Bava Kamma 47

ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כל שכן אמרו ליה זבה תוכיח שריחקה ראיותיה טמאה קירבה ראיותיה טהורה

If for goring at long intervals [during three days], there is [full] liability, how much more so for goring at short intervals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by goring three times in one and the same day. ');">¹</span> They,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other Rabbis headed by R. Judah his opponent. ');">²</span>

אמר להן הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא טו, ג) וזאת תהיה טמאתו בזובו תלה הכתוב את הזב בראיות ואת הזבה בימים

however, said to him: 'A zabah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a woman who within the eleven days between one menstruation period and another had discharges on three consecutive days; cf. Lev.XV, 25-33. ');">³</span> disproves your argument, as by noticing her discharges at long intervals [three cases of discharge in three days], she becomes [fully] unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For seven days. ');">⁴</span>

ממאי דהאי וזאת למעוטי זבה מראיות אימא למעוטי זב מימים אמר קרא (ויקרא טו, לג) והזב את זובו לזכר ולנקבה מקיש זכר לנקבה מה נקבה בימים אף זכר בימים

whereas by noticing her discharges at short intervals [i.e. on the same day] she does not become [fully unclean].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for more than one day. ');">⁵</span> But he answered them: Behold, Scripture says: And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 3. This text checks the application of the a fortiori in this case as the explanation goes on. ');">⁶</span>

ולקיש נקבה לזכר מה זכר בראיות אף נקבה בראיות הא מיעט רחמנא וזאת

<i>Zab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a male person afflicted with discharges of issue on three different occasions; cf. Lev. XV, 1-15. ');">⁷</span> has thus been made dependent upon [the number of] cases of 'noticing', and zabah upon that of 'days'. But whence is it certain that 'And this'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 3. This text checks the application of the a fortiori in this case as the explanation goes on. ');">⁶</span>

ומה ראית מסתברא קאי בראיות ממעט ראיות קאי בראיות ממעט ימים

is to exempt zabah from being affected by cases of 'noticing'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On one and the same day. ');">⁸</span> Say perhaps that it meant only to exempt <i>zab</i> from being affected by the number of 'days'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he is affected only by that of the cases of 'noticing'. ');">⁹</span>

תנו רבנן איזהו מועד כל שהעידו בו שלשה ימים ותם שיהו התינוקות ממשמשין בו ואינו נוגח דברי ר' יוסי ר' שמעון אומר מועד כל שהעידו בו שלש פעמים ולא אמרו שלשה ימים אלא לחזרה בלבד

— The verse says, And of him that hath on issue, of the man, and of the woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">¹⁰</span> Male is thus made analogous to female: just as female is affected by [the number of] 'days' so is man affected by 'days'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if one discharge lasted with him two or three days, it will render him zab proper. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הלכה כר' יהודה במועד שהרי ר' יוסי מודה לו והלכה כרבי מאיר בתם שהרי ר' יוסי מודה לו

But why not make female analogous to male [and say]: just as male is affected by cases of 'noticing',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On one and the same day. ');">⁸</span> so also let female be affected by cases of 'noticing'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On one and the same day. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן ולימא מר הלכה כרבי מאיר במועד שהרי רבי שמעון מודה לו והלכה כרבי יהודה בתם שהרי רבי שמעון מודה לו אמר ליה אנא כרבי יוסי סבירא לי דרבי יוסי נימוקו עמו

— But Divine Law has [emphatically] excluded that by stating, 'And this'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 3. ');">¹²</span> On what ground, however, do you say [that the Scriptural phrase excludes the one and not the other]? — It only stands to reason that when cases of 'noticing' are dealt with,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. ibid. ');">¹³</span>

אבעיא להו שלשה ימים דקתני לייעודי תורא או לייעודי גברא

cases of 'noticing' are excluded;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding zabah. ');">¹⁴</span> [for is it reasonable to maintain that] when cases of 'noticing' are dealt with,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. ibid. ');">¹³</span>

למאי נפקא מינה דאתו תלתא כיתי סהדי בחד יומא אי אמרת לייעודי תורא מייעד ואי אמרת לייעודי גברא לא מייעד מימר אמר השתא הוא דקמסהדו בי מאי

'days' should be excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of zab. ');">¹⁵</span> Our Rabbis taught: What is <i>Mu'ad</i>? After the owner has been warned for three days;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding three acts of goring by their cattle. ');">¹⁶</span>

תא שמע אין השור נעשה מועד עד שיעידו בו בפני בעלים ובפני בית דין העידו בו בפני בית דין ושלא בפני בעלים בפני בעלים ושלא בפני בית דין אינו נעשה מועד עד שיעידו בו בפני בית דין ובפני בעלים

but [it may return to the state of] <i>Tam</i>, if children keep on touching it and no goring results; this is the dictum of R. Jose. R. Simeon says: Cattle become <i>Mu'ad</i>, after the owner has been warned three times,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For three acts of goring. ');">¹⁷</span> and the statement regarding three days refers only to the return to the state of <i>Tam</i>.

