Sefaria Bava Kamma 15a-b - 16a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8-9 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

 Sefaria Bava Kamma 15a-b - 16a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim  2:8-9 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

Level four:

Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.

About This Text

Bava Kamma

Talmud

Bava Kamma (״The First Gate״) is the first of a series of three tractates in Seder Nezikin (“Order of Damages") that deal with civil matters. Bava Kamma focuses on the laws of torts: the first six chapters mostly address damages inflicted by one’s property, while the last four chapters discuss damages inflicted by people, such as theft and injury.

Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 – c.550 CE)נוצר/נערך: בבל התלמודית (450 – 550 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic

Select Translation

Aramaic from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text Analysis.
Punctuation: Rabbi Shimon MarylesRead More

Source: korenpub.co.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

William Davidson Edition - English

Select Translation

English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel SteinsaltzRead More

Source: korenpub.com

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Bava Kamma 15a:1 with About (sefaria.org)

15a

״בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וּבְנֵי בְרִית״. ״בְּנֵי חוֹרִין״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי עֲבָדִים, ״בְּנֵי בְרִית״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי גּוֹיִם.

free men and members of the covenant. The mishna states: Free men, to exclude Canaanite slaves from being valid witnesses, and it states: Members of the covenant, to exclude gentiles.

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עֶבֶד – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס, אֲבָל גּוֹי – דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ חַיִיס, אֵימָא לָא; וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גּוֹי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שָׁיֵיךְ בְּמִצְוֹת, אֲבָל עֶבֶד – דְּשָׁיֵיךְ בְּמִצְוֹת, אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to teach both exceptions, as had the Torah taught us only about a slave, I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness because he has no lineage, i.e., the child of a Canaanite slave is not legally considered to be his child in any sense; but a free gentile, who has lineage, I might say no, he is qualified. And similarly, had the Torah taught us only about a gentile, I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness because he has no connection to the mitzvot of the Torah; but with regard to a Canaanite slave, who does have a connection to the mitzvot, as he is obligated to keep the mitzvot that a woman is obligated to keep, I might say no, he is qualified. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both exceptions.

וְהַנָּשִׁים בִּכְלַל הַנֶּזֶק. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי?

§ The mishna continues: And women are included in the halakhot of damages in the same way as men. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל עוֹנָשִׁין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

The Gemara presents three sources for this halakha. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states with regard to the liability of one who takes a false oath that he had not stolen: “When a man or woman shall commit any of the sins of a person” (Numbers 5:6). The verse equates a woman with a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah.

דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תָּנָא: ״וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל דִּינִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

The school of Rabbi Elazar taught: The verse states with regard to the civil laws given following the revelation at Sinai: “And these are the civil laws that you shall set before them” (Exodus 21:1). The reference to “them” in the verse is referring to all those who stood at the revelation, both men and women. The verse thereby equates a woman with a man with regard to all civil laws in the Torah.

דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי תָּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

The school of Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: The verse states with regard to liability in a case where one’s ox kills a person: “And it killed a man or a woman” (Exodus 21:29). The verse thereby equates a woman with a man with regard to all killings in the Torah, i.e., the liability incurred is the same whether the person killed was a man or a woman.

וּצְרִיכִי; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא – הָתָם הוּא דְּחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֶהְוֵי לַהּ כַּפָּרָה; אֲבָל דִּינִין – אִישׁ, דְּבַר מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן – אִין, אִשָּׁה – לָא.

The Gemara notes: And all three sources are necessary, as had the Torah taught us only the first source, one might have said that it is there that men and women are equated, as the Merciful One had pity upon a woman and made her liable in order that she should achieve atonement through paying restitution. But with regard to civil law, one might say that for a man, who is involved in business dealings, yes, the civil laws apply to him, but to a woman, who generally is not involved in business dealings, the laws do not apply.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן דִּינִין – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִיהְוֵי לַהּ חַיּוּתָא; אֲבָל כַּפָּרָה – אִישׁ, דְּבַר מִצְוָה – אִין; אִשָּׁה, דְּלָאו בַּת מִצְוָה – לָא.

And had the Torah taught us only that men and women are equated in civil law, one might have said that this is in order that she should be able to sustain herself by engaging in business dealings. If civil laws did not apply to a woman, one would be wary about conducting business with her. But with regard to obligating a woman to achieve atonement, one might have said that a man, who is obligated in mitzvot, yes, he is similarly obligated to achieve atonement; but a woman, who is not obligated in all the mitzvot to the same extent as a man, no, the obligation does not apply to her.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – הָכָא מִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה, וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם חַיּוּתָא; אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן קְטָלָא – אִישׁ, דְּבַר מִצְוָה – לְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר; אִשָּׁה – לָא.

And had the Torah taught us only these first two sources, one might have limited the fact that a woman and man are equated to these two cases, here due to the fact that she also needs atonement, and there due to the fact that she needs to be able to sustain herself. But with regard to one’s liability for his ox killing a person, one might have said that only for killing a man, who is obligated in all mitzvot, yes, the owner of the ox is liable to pay a ransom; but for killing a woman, who is not obligated in all mitzvot, one might say he is not liable.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן כּוֹפֶר – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה; אֲבָל הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, דְּלֵיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

And had the Torah taught us only the equivalence of a man and woman with regard to a ransom, one might have thought that this is because it is a very serious matter as there is a loss of life, but in these first two sources, where there is not a loss of life, I would say no, a woman is not included. Accordingly, it is necessary to have all three sources.

הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין.

§ The mishna continues: And both the injured party and the one liable for the damage are involved in the payment.

אִתְּמַר: פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא – רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מָמוֹנָא, רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: קְנָסָא.

An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage made when one’s innocuous ox gores another’s animal. Rav Pappa says: It is monetary restitution for the injured party’s loss. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is a fine.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר מָמוֹנָא – קָסָבַר: סְתָם שְׁווֹרִים לָאו בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דְּבָעֵי לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ; וְרַחֲמָנָא הוּא דְּחָס עֲלֵיהּ, דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִיַּיעַד תּוֹרֵיהּ.

The Gemara elucidates: Rav Pappa says: The payment is monetary restitution, as he holds that even ordinary oxen, which have not been forewarned with regard to Goring, are not presumed to be safeguarded, as their nature does not prevent them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is responsible to safeguard them, to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, by right it should have been that the owner needs to pay the full cost of the damage. Nevertheless, the Merciful One had pity upon him, as his ox had not yet been forewarned and he was not fully aware of the possibility that it might gore, and accordingly, the Torah reduced the extent of his liability.

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר קְנָסָא – קָסָבַר: סְתָם שְׁווֹרִים בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלָא לְשַׁלֵּם כְּלָל; וְרַחֲמָנָא הוּא דְּקַנְסֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִנְטְרֵיהּ לְתוֹרֵיהּ.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is a fine, as he holds that ordinary oxen are presumed to be safeguarded, as their nature prevents them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is not responsible for safeguarding them to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, by right it should have been that the owner does not pay at all. Nevertheless, the Merciful One penalized him in order that he will safeguard his ox, even before it is forewarned, and decreed that the fine should be given to the injured party even though he is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss.

תְּנַן: הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא מָמוֹנָא – הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁיֵיךְ נִיזָּק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא קְנָסָא – הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָאו דִּידֵיהּ שָׁקֵיל, בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין אִיתֵיהּ?!

We learned in the mishna: Both the injured party and the one liable for the damage are involved in the payment. Granted, according to the one who says that the payment of half the cost of the damage is monetary restitution, this assumes that the injured party is theoretically entitled to receive the full value of his damaged animal but in practice receives only half. This is what the mishna means by saying that the injured party is also involved in the payment, because it is as though he is compelled to forgo half of the cost of the damage that by right he should be paid. But according to the one who says that the payment of half the cost of the damage is a fine, which assumes that the injured party is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss, now that even the money that he takes is not his by right, is it accurate to describe him as being involved in the payment?

לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִפְחַת נְבֵילָה.

The Gemara explains: The mishna’s statement is necessary only with regard to the fact that the injured party is the one who absorbs the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass between the animal’s death and the time that the case is brought before the court. Since he must absorb this financial loss, it may be said that he is involved in the payment.

