Bava Kamma - Daf 37
- מועד למינו ואינו מועד לשאינו מינו: Machlokes about unknown status for other species
The next Mishnah states: שור שהוא מועד למינו ואינו מועד לשאינו מינו – An ox which is a mu’ad regarding its own species, but is not a mu’ad regarding other species, or it is a mu’ad regarding people but not animals, or it is a mu’ad regarding young animals but not adult animals, את שהוא מועד לו משלם נזק שלם – for damaging [creatures] for which it is a mu’ad, it pays full damages, ואת שאינו מועד לו משלם חצי נזק – but for damaging [creatures] for which it is not a mu’ad, it pays half-damages. Rebbe Yehudah said the same applies to an animal which is a mu’ad for Shabbos and not weekdays. Amoraim disagree about the Mishnah’s reading. Rav Zevid said: ואינו מועד תנן – the Mishnah taught “but it is not a mu’ad,” meaning it was known not to be a mu’ad for the other species. הא סתמא הוי מועד – This implies that where the animal’s disposition towards other species is unknown, we assume it is a mu’ad for them. Rav Pappa said: אינו מועד תנן – the Mishnah taught “is not a mu’ad,” דסתמא לא הוי מועד – meaning that where its disposition towards other species is unknown, we assume it is not a mu’ad for them. The Gemara explains how each Amora reads the other clauses of the Mishnah, and brings two supports to Rav Zevid.
- מועד לסירוגין and other combinations of varied gorings
It was taught in a Baraisa: ראה שור נגח – If [an ox] saw an ox and gored it, שור לא נגח – saw a second ox and did not gore it, saw a third and gored it, saw a fourth and did not, saw a fifth and gored it, and saw a sixth and did not gore it, נעשה מועד לסירוגין לשוורים – it becomes a mu’ad for goring oxen alternately (i.e., every other one). Another Baraisa teaches that if an ox saw an ox and gored it, saw a donkey and did not gore it, saw a horse and gored it, saw a camel and did not gore it, saw a mule and gored it, and saw a wild donkey and did not gore it, נעשה מועד לסירוגין לכל – it becomes a mu’ad to gore all species alternately. The Gemara asks if an ox successively gored three oxen, a donkey, and a camel, is the third ox grouped with the previous two, and it would be a mu’ad only for oxen, or is it grouped with the donkey and camel, and is a mu’ad for all species? It then asks about in the reverse sequence.
- If an animal of hekdesh is damaged by, or damages, an animal of an ordinary person
The next Mishnah states: שור של ישראל שנגח שור של הקדש – If the ox of an ordinary Jew gored an ox of hekdesh, ושל הקדש שנגח לשור של הדיוט – or an ox of hekdesh gored an ox of an ordinary Jew, פטור – [the owner] is exempt, because the passuk says: "שור רעהו" – the ox of his fellow, implying: ולא שור של הקדש – and not an ox of hekdesh. If either the damager or victim is an ox of hekdesh, which is not a “fellow” with the other party, no damages are paid. The Gemara notes that this Mishnah disagrees with Rebbe Shimon ben Menasya, who taught in a Baraisa that if an ordinary Jew’s ox gored an ox of hekdesh, בין תם בין מועד – whether the damaging ox was a tam or a mu’ad, משלם נזק שלם – he pays full damages. The Gemara proceeds to explain how Rebbe Shimon ben Menasya darshens the passuk.