העידוהו שנים בראשונה ושנים בשניה ושנים בשלישית הרי כאן שלש עדיות והן עדות אחת להזמה

R. Nahman quoting Adda b. Ahabah said: 'The <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Judah regarding <i>Mu'ad</i>, for R. Jose agrees with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus constituting a majority against R. Meir on this point. ');">¹⁸</span> But the <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir regarding <i>Tam</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the return to the state of Tam. ');">¹⁹</span>

נמצאת כת ראשונה זוממת הרי כאן שתי עדיות והוא פטור והן פטורים נמצאת כת שניה זוממת הרי כאן עדות אחת והוא פטור והן פטורים

since R. Jose agrees with him [on this point].' Raba, however, said to R. Nahman: 'Why, Sir, not say that the <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir regarding <i>Mu'ad</i> for R. Simeon agrees with him, and the <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Judah regarding <i>Tam</i>, since R. Simeon agrees with him [on this point]?' He answered him: 'I side with R. Jose, because the reasons of R. Jose are generally sound.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his depth is with him.' v. Git. 67a. ');">²⁰</span> There arose the following question: Do the three days [under discussion] apply to [the goring of] the cattle [so that cases of goring on the same day do not count as more than one], or to the owner [who has to be warned on three different days]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding three acts of goring committed by his cattle even on one day. ');">²¹</span>

נמצאת כת שלישית זוממת כולן חייבין ועל זה נאמר (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם וגו'

The practical difference becomes evident when three sets of witnesses appear on the same day [and testify to three cases of goring that occurred previously on three different days]. If the three days apply to [the goring of] the cattle there would in this case be a declaration of <i>Mu'ad</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the evidence was given in one day. ');">²²</span> but, if the three days refer to the warning given the owner, there would in this case be no declaration of <i>Mu'ad</i>, as the owner may say: 'They have only just now testified against me [while the law requires this to be done on three different days].'

אי אמרת לייעודי תורא שפיר

Come and hear: Cattle cannot be declared <i>Mu'ad</i> until warning is given the owner when he is in the presence of the Court of Justice. If warning is given in the presence of the Court while the owner is absent, or, on the other hand, in the presence of the owner, but outside the Court, no declaration of <i>Mu'ad</i> will be issued unless the warning be given before the Court and before the owner. In the case of two witnesses giving evidence of the first time [of goring], and another two of the second time, and again two of the third time [of goring], three independent testimonies have been established. They are, however, taken as one testimony regarding haza mah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., proved alibi of a set of witnesses, v. Mak. (Sonc. ed.) p. 1, n. 1. ');">²³</span> Were the first set found <i>zomemim</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., proved to have been absent at the material time of the alleged goring; v. Glos. ');">²⁴</span> the remaining two sets would be unaffected; the defendant would, however, escape [full] liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his cattle 'would have to be dealt with as Tam. ');">²⁵</span> and the <i>zomemim</i> would still not have to pay him [for conspiring to make his cattle <i>Mu'ad</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with law of retaliation. Deut. XIX, 19. Since regarding the declaration of Mu'ad all the three pairs of witnesses constitute one set, and the law of hazamah applies only when the whole set has been convicted of an alibi. ');">²⁶</span> Were also the second set found <i>zomemim</i>, the remaining testimony would be unaffected; the defendant would escape [full] liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his cattle 'would have to be dealt with as Tam. ');">²⁵</span> and the <i>zomemim</i> would still not have to compensate him [for conspiring to make his cattle <i>Mu'ad</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with law of retaliation. Deut. XIX, 19. Since regarding the declaration of Mu'ad all the three pairs of witnesses constitute one set, and the law of hazamah applies only when the whole set has been convicted of an alibi. ');">²⁶</span> Were the third set also found <i>zomemim</i>, they would all have to share the liability [for conspiring to make the cattle <i>Mu'ad</i>];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the half damages added on account of the declaration of Mu'ad, whereas the original half damages on account of Tam will be imposed only upon the last pair of witnesses. ');">²⁷</span> for it is with reference to such a case that it is stated, Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX. 19. ');">²⁸</span> Now if it is suggested that the three days refer to [the goring of] the cattle [whereas the owner may be warned in one day], the ruling is perfectly right [as the three pairs may have given evidence in one day].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since they waited until the last day when they were summoned by the plaintiff of that day, it is plain that their object in giving evidence was to render the ox Mu'ad. ');">²⁹</span>