פְּחַת נְבֵילָה – הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: ״תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִטַּפְּלִין בִּנְבֵילָה!

The Gemara asks: How can one claim that the mishna is referring to the diminishing value of the carcass? Isn’t it already taught in the first clause of the mishna, which by using the term: Payments of restitution for damage, teaches that the owner of the injured animal attends to, i.e., retains ownership of, the animal carcass? And therefore it follows that he bears any depreciation in its value, as the Gemara (10b) explained above.

חֲדָא בְּתָם, וַחֲדָא בְּמוּעָד.

The Gemara explains why the mishna needs to teach this principle twice: One mention is made with regard to an innocuous ox and the other one is made with regard to a forewarned ox.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן תָּם – מִשּׁוּם דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִיַּיעַד, אֲבָל מוּעָד אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מוֹעֵד – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּם כּוּלֵּיהּ, אֲבָל תָּם אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

And it is necessary to state both cases, because if it would teach us the principle only with regard to an innocuous ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the liability of the owner of the ox, because it has not yet been forewarned. But with regard to a forewarned ox, I would say the Torah does not limit the owner’s liability at all and the owner must also bear the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass. And similarly, if it would teach us the principle only with regard to a forewarned ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the owner’s liability because he is paying the full cost of the damage, so the Torah does not overly burden him. But with regard to an innocuous ox, where he is liable for only half of the damage, I would say the Torah does not limit his liability any further, so he must bear the loss of the diminishing value of the carcass. Therefore, it is necessary to state the principle in both cases.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מָה בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד? שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק – מִגּוּפוֹ, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם – מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

The Gemara attempts to prove whether the payment of half the cost of the damage is considered to be monetary restitution or a fine: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (16b): What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an innocuous ox and that caused by a forewarned ox? The difference is that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of its body, and the owner of a forewarned ox pays the full cost of the damage from his superior-quality property.

וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי הָא – תָּם אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ!

The Gemara explains the challenge posed by the mishna: And if it is so, that payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is considered a fine, let the mishna also teach this additional distinction: The owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission, in accordance with the halakha that one does not pay a fine based on one’s own admission, whereas the owner of a forewarned ox pays based on his own admission.

תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר. מַאי שַׁיַּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר?

The Gemara answers: The tanna could have taught this distinction; however, he taught only certain distinctions and omitted others, including this one. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? A tanna would never omit just a single case, perforce there must be another halakha he omitted.

שַׁיַּיר חֲצִי כוֹפֶר.

The Gemara answers: He omitted the halakha that if an innoc-uous ox kills someone, its owner does not pay even half of the ransom payment, whereas if the ox is forewarned, he pays the full ransom.

אִי מִשּׁוּם חֲצִי כוֹפֶר – לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא; הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי כוֹפֶר.

The Gemara rejects this: If one claims that the mishna omits the halakha of one who admits his liability due to the fact that it also omits the halakha that the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay even half of the ransom, that is a flawed claim, as this is not an omission, because one could say: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that when an innocuous ox kills a person, one pays half the ransom, and therefore the distinction between an innocuous and forewarned ox is included in the mishna’s ruling that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע:

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Ketubot 41a):

15b

״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִי״ אוֹ ״שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

If one admits: My ox killed so-and-so, or my ox killed so-and-so’s ox, then this person pays based on his own admission.

מַאי, לָאו בְּתָם?

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What, is the halakha of the mishna not stated with regard to an innocuous ox? If so, this mishna proves that one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage even based on one’s own admission, which demonstrates that the payment is monetary restitution and not a fine.

לָא, בְּמוּעָד. אֲבָל תָּם מַאי – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ – אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידֵיהּ:

The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to a forewarned ox. The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation, if it had been an innocuous ox that gored, what would be the halakha? Would one say that indeed, he does not pay based on his own admission? But if so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna in Ketubot: If one admits: My ox killed so-and-so’s Canaanite slave, he does not pay based on his own admission, let the mishna differentiate and teach the distinction with regard to the case raised in the first clause itself. The reason for the distinction between the cases when one’s ox kills a Jew or a Canaanite slave is that in the first one pays monetary restitution, while in the second one pays a fine. If the mishna wishes to demonstrate the difference between a fine and monetary restitution with regard to admission, then instead of introducing a new case, the mishna would have modified the case of the previous clause.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּמוּעָד, אֲבָל בְּתָם – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ!

The mishna would have continued: In what case is this statement in the first clause said? It is said with regard to a forewarned ox, but with regard to an admission that one’s innocuous ox gored, he does not pay based on his own admission. The fact that the mishna does not do so suggests that in fact one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage based on one’s own admission that his innocuous ox gored. Evidently, the payment is considered to be monetary restitution.

כּוּלָּהּ בְּמוּעָד קָמַיְירֵי.

The Gemara rejects this: The reason the mishna did not raise the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox is not because that distinction is not a valid one, but because the entire mishna speaks only of cases of a forewarned ox. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם יוֹתֵר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. מַאי, לָאו הָא פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶׁהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם?

The Gemara suggests further: Come and hear a proof from the concluding clause of the mishna just cited: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara infers: What, is it not that were he liable to pay less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would pay based on his own admission? Since when an innocuous ox gores, its owner is liable to pay more than the cost of the damage, the payment is clearly not monetary restitution, and this is why it is not payable based on one’s own admission.

לָא, הָא כְּמָה שֶׁהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם.

The Gemara rejects the inference: No, one should infer only that were he liable to pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. If the sum to be paid is more or less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would not pay based on his own admission.

אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מַאי – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם יוֹתֵר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ; לִיתְנֵי: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם כְּמָה שֶׁהִזִּיק – דְּמַשְׁמַע פָּחוֹת, וּמַשְׁמַע יוֹתֵר! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

The Gemara asks. But according to that opinion, where one is liable to pay less than the cost of the damage, what would be the halakha? Would one say that, indeed, he does not pay based on his own admission? If so, instead of teaching: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission, let the mishna teach instead: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. As that statement indicates cases where one is liable to pay more than the cost of that which he damaged and it also indicates cases where one is liable to pay less than the cost of that which he damaged. Evidently, the mishna holds that where one’s liability is for less than the cost of the damage, it is payable based on one’s own admission. This therefore provides a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.

וְהִלְכְתָא: פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא – קְנָסָא.

The Gemara adds: And the halakha is that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.

תְּיוּבְתָּא וְהִלְכְתָא?!

The Gemara notes the obvious inconsistency: How can it be that the Gemara offers a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine and then state that the halakha is in accordance with that opinion?

אִין, טַעְמָא מַאי הָוְיָא תְּיוּבְתָּא – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִזִּיק;

The Gemara explains: Yes, the halakha may be in accordance with that opinion because of the following resolution of the refutation. What is the reason that the Gemara held that there is a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine? Because the mishna does not teach: Anyone who does not pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. This is not, in fact, a conclusive refutation, as even if one holds that the payment of half the cost of the damage for an innocuous ox is considered monetary restitution, one can still explain why the mishna doesn’t discuss cases where one is liable for less than the cost of the damage.

לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא; מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא קָתָנֵי.

This is because the tanna cannot make an absolute statement about such cases, that one never pays based on one’s own admission. Since there is an obligation for one to pay for half the cost of the damage resulting from pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, which, through tradition it is learned that this payment is monetary restitution, and it is due to that reason that the mishna does not teach cases where one’s liability is valued at less than the cost of the damage.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא קְנָסָא, הַאי כַּלְבָּא דַּאֲכַל אִימְּרֵי, וְשׁוּנָּרָא דַּאֲכַלה תַּרְנְגוֹלָא – מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא, וְלָא מַגְבֵּינַן בְּבָבֶל.

