Bava Kamma - Daf 24
- ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כל שכן, זבה תוכיח
Rebbe Meir explains why he holds a mu’ad can be established from three incidents of damage in a single day: ריחק נגיחותיו חייב – If it spaced its gorings over multiple days, [its owner] is liable for full damages, קירב נגיחותיו לא כל שכן – then if it gored three times close together on one day, is it not certain he should pay full damages? The Gemara objects that the law of a זבה disproves the logic of the kal vachomer, because if she experienced three discharges on separate days, she becomes a full zavah, but if they were on a single day, she does not become a full zavah!? The Gemara answers that the passuk says: "וזאת תהיה טמאתו בזובו" – “This” shall be his tumah when he discharges, teaching: תלה הכתוב את הזב בראיות – the Torah made the male zav dependent on discharges (even three on one day), ואת הזבה בימים – and the female zavah on days. The Gemara further analyzes the derashah.
- לייעודי תורא או לייעודי גברא
The Gemara asks: שלשה ימים דקתני – Are the three days that [Rebbe Yehudah] mentions לייעודי תורא או לייעודי גברא – in order to make the ox a mu’ad, or to make the [owner] a mu’ad? Are the three incidents to establish the animal’s tendency to gore, or to warn the owner multiple times before paying in full? A nafka mina is where three sets of witnesses testified, on a single day, about the animal damaging on three separate days. A Baraisa is quoted which teaches that if three sets of witnesses testify about three incidents of the animal damaging, הרי כאן שלש עדיות – they are three testimonies (and if one is discredited, the others still stand), והן עדות אחת להזמה – but are one testimony regarding the hazamah penalty. Since all three sets were needed to establish the mu’ad, an individual pair found to be zomemin would not pay for the additional half-damages the owner was required to pay for the third incident (as a supposed mu’ad), because zomemin only pay when all relevant witnesses are found zomemin. If all three sets are found zomemin, they would jointly pay the additional half-damages. The Gemara asks, if the three days are needed to establish the owner a mu’ad, and perforce the witnesses came on separate days, the first pair can claim they did not know that other witnesses would testify to further incidents in the coming days and did not intend to make the owner pay full damages!?
- המשסה כלבו של חבירו בחבירו
The Gemara asks: המשסה כלבו של חבירו בחבירו מהו – One who incites someone’s dog against another person, what is the halachah? The inciter is definitely exempt, because he caused the damage indirectly, but is the dog’s owner liable? Can he say: אנא מאי עבידנא ליה – What did I do to [the victim], since the dog’s attack was instigated by another person, or do we say to him: כיון דידעת בכלבך דמשסי ליה ומשתסי – since you know that your dog is susceptible to being incited, לא אבעי לך לאשהוייה – you should not have retained it? Two proofs are offered and deflected.
Rava comments that even if the dog’s owner is liable in the above case, שיסהו הוא בעצמו פטור – if one incited it against himself, [the owner] is exempt. This is because of the principle: כל המשנה – Anyone who acts irregularly, ובא אחר ושינה בו פטור – and someone else comes and acts irregularly against him, [the second party] is exempt. Still, Rava disagrees with Reish Lakish, who applied this principle where an animal was squatting in רשות הרבים and another animal kicked it, because Rava holds we say: כי אית לך רשותא לסגויי עלי – For what do you have a right? To walk on me. לבעוטי בי לית לך רשותא – But to kick me, you have no right.
