Bava Kamma 49

לא אדון קרן מקרן אני אדון קרן מרגל ומה במקום שהקל על השן ועל הרגל ברה"ר החמיר בקרן מקום שהחמיר על השן ועל הרגל ברשות הניזק אינו דין שנחמיר בקרן

INFER HORN [DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES] FROM HORN [DOING DAMAGE ON PUBLIC GROUND]; I INFER HORN FROM FOOT: SEEING THAT IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC GROUND THE LAW, THOUGH LENIENT WITH REFERENCE TO TOOTH AND FOOT, IS NEVERTHELESS STRICT REGARDING HORN, IN THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES, WHERE THE LAW IS STRICT WITH REFERENCE TO TOOTH AND FOOT, DOES IT NOT STAND TO REASON THAT WE SHOULD APPLY THE SAME STRICTNESS TO HORN? THEY, HOWEVER, STILL ARGUED: IT IS QUITE SUFFICIENT IF THE LAW IN RESPECT OF THE THING INFERRED IS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 125, n. 5. ');">¹</span> EQUIVALENT TO THAT FROM WHICH IT IS DERIVED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. n. 6. [As in whatever way the argument is put the result is the same — namely, inferring Horn on the plaintiff's premises from Horn on public ground.] ');">²</span>

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

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. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Does R. Tarfon really ignore the principle of <i>Dayyo</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew term meaning 'it is sufficient for it', and denoting the qualification applied by the Rabbis to check the full force of the a fortiori; v. Glos. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ור"ט לית ליה דיו והא דיו דאורייתא הוא דתניא מדין ק"ו כיצד (במדבר יב, יד) ויאמר ה' אל משה ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים ק"ו לשכינה ארבעה עשר יום אלא דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון

Is not <i>Dayyo</i> of Biblical origin as taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. II 1a; Zeb. 69b. ');">⁴</span> How does the rule of <i>Kal wa-homer</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The technical term for the logical inference, 'From minor to major,' v. Glos. ');">⁵</span>

כי לית ליה דיו היכא דמפריך ק"ו היכא דלא מפריך ק"ו אית ליה דיו התם שבעה דשכינה לא כתיבי אתא ק"ו אייתי ארבסר אתא דיו אפיק שבעה ואוקי שבעה

work? <i>And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days?</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XII, 14. ');">⁶</span> How much the more so then in the case of divine [reproof] should she be ashamed fourteen days? Yet the number of days remains seven, for it is sufficient if the law in respect of the thing inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of Divinity. ');">⁷</span>

אבל הכא חצי נזק כתיב ואתא ק"ו ואייתי חצי נזק אחרינא ונעשה נזק שלם אי דרשת דיו אפריך ליה ק"ו

be equivalent to that from which it is derived!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the case of her father. [Hence, even in the case of Divinity, no more than seven days are inferred proving that Dayyo has a Biblical basis.] ');">⁸</span> — The principle of <i>Dayyo</i> is ignored by him [R. Tarfon] only when it would defeat the purpose of the <i>a fortiori</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., render it completely ineffective. ');">⁹</span>

ורבנן שבעה דשכינה כתיבי תסגר שבעת ימים

but where it does not defeat the purpose of the <i>a fortiori</i>, even he maintains the principle of <i>Dayyo</i>. In the instance quoted there is no mention made at all of seven days in the case of divine reproof; nevertheless, by the working of the <i>a fortiori</i>, fourteen days may be suggested: there follows, however, the principle of <i>Dayyo</i> so that the additional seven days are excluded, whilst the original seven are retained. Whereas in the case before us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding compensation whether it be half or full in the case of Horn doing damage. ');">¹⁰</span> the payment of not less than half damages has been explicitly ordained [in all kinds of premises]. When therefore an <i>a fortiori</i> is employed, another half-payment is added [for damage on the plaintiff's premises], making thus the compensation complete. If [however] you apply the principle of <i>Dayyo</i>, the sole purpose of the <i>a fortiori</i> would thereby be defeated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 126, n. 9. ');">¹¹</span>

ור"ט ההוא תסגר דדרשינן דיו הוא

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages in the Mishnah: how do they meet R. Tarfon's objection? ');">¹²</span> — They argue that also in the case of divine [reproof] the minimum of seven days has been decreed in the words: Let her be shut out from the camp seven days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XII, 14. ');">¹³</span>

ורבנן כתיב קרא אחרינא ותסגר מרים ור"ט ההוא דאפי' בעלמא דרשינן דיו ולא תאמר הכא משום כבודו של משה אבל בעלמא לא קמ"ל

And R. Tarfon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he state that no mention is made of seven days in connection with divine reproof? ');">¹⁴</span> — He maintains that the ruling in the words, 'Let her be shut out etc.', is but the result of the application of the principle of <i>Dayyo</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not a decree per se. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ל רב פפא לאביי הא האי תנא דלא דריש דיו ואע"ג דלא מפריך ק"ו דתניא קרי בזב מניין ודין הוא מה טהור בטהור טמא בטמא טמא בטהור אינו דין שיהא טמא בטמא

[decreasing the number of days to seven]. And the Rabbis? — They argue that this is expressed in the further verse: And Miriam was shut out from the camp.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XII, 15. ');">¹⁶</span> And R. Tarfon? — He maintains that the additional statement was intended to introduce the principle of <i>Dayyo</i> for general application so that you should not suggest limiting its working only to that case where the dignity of Moses was involved, excluding thus its acceptance for general application: it has therefore been made known to us [by the additional statement] that this is not the case.

וקא מייתי לה בין למגע בין למשא ואמאי נימא אהני ק"ו למגע אהני דיו לאפוקי משא

R. Papa said to Abaye: Behold, there is a Tanna who does not employ the principle of <i>Dayyo</i> even when the <i>a fortiori</i> would thereby not be defeated, for it was taught: Whence do we know that the discharge of semen virile in the case of <i>zab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person afflicted with gonorrhoea: cf. Lev. XV, 1-15. ');">¹⁷</span> causes defilement [either by 'touching' or by 'carrying']?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case with gonorrhoeal discharge. ');">¹⁸</span>

וכי תימא למגע לא אצטריך ק"ו דלא גרע מגברא טהור איצטריך סד"א (דברים כג, יא) מקרה לילה כתיב מי שקריו גורם לו יצא זה שאין קריו גורם לו אלא דבר אחר גרם לו קמ"ל

It is a logical conclusion: For if a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as saliva. ');">¹⁹</span> that is clean in the case of a clean person is defiling in the case of <i>zab</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XV, 8, and Niddah, 55b. ');">²⁰</span>

מידי ולא ד"א כתיב

is it not cogent reasoning that a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as semen virile. ');">²¹</span> which is defiling in the case of a clean person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XV, 16-17, and supra p. 2. ');">²²</span>

ומאן תנא דשמעת ליה דאמר שכבת זרע של זב מטמא במשא לא ר"א ולא רבי יהושע דתנן שכבת זרע של זב מטמא במגע ואין מטמא במשא דברי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע אומר אף מטמא במשא לפי שאי אפשר בלא צחצוחי זיבה

should defile in the case of <i>zab</i>? Now this reasoning applies to both 'touching' and 'carrying',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is based on the law applicable to the saliva of zab. ');">²³</span> But why not argue that the <i>a fortiori</i> serves a useful purpose in the case of 'touching', whilst the principle of <i>Dayyo</i> can be employed to exclude defilement by mere 'carrying'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case with the law applicable to semen virile of a clean person. ');">²⁴</span>

עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם אלא שאי אפשר בלא צחצוחי זיבה הא לאו הכי לא אלא האי תנא הוא דתנן למעלה מהן

If, however, you maintain that regarding 'touching' there is no need to apply the <i>a fortiori</i> on the ground that [apart from all inferences] <i>zab</i> could surely not be less defiling than an ordinary clean person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose semen virile causes defilement by touching. ');">²⁵</span> my contention is [that the case may not be so, and] that the <i>a fortiori</i> may [still] be essential. For I could argue: By reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 11. ');">²⁶</span> is stated in Scripture to imply that the law of defilement applies only to those whose uncleanness has been occasioned solely by reason of their discharging semen virile, excluding thus <i>zab</i>, whose uncleanness has been occasioned not [solely] by his discharging semen virile but by another cause altogether.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by the affliction of gonorrhoea. [I may therefore have assumed that the semen virile of a zab causes no defilement, not even by 'touching'.] ');">²⁷</span> May not the <i>a fortiori</i> thus have to serve the purpose of letting us know that <i>zab</i> is not excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the a fortiori would still serve a useful purpose regarding defilement by 'touching', why should not the principle of Dayyo be employed to exclude defilement by mere 'carrying'? Hence this Tanna does not resort to Dayya even where the employment thereof would not render the a fortiori ineffective. ');">²⁸</span> — But where in the verse is it stated that the uncleanness must not have [concurrently] resulted also from any other cause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law applicable to semen virile to cause defilement by 'touching' is thus per se common with all kinds of persons. The inference by means of the a fortiori would therefore indeed be rendered useless if Dayyo, excluding as a result defilement by 'carrying', were admitted. ');">²⁹</span> Who is the Tanna whom you may have heard maintain that semen virile of <i>zab</i> causes [of itself] defilement by mere 'carrying'? He could surely be neither R. Eliezer, nor R. Joshua, for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 66a. ');">³⁰</span> The semen virile of <i>zab</i> causes defilement by 'touching', but causes no defilement by mere 'carrying'. This is the view of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua, however, maintains that it also causes defilement by mere 'carrying', for it must necessarily contain particles of gonorrhoea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which defile both by 'touching' and by 'carrying'. ');">³¹</span> Now, the sole reason there of R. Joshua's view is that semen virile cannot possibly be altogether free from particles of gonorrhoea, but taken on its own it would not cause defilement. The Tanna who maintains this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That semen virile of zab defiles by mere 'carrying' even on its own. ');">³²</span> must therefore be he who is responsible for what we have learnt: More severe than the former [causes of defilement]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the three primary Defilements: Dead Reptile, Semen Virile and the Person contaminated by contact with a corpse, all of which do not defile by mere carrying'. v. supra p. 2. ');">³³</span>