The Gemara considers the ramifications of this halakha: And now that you have said that the halakha is that the payment of half the cost of the damage is a fine, with regard to this innocuous dog that ate lambs or this innocuous cat that ate a chicken, which is atypical behavior for dogs and cats, we do not collect the payment for these acts in the courts in Babylonia. Since it is not common for these animals to eat those animals, these acts are classified as Goring, irrespective of the fact that the animal gained pleasure from the damage, for which it would normally be classified in the category of Eating. Therefore, in cases where these animals had not performed this act of damaging before, and were therefore considered innocuous, the owner is liable for only half the cost of the damage, which is a fine. Since the collection of fines may be imposed only by judges who have been ordained, and ordination is given only in Eretz Yisrael, these payments are not collected in Babylonia.

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּרַבְרְבֵי, אֲבָל בְּזוּטְרֵי – אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא.

The Gemara adds: And this matter applies only where they attacked large animals, as it is atypical behavior for them; but where they attacked small animals, since that is their typical manner of behavior, it is classified as Eating, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, which is certainly considered monetary restitution. Accordingly, the payment is collected by the courts in Babylonia.

וְאִי תְּפַס – לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.

And even in a case where the payment is considered a fine, if the injured party seized the property of the owner of the belligerent animal in order to cover his loss, we do not reclaim it from him since he is entitled to it.

וְאִי אָמַר: קִבְעוּ לִי זִימְנָא, דְּאָזֵילְנָא לְאַרְעָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – קָבְעִינַן לֵיהּ. וְאִי לָא אָזֵיל – מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ.

And also, if the injured party said to the court: Fix a time for me to go to Eretz Yisrael to present the case before ordained judges, we fix a time for him and require the owner of the belligerent animal to go to the court in Eretz Yisrael at that time. And if he does not go, we excommunicate him for disobeying the orders of the court.

וּבֵין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דִּמְסַלֵּק הֶזֵּיקָא –

And either way, we excommunicate the owner of the belligerent animal until he removes the danger, e.g., by killing the animal or otherwise neutralizing the danger.

מִדְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם כֶּלֶב רַע בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְאַל יַעֲמִיד סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ״.

The justification for this is from the ruling of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: “You shall not bring blood into your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one’s house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger.

מַתְנִי׳ חֲמִשָּׁה תַּמִּין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מוּעָדִין –

MISHNA: There are five damage-causing acts that an animal can perform twice and remain innocuous even when its owner was warned each time to prevent it from doing so. After the third time, the animal is rendered forewarned. In such cases, the owner is liable to pay only half of the damages. And there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned, at times even if it had never caused damage in that manner. In such cases the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.

הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מוּעֶדֶת לֹא לִיגַּח, וְלֹא לִיגּוֹף, וְלֹא לִשּׁוֹךְ, וְלֹא לִרְבּוֹץ, וְלֹא לִבְעוֹט.

An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them, nor for kicking. In these cases the animal is considered to be innocuous and its owner is liable for only half of the damages.

הַשֵּׁן – מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ; הָרֶגֶל – מוּעֶדֶת לִשְׁבּוֹר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ; וְשׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד; וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק; וְהָאָדָם.

Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. Concerning acts of damage performed with the foot, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to breaking items while walking. And there is a forewarned ox, which gored three times and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. And there is an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party while on the property of the injured party. And there is the person, i.e., any damage done by a person. In all of these cases the one who caused the damage is considered to be forewarned, resulting in the obligation to pay the full cost of the damage.

הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי וְהַדּוֹב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּעָדִין. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי תַרְבּוּת – אֵינָן מוּעָדִין. וְהַנָּחָשׁ מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם.

The mishna presents the halakha for wild animals: The wolf; the lion; the bear; the leopard; the bardelas, the meaning of which the Gemara will discuss; and the snake. These are considered forewarned even if they had never previously caused damage. Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered forewarned. But the snake is always considered forewarned.

גְּמָ׳ מִדְּקָתָנֵי הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל – מִכְּלָל דְּבַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק עָסְקִינַן; וְקָתָנֵי בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מוּעֶדֶת לְשַׁלֵּם כּוּלֵּיהּ – אֲבָל חֲצִי נֶזֶק מְשַׁלֶּמֶת,

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches in its latter clause: Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat, we learn, by inference, that we are dealing throughout the mishna with cases of damage done in the courtyard of the injured party, as one is exempt from liability for acts of damage classified as Eating if they occur in the public domain. And yet the first clause teaches: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring. Stating that it is not forewarned indicates that the liability of its owner is limited only with regard to paying the full cost of the damage, but the owner pays half the cost of the damage.

מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, חֲצִי נֶזֶק הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם.

The Gemara asks: Who is it that holds that when damage classified as Goring is done within the property of the injured party the owner of the belligerent animal is liable for only half of the damages? It is the Rabbis, who say: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical behavior, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays half the cost of the damage.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד, וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, וְהָאָדָם – אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם!

But then say, and try to explain accordingly, the next part of the latter clause of the mishna: And there is a forewarned ox that gored three times, and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. And there is an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party while on the property of the injured party. And there is the person. In these cases, the responsible party pays full damages. With this clause we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage even if the ox is innocuous.

רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן?!

The Gemara asks: Could it be that the first part of the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the next part of the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon?

אִין, דְּהָאָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, שְׁבוֹק מַתְנִיתִין וְתָא אַבַּתְרַאי – רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.

The Gemara answers: Yes, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Large-toothed one, leave the mishna and follow after me and my interpretation that the first part of the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the next part of the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר:

The Gemara presents a different interpretation of the mishna:

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav:

16a

כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הִיא; רֵישָׁא – בְּחָצֵר הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לְפֵירוֹת לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְלָזֶה וְלָזֶה לִשְׁוָרִים; דִּלְגַבֵּי שֵׁן הָוְיָא לַהּ חֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק. וּלְגַבֵּי קֶרֶן הָוְיָא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon; the first part of the latter clause is stated with regard to a jointly owned courtyard, which under the terms of their partnership is designated for the use of one of them, i.e., the injured party, to keep his produce there, and for this one and for that one to keep their oxen there. Accordingly, with regard to damage of the category of Eating caused by one partner’s ox to the injured party’s produce in that courtyard, it is equivalent to the case of a courtyard owned exclusively by the injured party, and the ox’s owner is liable for all the damage. But with regard to damage of the category of Goring, since they are both allowed to keep oxen there, the courtyard is equivalent to a public domain, and if one’s innocuous ox causes damage there, one is liable for only half the cost of the damage.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, וַאֲמַר לִי: מִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כּוּלַּהּ כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן?! הָקָתָנֵי: ״הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ״; רָאוּי לָהּ – אִין, שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לָהּ – לָא;

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching of Rabbi Elazar before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, and he said to me: Are you really able to interpret that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? But doesn’t the mishna teach: Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. This indicates that only if what it eats is fitting for it, then yes, one is liable for the full cost of the damage, but if it eats something that is not fitting for it, the owner would not be liable for the full cost of the damage, but only for half the cost of the damage.

וְאִי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, הָאָמַר: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם!

Rav Kahana explains his difficulty: And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, the owner should be liable to pay the full cost of the damage even if his animal ate something not fitting for it, as doesn’t Rabbi Tarfon say: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage even if the ox is innocuous.

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן הִיא; וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: חֲמִשָּׁה תַּמִּים הֵן, וְאִם הוּעֲדוּ – חֲמִשְׁתָּן מוּעָדִין.

Rather, Rav Kahana said: Actually it must be that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The opening clause should be understood as saying: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times, with regard to the five acts they are considered forewarned, i.e., the mishna is not referring to two different sets of damages, five acts for which the animal is considered innocuous and five for which it is considered forewarned. Rather, both statements in the initial clause of the mishna are referring to the same five acts of Goring, and they teach that although the animal is initially considered innocuous with regard to these five acts, it can become forewarned.

וְשֵׁן וָרֶגֶל מוּעָדִין מִתְּחִילָּתָן. וְהֵיכָן הֶעָדָתָן? בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק.

The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset. The next two items in the mishna: A forewarned ox and an ox that causes damage on the property of the injured party, should be understood as a question and an answer: And where does their forewarned status with regard to these acts apply? It applies in the courtyard of the injured party. According to Rav Kahana’s explanation, the statement: In the courtyard of the injured party, refers only to cases of Eating or Trampling, not to acts classified as Goring, and therefore it is true even according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא, הָא קָתָנֵי לְקַמַּן: ״שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק כֵּיצַד״. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אַיְירִי בַּהּ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי ״כֵּיצַד״. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא אַיְירִי בַּהּ, מַאי ״כֵּיצַד״?

Ravina objects to this explanation: Doesn’t the mishna below (24b) teach: With regard to the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party on the property of the injured party, stated in the mishna here (15b), how so, i.e., what are the circumstances in which one is liable to pay the full cost of the damage? The mishna below (24b) proceeds to list acts of damage classified as Goring. Ravina states his objection: Granted, if you say that the mishna here (15b) discusses that case, i.e., that it is referring to Goring, it is due to that ruling that the mishna below teaches: How so, and proceeds to discuss one’s liability for Goring, as it is elucidating the case mentioned in the mishna here. But if you say, as Rav Zevid suggests, that the mishna here (15b) does not discuss Goring, what is the meaning of the mishna below when it asks: How so, and then proceeds to discuss one’s liability for Goring?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: חֲמִשָּׁה תַּמִּים הֵן. וְאִם הוּעֲדוּ – חֲמִשְׁתָּן מוּעָדִין;

Rather, Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned.

וְשֵׁן וָרֶגֶל – מוּעָדִין מִתְּחִילָּתָן; וְזֶהוּ שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד. וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק – מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבָּנַן. וְיֵשׁ מוּעָדִים אֲחֵרִים כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ – הַזְּאֵב, וְהָאֲרִי, וְהַדּוֹב, וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס, וְהַנָּמֵר, וְהַנָּחָשׁ.

The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: חֲמִשָּׁה תַּמִּים הֵן. וְאִם הוּעֲדוּ – חֲמִשְׁתָּן מוּעָדִין; וְשֵׁן וָרֶגֶל – מוּעָדִין מִתְּחִילָּתָן; וְזֶהוּ שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד. וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק – מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבָּנַן. וְיֵשׁ מוּעָדִין אֲחֵרִים כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ – הַזְּאֵב, וְהָאֲרִי, הַדּוֹב, וְהַנָּמֵר, וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס, וְהַנָּחָשׁ.

The Gemara notes: This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

אִיכָּא דְּרָמוּ לַהּ מִירְמָא – תְּנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה תַּמִּים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מוּעָדִים. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא?! וְהָאִיכָּא הַזְּאֵב, הָאֲרִי, וְהַדּוֹב, וְהַנָּמֵר, וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס, וְהַנָּחָשׁ!

There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction and through doing so arrived at the same conclusions, as follows: We learned in the opening clause of the mishna: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, and there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned. With regard to this, one can ask: But is there nothing else? But aren’t there the cases mentioned in the continuation of the mishna: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake? These are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before.

וּמְשַׁנֵּי, אָמַר רָבִינָא: חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: חֲמִשָּׁה תַּמִּים הֵן. וְאִם הוּעֲדוּ – חֲמִשְׁתָּן מוּעָדִין; וְשֵׁן וָרֶגֶל מוּעָדִין מִתְּחִילָּתָן; וְזֶהוּ שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד. וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק – מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבָּנַן. וְיֵשׁ מוּעָדִין אֲחֵרִים כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ – הַזְּאֵב, וְהָאֲרִי, הַדּוֹב, וְהַנָּמֵר, וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס, וְהַנָּחָשׁ.

And they resolve the contradiction through that which Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.

וְלֹא לִרְבּוֹץ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא פַּכִּין גְּדוֹלִים, אֲבָל פַּכִּין קְטַנִּים – אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא.

§ The mishna teaches: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. Rabbi Elazar says: They taught this only with regard to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, and therefore the act is classified as a subcategory of Goring. But if the animal cr0uched upon small vessels, since that is its typical manner of behavior, it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, for which the animal is considered forewarned from the outset.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וּלְשַׁבֵּר וּלְמַעֵךְ אֶת הָאָדָם וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶת הַכֵּלִים.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels. The baraita indicates that an animal’s typical manner is to crush vessels, presumably by crouching down upon them. This would seem to contradict the mishna that states that such behavior is atypical. It would appear the only resolution to this contradiction is if one accepts the distinction made by Rabbi Elazar that the mishna concerns large vessels and the baraita concerns small vessels.

דִּלְמָא מִן הַצַּד.

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the baraita concerns a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall, but it does not concern a case where it crouched upon them.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לָא תֵּימָא פַּכִּין גְּדוֹלִים הוּא דְּלָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, אֲבָל פַּכִּין קְטַנִּים אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ פַּכִּין קְטַנִּים נָמֵי לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא.

There are those who say a different version of this discussion, as follows: Rabbi Elazar says: Do not say that the mishna’s ruling refers only to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, but if the animal crouched upon small vessels, that is its typical manner and for that type of damage the animal is considered forewarned. Rather, the mishna refers even to small vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them.

מֵיתִיבִי: וּלְמַעֵךְ אֶת הָאָדָם וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶת הַכֵּלִים!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דִּלְמָא מִן הַצַּד.

Rabbi Elazar said: Perhaps the baraita concerns only a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall.

אִיכָּא דְּרָמֵי לַהּ מִירְמָא – תְּנַן: וְלֹא לִרְבּוֹץ. וְהָתַנְיָא: וּלְמַעֵךְ אֶת הָאָדָם וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶת הַכֵּלִים! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּפַכִּין גְּדוֹלִים, כָּאן בְּפַכִּין קְטַנִּים.

There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction: We learned in the mishna: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels? In order to resolve this contradiction, Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult; here, in the mishna, the reference is to large vessels, while there, in the baraita, the reference is to small vessels.

הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי וְכוּ׳. מַאי בַּרְדְּלָס? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: נַפְרְזָא. מַאי נַפְרְזָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַפָּא.

§ The mishna teaches: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake; these are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before. The Gemara asks: What is a bardelas? Rav Yehuda said: It is a nafreza. The Gemara asks: What is a nafreza? Rav Yosef said: It is an appa.

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַצָּבוֹעַ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַנָּחָשׁ. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: צָבוֹעַ זוֹ אַפָּא!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena [tzavo’a]. Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. And Rav Yosef said in explanation of the baraita: The hyena mentioned by Rabbi Meir, this is the animal called an appa. If Rav Yosef understands a hyena to be an appa, how could he also claim, above, that it is a bardelas?

לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּצָבוֹעַ זָכָר, כָּאן בְּצָבוֹעַ נְקִיבָה.

The Gemara explains: It is not difficult: Here, in the baraita, Rabbi Meir is referring to a male hyena, and there, in the mishna, the reference is to a female hyena.

דְּתַנְיָא: צָבוֹעַ זָכָר לְאַחַר שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נַעֲשֶׂה עֲטַלֵּף, עֲטַלֵּף לְאַחַר שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נַעֲשֶׂה עַרְפָּד, עַרְפָּד לְאַחַר שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נַעֲשֶׂה קִימּוֹשׂ, קִימּוֹשׂ לְאַחַר שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נַעֲשֶׂה חוֹחַ, חוֹחַ לְאַחַר שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נַעֲשֶׂה שֵׁד. שִׁדְרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם – לְאַחַר שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נַעֲשֶׂה נָחָשׁ. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָא כָּרַע בְּ״מוֹדִים״.

And it is apparent that a male hyena is distinct from a female one, as it is taught in a baraita: A male hyena after seven years metamorphoses into an insectivorous bat [atalef ]; an insectivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a herbivorous bat [arpad]; a herbivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a thistle [kimosh]; a thistle after seven years metamorphoses into a briar [ḥo’aḥ]; and a briar after seven years metamorphoses into a demon. Similarly, a person’s spine, seven years after his death, metamorphoses into a snake. The Gemara qualifies the last statement: And this matter applies only to a case where that person did not bow during the blessing of thanksgiving, the eighteenth blessing of the Amida prayer.

אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַצָּבוֹעַ.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says above: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena.

