נחש מעצמו מקיא לפיכך נחש בסקילה ומכיש פטור

)

ואי אמרת פי פרה כחצר המזיק דמי לימא ליה מאי בעי ידך בפומא דחיוואי לענין קטלא לא אמרינן

Come and hear: If he incited a dog against him [i.e. his fellowman], or incited a serpent against him [to do damage], there is exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. IX, 1; v. also infra 24b. ');">⁸</span>

ומנא תימרא דתניא הנכנס לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ונגחו שורו של בעל הבית ומת השור בסקילה ובעלים פטורים מן הכופר

For whom is there exemption? — There is exemption for the inciter, but liability upon the owner of the dog. Now if you contend that [whatever is kept in] the mouth of the defendant's cattle is considered [as kept in] the defendant's premises, why should he not say to the plaintiff: What is your hand doing in the mouth of my dog?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which the dog is not much to blame since it was incited to do it. ');">⁹</span>

בעלים פטורין מן הכופר מ"ט דאמר ליה ברשותי מאי בעית שורו נמי לימא ליה מאי בעית ברשותי אלא לענין קטלא לא אמרינן

— Say, therefore, there is exemption also for the inciter;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., both inciter and dog-owner will not be made liable. ');">¹⁰</span>

הנהו עיזי דבי תרבו דהוו מפסדי ליה לרב יוסף א"ל לאביי זיל אימא להו למרייהו דליצנעינהו אמר ליה אמאי איזיל דאי אזילנא אמרי לי לגדור מר גדירא בארעיה

or if you like, you may say: The damage was done by the dog baring its teeth and wounding the plaintiff.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case his hand has never been kept in the mouth of the dog. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי גדר שן דחייב רחמנא היכי משכחת לה כשחתרה אי נמי דנפיל גודא בליליא

Come and hear: If a man caused another to be bitten by a serpent, R. Judah makes him liable whereas the Sages exempt him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. IX, 1; v. also infra 24b. ');">⁸</span>

מכריז רב יוסף ואיתימא רבה דסלקין לעילא ודנחתין לתחתאה הני עיזי דשוקא דמפסדי מתרינן במרייהו תרי ותלתא זמנין אי ציית ציית ואי לא אמרין ליה תיב אמסחתא וקבל זוזך:

And R. Aha b. Jacob commented:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 78a. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> איזהו תם ואיזו מועד מועד כל שהעידו בו שלשה ימים ותם משיחזור בו שלשה ימים דברי ר' יהודה רבי מאיר אומר מועד שהעידו בו שלשה פעמים ותם כל שיהו התינוקות ממשמשין בו ואינו נוגח:

Should you assume that according to R. Judah the poison of a serpent is ready at its fangs, so that the defendant [having committed murder is executed by] the sword,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. IX. 1. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי טעמא דר' יהודה אמר אביי (שמות כא, לו) תמול חד מתמול תרי שלשום תלתא ולא ישמרנו בעליו אתאן לנגיחה רביעית

whereas the serpent [being a mere instrument] is left unpunished, then according to the view of the Sages, the poison is spitten out by the serpent of its own free will, so that the serpent [being guilty of slaughter] is stoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. XXI, 28-29. ');">¹⁴</span>

רבא אמר תמול מתמול חד שלשום תרי ולא ישמרנו האידנא חייב

whereas the defendant, who caused it, is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being a mere accessory. ');">¹⁵</span>

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: