Bava Kamma - Daf 3
- The sources for שן and רגל
In a Baraisa it was taught that the word "ושלח" – and he sends forth, refers to damages of regel, as a passuk says: משלחי רגל השור והחמור – that send forth the foot of the ox and the donkey. The word "ובער" – and it consumes refers to damages of shein, as a passuk says: כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו – as the tooth consumes until the end. Without the passuk which supports explaining "ושלח" as regel, both might have referred to shein; והא דמכליא קרנא – and [one passuk] obligates payment for shein where [the animal] totally consumes the object, and the other teaches he must pay even where the item is not completely destroyed. Without the passuk which supports explaining "ובער" as shein, both might have referred to regel; הא דאזיל ממילא – [one passuk] obligates payment for damages where it went on its own and damaged someone’s property, הא דשלח שלוחי – and [the other passuk] obligates payment where [its owner] sent it to the property. Now that one passuk refers to shein and the other to regel, we derive that shein is obligated even where the damage is not complete, because the passuk of regel implies even incomplete destruction. We derive that regel pays even where it was not sent, because the passuk of shein implies even such damage.
- The toladah which differs from its av: חצי נזק צרורות
After proving that all tolados are identical to their avos, the Gemara concludes that when Rav Pappa said that some tolados are not identical to their av, he was referring to a toladah of regel, specifically: בחצי נזק צרורות – the half damages paid for damage caused by pebbles which shot out from the feet of a walking animal, דהלכתא גמירי לה – which is learned from a halachah leMoshe miSinai that it only pays half damages, despite being a toladah of regel (since it is caused by normal walking). The Gemara asks why it is categorized as regel, since it only pays half damages, and explains: לשלם מן העלייה – to pay from choice property, i.e., from his own possessions, even beyond the value of the damaging animal (as opposed to keren, whose half-damage payments cannot exceed the damaging animal’s value). Although Rava was uncertain if "צרורות" payments are made in excess of the animal’s value, Rav Pappa held they are. According to Rava, צרורות is categorized as regel to exempt it from paying for damages which took place in רשות הרבים, like all regel.
- Machlokes about מבעה: שן or אדם?
Amoraim dispute the meaning of "מבעה" in the Mishnah. Rav says: מבעה זה אדם – mav’eh refers to man who damages, and Shmuel says: מבעה זה השן – mav’eh refers to shein. Rav’s interpretation is based on a passuk saying about man, "אם תבעיון בעיו" – if you seek (forgiveness) seek, and Shmuel’s interpretation is based on a passuk which says "נבעו מצפוניו" – [Esav’s] hidden things have been sought out, which Rav Yosef translated as "אתגלין" – exposed. Mav’eh refers to teeth, which are sometimes covered and sometimes exposed. After the Gemara explains that neither interpretation fits precisely in the grammatical structure of mav’eh, it explains the point of contention. Rav holds: תנא שור וכל מילי דשור – [the Tanna] taught “ox” as a primary damager, which includes all types of ox damages (keren, shein, and regel), so mav’eh cannot refer to shein. Shmuel can respond: תנא שור לקרנו ומבעה לשינו – [the Tanna] taught “ox” referring to damages done with its horn, and taught mav’eh referring to damages done with its teeth. Ultimately, Rava will explain that “ox” refers to regel according to Shmuel.