16b

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַנָּחָשׁ. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי תַרְבּוּת – אֵינָן מוּעָדִים; וְהַנָּחָשׁ מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם!

Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. By using the term also, Rabbi Elazar suggests he considers a snake to be forewarned to the same extent as the other animals in the mishna’s list, which, according to his opinion, are not considered to be forewarned if they are domesticated. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered to be forewarned, but the snake is always considered forewarned?

תְּנִי: נָחָשׁ.

The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying that Rabbi Elazar says: A snake, instead of saying: Also a snake. Accordingly, the baraita is teaching that he holds that only a snake is considered to be forewarned under all circumstances because he holds that even if it is domesticated it is still prone to caused damage.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲרִי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים; דָּרַס וְאָכַל – פָּטוּר. טָרַף וְאָכַל – חַיָּיב.

§ The Gemara considers cases of damage caused by a lion: Shmuel says: With regard to a lion that kills an animal in the public domain, if it clawed its prey and ate it, the lion’s owner is exempt from liability. But if it first tore apart its prey with its teeth in order to kill it, and only then ate it, the owner is liable for the damage.

דָּרַס וְאָכַל פָּטוּר – כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ לְמִידְרַס, הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָכְלָה פֵּירוֹת וִירָקוֹת, דְּהָוֵי לֵיהּ שֵׁן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּפָטוּר. טָרַף – לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא.

The Gemara elucidates: If it clawed its prey and ate it, the owner is exempt, since it is its typical manner to claw its prey and eat it, and it is therefore equivalent to the case of an animal that eats fruit and vegetables belonging to someone else. Therefore, it is classified as Eating done in a public domain, and the owner of the lion is exempt. But if the lion first tore apart its prey to kill it, since this is not its typical manner, the act is classified as Goring, for which an owner is liable even in a public thoroughfare.

לְמֵימְרָא דִּטְרֵיפָה לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא? וְהָכְתִיב ״אַרְיֵה טֹרֵף בְּדֵי גֹרוֹתָיו״! בִּשְׁבִיל גּוֹרוֹתָיו. ״וּמְחַנֵּק לְלִבְאֹתָיו״! בִּשְׁבִיל לִבְאוֹתָיו. ״וַיְמַלֵּא טֶרֶף חֹרָיו״! בִּשְׁבִיל חוֹרָיו. ״וּמְעֹנֹתָיו טְרֵפָה״! בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹנוֹתָיו.

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that tearing apart its prey is not the typical manner of a lion? But isn’t it written: “The lion tears apart for its young, and it strangles for its lionesses, and it fills its caves with prey, and its den with that which was torn apart” (Nahum 2:13). The description in the verse clearly indicates that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart its prey. The Gemara answers that each phrase of this verse is referring not to a situation where the lion catches prey for its own immediate use, but to one where it provides food for its young, as it says: “The lion tears apart for its young”; to provide food for its lionesses: “And it strangles for its lionesses”; to provide food for the young cubs in its lair: “And it filled its lair with prey”; and to provide food for the young cubs in its den: “And its den with that which was torn apart.” Therefore, we cannot learn from this verse that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart prey for its own immediate use.

וְהָתַנְיָא: וְכֵן חַיָּה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, טָרְפָה בְּהֵמָה וְאָכְלָה בָּשָׂר – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם!

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning acts classified as Eating: And similarly, in the case of a wild animal, including a lion, that entered the courtyard of the injured party and tore apart the courtyard owner’s animal and ate its meat, the owner of the wild animal pays the full cost of the damage.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – שֶׁטָּרְפָה לְהַנִּיחַ. הָא ״אָכְלָה״ קָתָנֵי! בְּשֶׁנִּמְלְכָה וְאָכְלָה.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where it tore apart the animal in order to leave it for later consumption. Since this is typical behavior for a lion, the lion is considered forewarned with regard to it. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the baraita teach: And ate its meat? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the lion initially killed the animal to leave it for later consumption but then reconsidered and ate it.

מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? וְעוֹד, דִּשְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי – דִּלְמָא הָכִי הוּא?

The Gemara questions this understanding: How can we know what the animal’s initial intentions were? And furthermore, if one accepts this claim, then the ruling of Shmuel is also called into question, as perhaps the case he ruled on is a case like this, where the lion initially intended to leave the prey he killed for later consumption, and therefore the owner should be exempt. The Gemara therefore rejects this understanding.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי: שֶׁטָּרְפָה לְהַנִּיחַ, אוֹ דָרְסָה וְאָכְלָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The baraita teaches two cases disjunctively and should be understood as teaching two halakhot: With regard to a lion that tore apart an animal in order to leave it for later consumption, or a lion that clawed its prey and ate it, since each acted in the typical manner of a lion, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כִּי קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל – בַּאֲרִי תַּרְבּוּת, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – דְּאָמַר: לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ.

Ravina said: It is the typical manner of a wild lion to kill its prey and then eat it, and therefore such damage is classified as Eating. Accordingly, if the damage was done in the public domain, the lion’s owner is exempt from any liability. When Shmuel says that an owner is liable if his lion does so, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack. Accordingly, the act is classified as being of the category of Goring, for which one is liable even in a public thoroughfare.

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ דָּרְסָה נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב!

The Gemara asks: If so, then even when the lion clawed its prey and ate it, the owner should be liable for any damage it causes in a public domain, since according to Rabbi Elazar such behavior is atypical for a domesticated lion. Why then does Shmuel rule that in such a case the owner is exempt?

אֶלָּא דְּרָבִינָא לָאו אַשְּׁמוּאֵל אִתְּמַר, אֶלָּא אַמַּתְנִיתָא; כִּי תָּנֵי מַתְנִיתָא – בַּאֲרִי תַּרְבּוּת, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר: לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ.

The Gemara concedes that its presentation of Ravina’s opinion is untenable: Rather, Ravina’s explanation was not stated in reference to Shmuel’s ruling, but rather in reference to the baraita, cited above, that discusses a case where a lion causes damage in the courtyard of the injured party. Accordingly, Ravina’s statement should be understood as follows: When the baraita teaches that one is liable if one’s lion tore apart an animal and ate it, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack.

אִי הָכִי, חֲצִי נֶזֶק בָּעֵי לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי! דְּאִיַּיעַד.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, since the act is atypical behavior for a lion, it should be classified as Goring, and the owner should be required to pay for only half the cost of the damage. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the lion was forewarned.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי הַאי דְּקָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן? גַּבֵּי תּוֹלָדָה דְקֶרֶן בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנְיַיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara questions further: If that is so, what is the reason that the baraita teaches this among the subcategories of Eating? It should have taught it among the subcategories of Goring. The Gemara concedes: This is a difficulty with this explanation.

מַתְנִי׳ מָה בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד?

MISHNA: What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is considered innocuous and the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is forewarned?

אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִגּוּפוֹ, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

The only differences are that for damage caused by an innocuous ox, the owner pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox, and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage from his higher property.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״עֲלִיָּיה״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בִּמְעוּלֶּה שֶׁבִּנְכָסָיו.

GEMARA: What does the mishna mean by saying he pays from his higher [aliyya] property? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that he pays with the superior-quality [bame’ulla] items of his property.

וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּשְׁכַּב חִזְקִיָּהוּ עִם אֲבֹתָיו, וַיִּקְבְּרֻהוּ בְּמַעֲלֵה קִבְרֵי בְנֵי דָוִיד״ – וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״בְּמַעֲלֵה״ – אֵצֶל מְעוּלִּים שֶׁבַּמִּשְׁפָּחָה, וּמַאן נִינְהוּ – דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה.

And similarly, the fact that the word aliyya is referring to superior-quality property is indicated by the verse that states: “And Hezekiah lay with his ancestors, and they buried him in the best [bema’ale] of the sepulchers of the descendants of David” (II Chronicles 32:33), and Rabbi Elazar says: The term bema’ale means beside the best of the family. And who are they? David and Solomon.

״וַיִּקְבְּרֻהוּ בְקִבְרֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר כָּרָה לוֹ בְּעִיר דָּוִיד, וַיַּשְׁכִּיבֻהוּ בַּמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּא בְּשָׂמִים וּזְנִים״ – מַאי ״בְּשָׂמִים וּזְנִים״? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: זְינֵי זְינֵי. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: בְּשָׂמִים שֶׁכׇּל הַמֵּרִיחַ בָּהֶן בָּא לִידֵי זִימָּה.

The Gemara offers an interpretation of another verse about the burial of a king of Judea, King Asa: “And they buried him in his own sepulchers, which he had hewn out for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the resting place, which was filled with perfumes and spices [zenim] prepared by the perfumers’ art” (II Chronicles 16:14). What is meant by “perfumes and spices”? Rabbi Elazar says: It means many different types [zinei] of perfumes. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The word zenim sounds similar to the word zenut, licentiousness, and should therefore be understood about types of perfumes that anyone who smells them is led to licentiousness.

״כִּי כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְלׇכְדֵנִי, וּפַחִים טָמְנוּ לְרַגְלָי״ – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: שֶׁחֲשָׁדוּהוּ מִזּוֹנָה. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: שֶׁחֲשָׁדוּהוּ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.

The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: Jeremiah requested of God to punish those who hounded him: “For they have dug a pit to trap me and they have set snares for my feet” (Jeremiah 18:22). In what way did they dig a pit to trap him? Rabbi Elazar says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a woman who had engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona]. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁחֲשָׁדוּהוּ מִזּוֹנָה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי שׁוּחָה עֲמֻקָּה זוֹנָה״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁחֲשָׁדוּהוּ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, מַאי ״שׁוּחָה״? אַטּוּ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ מִי נָפְקָא מִכְּלַל זוֹנָה?

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, this is because the word “pit” is used as a metaphor for a zona, as it is written: “For a zona is a deep pit” (Proverbs 23:27). But according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, for what reason did Jeremiah use the word “pit”? The Gemara answers: Due to the fact that she is a married woman, should she be excluded from the category of a zona? If she commits adultery she is also termed a zona, and the term “pit” can justifiably be applied to her.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁחֲשָׁדוּהוּ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתָּה ה׳ יָדַעְתָּ אֶת כׇּל עֲצָתָם עָלַי לַמָּוֶת״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁחֲשָׁדוּהוּ מִזּוֹנָה, מַאי ״לַמָּוֶת״? שֶׁהִשְׁלִיכוּהוּ לִבְאֵר טִיט.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, this is consistent with that which is written: “You, Lord, know all their plans to kill me” (Jeremiah 18:23). By claiming he engaged in intercourse with a married woman, they implicated him in a prohibition punishable by the death penalty. But according to the one who says that they suspected him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, what did he mean by saying “to kill me” when there is no court-imposed capital punishment for doing so? The Gemara answers: Jeremiah was referring to the fact that they cast him into a pit of mire.

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״יִהְיוּ מֻכְשָׁלִים לְפָנֶיךָ, בְּעֵת אַפְּךָ עֲשֵׂה בָּהֶם״? אָמַר יִרְמְיָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֲפִילּוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין צְדָקָה – הַכְשִׁילֵם בִּבְנֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵינָן מְהוּגָּנִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְקַבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שָׂכָר.

Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let them be made to stumble before You; deal with them in the time of Your anger” (Jeremiah 18:23)? It means that Jeremiah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even at a time when they try to perform acts of charity, make them stumble by ensuring that they do so with people who are unworthy of charity in order that they should not receive the reward for helping them.

״וְכָבוֹד עָשׂוּ לוֹ בְמוֹתוֹ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוּ יְשִׁיבָה עַל קִבְרוֹ.

The Gemara, above, cited a verse concerning King Hezekiah’s burial. The Gemara cites the continuation of that verse: “And they afforded him honor in his death” (II Chronicles 32:33). This teaches that they established a yeshiva at his grave to study Torah there.

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבָּנַן, חַד אָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה,

Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this yeshiva: One said: They studied there for three days.

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8-9

Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

About This Text

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Talmud

Kilayim (“Mixtures”) is a tractate in Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) that discusses biblical prohibitions of mixed species, based in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. These include planting certain mixtures of seeds, grafting different species of trees, growing plants other than grapevines in a vineyard, crossbreeding animals, working certain animals together, and mixing wool and linen in clothing.

Composed: Talmudic Israel (c.375 – c.425 CE)נוצר/נערך: ישראל התלמודית (375 – 425 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

The Jerusalem Talmud, edition by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Version

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Translation

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History

For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:1 with About (sefaria.org)

2:8

משנה: כָּל־שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית רוֹבַע עוֹלֶה בְמִידַּת בֵּית רוֹבַע. אֹכֶלֶת הַגֶּפֶן וְהַקֶּבֶר וְהַסֶּלַע עוֹלִין בְּמִידַּת בֵּית רוֹבַע. תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה בֵּית רוֹבַע יֶרֶק בְּיֶרֶק שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. תְּבוּאָה בְיֶרֶק וְיֶרֶק בִּתְבוּאָה בֵּית רוֹבַע. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יֶרֶק בִּתְבוּאָה שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. תְּבוּאָה נוֹטָה עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָה וְיֶרֶק עַל גַּבֵּי יֶרֶק. תְּבוּאָה עַל גַּבֵּי יֶרֶק וְיֶרֶק עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָה. הַכֹּל מוּתָּר חוּץ מִדְּלַעַת יְװָנִית. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אַף הַקִּישּׁוּת וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִדְּבָרַי.

MISHNAH: Anything that is inside the bet rova‘ counts for the measurement of bet rova‘. The surroundings of a vine, a grave, or a rock count for the measurement of bet rova‘. Grain and grain need a bet rova‘, vegetable and vegetable six hand-breadths. Grain and vegetables, vegetables and grain need a bet rova‘. Rebbi Eliezer says, vegetable and grain six hand-breadths.
Grain leaning over grain, vegetable over vegetable, grain over vegetable, vegetable over grain, all is permitted except Greek gourd. Rebbi says, also green melon and Egyptian beans, but I prefer their words over my words.

הלכה: רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא אוֹכֶלֶת הַגֶּפֶן הָא גֶּפֶן עַצְמָהּ לֹא. לָמָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָייָה. וַהֲרֵי הַקֶּבֶר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. קֶבֶר אֵין אִסּוּרוֹ נִיכָּר. וַעֲבוֹדַת הַגֶּפֶן אֵין אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָייָה אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר אֵין עֲבוֹדָה לְגֶפֶן יְחִידִית. וַהֲרֵי הַקֶּבֶר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. קֶבֶר אֵין אִסּוּרוֹ נִיכָּר.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה בֵּית רוֹבַע וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא חֲבוּשָׁה מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא כִּי נָן אָֽמְרִין הָדָא בִּקְעַת סִימוֹנִיָּא אֵין זוֹרְעִין לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.

“Grain and grain need a bet rova‘.” But only if it is not jailed on all four sides. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Does this mean that we say that in the ravine of Simonia one may sow only one kind?

מָתִיב לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבָּנִין כְּמָה דְּאִית לְכוֹן קַל בְּשׁוּרָה וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרוּבַּע. כֵּן אַשְׁכְּחָן דְּאִית לְרַבָּנִין קַל בְּשׁוּרָה וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרוּבַּע. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת שׁוּרָה שֶׁל יֶרֶק לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה. הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה אוֹרֶךְ שׁוּרָה אוֹרֶךְ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַל רוֹחַב שִׁשָּׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵעַ לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שִׁבְעָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹרֵעַ טֶפַח מִכָּן וְטֶפַח מִכָּן אוֹתָן חֲמִשָּׂה נִידּוֹנִין לְכָאן וּלְכָאן. מִן מַה דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא מָתִיב עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּמָּן.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

נָטַע חֲצִי שׁוּרָה וְעָמַד לוֹ וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַתְחִיל בְּשׁוּרָה אֲחֶרֶת. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אָסוּר אָמַר לוֹ עֲקוֹר אֶת הַשּׁוּרָה אוֹ מַלֵּא אֶת הַשּׁוּרָה.

Somebody planted half a row, stopped, and wanted to start a second row. Rav Ḥisda said, this is forbidden. One tells him, either tear out that row or finish it.

רִבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר בָּא וְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. חַד אָמַר אֲפִילוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה לְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מִכָּן וְאֶחָד מִכָּן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצָע. וְלָא יָֽדְעִין מָאן דְּאָמַר דָּא וּמָאן אָמַר דָּא. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי חִייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שָׁם חָרֵבָה. הֲוֵי רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הוּא דְּאָמַר אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מִכָּן וְאֶחָד מִכָּן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצָע. אִם הָיוּ צְדָדִין רָבִין עַל הֶחָרֵבָה מוּתָּר.

Rebbi Judan said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac disagree. One says, even three in a width of six, the other said, one on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only if there is no dry patch, that means that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: One on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. If the sides were more than the dry patch, it is permitted.

תַּנֵּי חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּדְלַעַת יְװָנִית אֵין מְסַכְּכִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי זְרָעִים. וּמֵבִיאִין אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְחוֹצֶצֶת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְעוּקְצָהּ טֶפַח וְאוֹסֶרֶת כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. וְהַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַדִּילוּעִין אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא בִדְלַעַת יְװָנִית בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי וְלָמָּה לֵית אֲנָן אָֽמְרִין מֵבִיאָה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְחוֹצֶצֶת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה תַּרְתֵּי. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא שֶׁבַע. אֵין מְסַכְּכִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי זְרָעִים וּמֵבִיאָה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְחוֹצֶצֶת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְיָדָהּ טֶפַח וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְכִלְאַיִם עִם אֲרָמִית וְכִלְאַיִם עִם הָֽרְמוּצָה וְלֹא תָנָא אוֹסֶרֶת וְלֹא תָנָא נְדָרִים.

It was stated: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity and stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden, and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space, it is kilaim with Aramean [pumpkin], and kilaim with ash pumpkin.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי גַמְלִיאֵל בְּרִבִּי נְפַק לְשׁוּקָא. אֲתוּן שָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ. אֲתָא שָׁאַל לְאָבוֹי אֲמַר לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי הִלֵּל בֵּי רִבִּי װַלֶס נְפַק לְשׁוּקָא. אֲתוּן וְשָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ. אֲתָא שָׁאַל לְאָבוֹי אֲמַר לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Gamliel, the son of Rebbi, went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching.

מַהוּ רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִדְּבָרַי. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא אִם דְּלַעַת מִצְרִית שֶׁהִיא מְסַכֶּכֶת אָמַר מוּתָּר. קִישׁוּת וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי לֹא כֵן הֲוָה רִבִּי מָנָא אוֹמֵר. רִבִּי אָמַר כָּל־הֵן דְּתַנִּינָן קִישׁוּת וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי אַף דְּלַעַת מִצְרִית בִּכְלָל. מַהוּ רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִדְּבָרַיי. שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּן מְסַכְּכִין כִּדְלַעַת יְװָנִית.

What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if Egyptian pumpkin whose leaves form roofs is permitted, green melon and Egyptian beans so much more. Rebbi Abba Mari said, Rebbi Mana did not say so. Rebbi said, all those about which we did state “green melon and Egyptian beans,” also include Egyptian pumpkin. What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” That none of these form roofs like Greek gourd.

3:1

משנה: עֲרוּגָה שֶׁהִיא שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ חֲמִשָּׁה זֵרְעוֹנִין אַרְבָּעָה בְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת עֲרוּגָה וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע. הָיָה לָהּ גְּבוּל גָּבוֹהַּ טֶפַח זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֵה שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל כָּל־גּוֹבֵל וְגוֹבֵל וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע. לֹא יִטַּע רֹאשׁ הַלֶּפֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַגּוֹבֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמַלֵּיהוּ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר שִׁשָּׁה בְּאֶמְצַע.

MISHNAH: In a garden bed that is six by six hand-breadths one may sow five kinds of seeds, four at its four sides and one in the middle. If it has a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three on each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle. One should not plant a head of turnip in that wall because it fills it. Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle.

הלכה: זֵרֻעֶיהָ מִיעוּט זְרָעִים שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סִיסַרְטָא מִשְּׁנַיִם אַתְּ לָמֵד אַרְבָּעָה. מַה שְׁנַיִם אַתְּ נוֹתֵן בִּתְחִילַּת שִׁשָּׁה וּמֵיצַר וְהוֹלֵךְ. אַף אַרְבָּעָה אַתְּ נוֹתֵן בִּתְחִילַּת שִׁשָּׁה וּמֵיצַר וְהוֹלֵךְ. אֵי אֵיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שָׁם נֶקֶב אֶחָד פָּנוּי לִיטַּע בּוֹ אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה עֲבוֹדָה פוֹגֵעַ בַּעֲבוֹדָה וְאֵין מִין פּוֹגֵעַ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ לְחוֹבְשׁוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי זַרְעָהּ זְרָעֶיהָ זֵרוּעֶיהָ. וּכְרִבִּי יוּדָה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר שִׁשָּׁה זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ זְרָעֶיהָ זֵרֻעֶיהָ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי אָמַר זֵרֻעֶיהָ חֲמִשָּׁה כָּל־הֵן דַּאֲנָא מַשְכָּח לָהּ וֹיֹ אֲנָא מְחַק לָהּ. אִישְׁתָּאִילַת לְרַב הוּנָא סַפְרָא דְּסִידְרָא וַאֲמַר זֵירוּעֶיהָ מָֽלְיָא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּיי כּוֹלְהוֹן בְּתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה. כַּהֲנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כּוֹלְהֹן חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה. אִם כּוֹלְהֹן חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה נִיתְנֵי תִשְׁעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי תַּנְחוּם בּוֹצְרַייָא וְכֵן הִיא בַּעֲרוּגָה שֶׁבָּעֲרוּגוֹת הִיא מַתְנִיתָה.

HALAKHAH: (Is. 61:11) “Its sown seeds,” the minimum of seeds are two. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarṭa said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו,י I delete them. This was asked of Rav Huna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זרועיה is written plene. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

רִבִּי יִצְחָק וְרִבִּי אִימִּי הֲווֹן יָֽתְבִין מַקְשֵׁיי תַּנִּינָן הָיָה לוֹ גּוֹבֵל גָּבוֹהַּ טֶפַח זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל כָּל־גּוֹבֵל וְגוֹבֵל וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע. נִיתְנֵי שִׁשָּׁה בְאֶמְצַע. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהַגּוֹבְלִין מְמַעֲטִין שִׁשָּׁה. אִם בְּשֶׁהַגּוֹבְלִין מְמַעֲטִין שִׁשָּׁה בְּדָה תַנִּינָן רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר שִׁשָּׁה בְּאֶמְצַע. וְקִייַמְּנוּהָ וְלָא יָֽדְעִין אִי חֲבֵרָייָא קִייַמְּנוּהָ אִי רִבִּי אִימִּי קִייְמָהּ. עַל רֹאשָׁהּ. וְאִין עַל רֹאשָׁהּ בְּדָה תַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָא רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.

מַהוּ לְהַקְרִיחַ בֵּית רוֹבַע וְלִזְרֹעַ בְּתוֹכוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי תְבוּאָה. מַה אִם שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה שֶׁלּוֹקִין עָלָיו דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אַתְּ אָמַר מוּתָּר. כָּאן שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו דְּבַר תּוֹרָה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מַהוּ לְהַקְרִיחַ בִּתְחִילַּת שִׁשָּׁה לִהְיוֹת מֵיצַר וְהוֹלֵךְ. מַה אִם בְּשָׁעָה (שֶׁאֵין) עֲבוֹדָה פוֹגַעַת בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַתְּ אָמַר מוּתָּר. כָּאן שֶׁאֵין עֲבוֹדָה פוֹגַעַת בַּעֲבוֹדָה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. לֹא צוּרְכָא דִי לָא. מַהוּ לְהַקְרִיחַ בִּתְחִילַּת בֵּית רוֹבַע לִהְיוֹת מֵיצַר וְהוֹלֵךְ. מַה אִם שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה שֶׁלּוֹקִין עָלָיו דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אַתְּ אָמַר מוּתָּר. כָּאן שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו דְּבַר תּוֹרָה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן.

May one raze a bet rova‘ and sow in it five different kinds of grain? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree. May one raze at the corners of a six-by-six to make a continously narrowing patch? If in a case where working space does meet working space, you say that it is permitted, then so much more in this case where working space does not meet working space. That was unnecessary. May one raze at the corners of a bet rova‘ to make a continously narrowing patch? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree.

רִבִּי נַסָּא שָׁאַל לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא בְּגַגּוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹבֵל שְׁנֵי טְפָחִים מוּתָּר לִזְרוֹעַ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִין. רִבִּי נַסָּה שָׁאַל עָשָׂה פֵּיאָה בְּאֶמְצַע זָרַע בְּגַו מֵסִין מְשָׁכוֹ בְּכַמָּה. מִן מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק וְרִבִּי אִימִּי תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהַגּוֹבְלִין מְמַעֲטִין שִׁשָּׁה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה אֲפִילוּ פָּרָה מִיכָּן. עַד הֵיכָן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא גוֹמְמִיּוֹת שֶׁהֵן עֲמוּקוֹת טֶפַח זוֹרְעִין לְתוֹכָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה זֵירְעוֹנִין אֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה עַד טֶפַח. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר נְרָשִׁיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּנוֹטִים לְחוֹרֵבָה שָׁנוּ.

Rebbi Nassa asked: Is it not reasonable that, if the top of the surrounding wall is two hand-breadths wide, one is permitted to sow on it two kinds? Rebbi Nassa asked: If he drew a string in the middle, sowed in half of it, how far can he draw it? From what Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi said, “explain it if the walls diminish six,” that means that it may be even less than that. Let us hear from the following: “In depressions that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” That means, down to one hand-breadth. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon from Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They taught “leaning towards a dry spot”.

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא כָּל־טֶפַח וְטֶפַח שֶׁל גּוֹבֵל עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְיִהְיוּ עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה שִׁשָּׁה עַל כָּל־גּוֹבֵל וְגוֹבֵל וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע. וְכֵן הוּא הָתִיב רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. וְהָֽתַנִּינָן הַתֶּלֶם וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁהֵן עֲמוּקִין טֶפַח זוֹרְעִין לְתוֹכָן שְׁנֵי זֵירְעוֹנִין אֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע. וְנִיתְנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה שְׁנַיִם מִיכָּן וּשְׁנַיִם מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע. לֵית יָכִיל צַּד שֶׁכָּאן וְצַד שֶׁכָּאן חוֹבֵשׁ אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִי.

Rebbi Zeïra said, they made every single hand-breadth on the border wall a domain for itself. Then there should be 25, six on each side of the border wall and one in the middle! Is that so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac objected: Did we not state that “in a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow (two) kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” Should one not state five, two on each side and one in the middle? That is impossible; the two sides jail the middle one.

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בָּעֵי גּוֹבֵל מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל אֶת הַיֶּרֶק מִיַּד מוּקְשָׁה. מַה אִם זְרָעִים בִּזְרָעִים שֶׁהֵן נִיצּוֹלִין בְּעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה אֵין הַגּוֹבֵל מַצִּיל מִיָּדָם. מוּקְשָׁה שֶׁהוּא נִיצּוֹל בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֶה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מוּקְשָׁה עַצְמוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל בְּרֹאשׁ הַגּוֹבֵל. מַה אִם זְרָעִים בִּזְרָעִים שֶׁהֵן נִיצּוֹלִין בְּעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה אֵינָן נִיצּוֹלִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַגּוֹבֵל. מוּקְשָׁה שֶׁהוּא נִיצּוֹל בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹיי דְּרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָא וְהֵן הוּא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. אֶלָּא הָכֵן הוּא. וּמַה אִם זְרָעִים בִּזְרָעִים שֶׁנִּיצּוֹלִין בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אַמָּה וּמֶחֱצָה אֵינָן נִיצּוֹלִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַגּוֹבֵל. מוּקְשָׁה שֶׁהוּא נִיצּוֹל בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

Beit Yisrael International.
Become a member.

Get the Membership from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic Noahite/Lost Tribes of Efrayim /‘Ger Toshav ‘) click: Beit yisrael international

Come and join our Facebook group:

Har HaBait Jewish Sovereign for all Israel

Free download 
google Play 

Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak

Abraham Makovetsky

A must read and guiding line: To go through every step, of the 42 steps in our diaspora until we reach Eretz Yisrael, the unification of Yehuda and Ephraim, when the Jews start to build The Temple and Restoring her Temple Service. It is for all Beit Yisrael International members the way to go.

click:

42 Journeys of the Soul

The Messianic age will elevate the entire universe, including all the spiritual realms.

From the teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi; adapted by Yitzchak Wagshul

Don't make dogma's out of it. But elevate your souls by learning the Mitzvot surrounded by the Jewish Halakhot. 
And the teachings of Chassidut by the Chassidim.

That we may hold on the 'right understanding' in our 'travel' through the 'dessert' our 'diaspora':

click: 

What Is Kabbalah?

The Soul of Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chassidut?

Teachings from the core essence

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chabad?

Do-It-Yourself Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click: 

What Is a Tzaddik?

Being human all the way

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

The Tzaddik HaDor

And…… to all Jews and Ephraimites:

Pirkei Avot 6:10

Dr. Joshua Kulp


חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:

Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).

 

I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:

Zechariah 8:23

 

23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."		כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם:
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred.		עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו':

That may come in fulfillment in our days:

Our souls are bearing the ‘sparks’ (divine aspects) of Messiah.

It is forbidden to pray to bow down to any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or before any image or to lift up a human being as a god…… or to put any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or any image before or instead or between HaShem and us. ('It suf')

“The redemption will come about only through the study of the Torah. And the essential redemption depends upon the study of the Kabbalah” According to: R. ELIYAHU, THE VILNA GAON (Evven Shelemah (a ‘complete, without defect stone’) 11:3)

When Yehuda and Ephraim come to unity (again) Messiah Ben Joseph 'died' and Messiah Ben David shall be revealed and anointed by the Israeli people as the Messiah-King of Israel. As YeshaYahu is teaching:

Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.

Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.

10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.

Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.

11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.

Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.

and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.

And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.

12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.

13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.

Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.

14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.

Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.

and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.

15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.

Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.

over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.

with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”

into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.

and He shall lead: the exiles within it.

with shoes: on dry land.

16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.

Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.

Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say:  "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………

Read my story: 

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click: Welcome To Beit Yisrael

Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel), Meditate and Realization of Chassidut Torah Teachings – The Strong foundation is based on Chabad teachings ( i.e The purpose of creation is to Bringing Heavens Down to Earth and to make Most High a dwelling place here on earth) and its pillars is based on the true concept of the Breslov Teachings ( in the context of Seventh Pillar of Tzaddik ) by following the Jewish Halacha Principles of Shulchan Aruch Halacha.

The Global Community Torah (sefaria.org)

Your Gift. Your Impact.

When you give to Sefaria, you’re powering a living library of more than 3,000 years of Jewish texts. Donate today and support the future of Jewish learning, innovation, and conversation.

CHABAD LUBAVITCH

About Chabad-LubavitchThe RebbeThe OhelChabad-Lubavitch NewsChabad Locator

Donate to ChaBaD

 click:

LEARN HOW TO READ THE BIBLE IN HEBREW ONCE AND FOR ALL

click:

Ulpan and Hebrew Learning Resources Online

Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!

It should be most honest:

'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims

**AMIT HALEVI'S PLAN WOULD GIVE MUSLIMS CONTROL OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT COMPLEX, WHICH CONTAINS THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE, WHILE JEWS WOULD RECEIVE THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN AREAS.

(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**

A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.

Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.

According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.

“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.

Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.

“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.

In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.

“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”

Source: https://www.jns.org/israel-news/jerusalem/23/6/8/293752/

Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?

כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃

No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another;

גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃

if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt—

וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃

then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click:

Purchasing Tefillin - A Buyer’s Guide