The Evi B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli’s Baba Kamma has been generously sponsored in our Daf Yomi program by our good friend, patron, and charter member of our Daf Yomi class, Siyahu Ashar HaKohen, and his dear wife, Rina. May they, with God’s help, continue to enjoy success, prosperity in all the work of their hands, health, happiness, and much satisfaction from their children. May they enjoy many years of harmony in their home, tranquility, and peace of mind. Amen and amen.
We are studying Daf 37, for the soul of my grandfather, Yosef ben Sara, and my grandmother, Yafa bat Sara.
We begin five lines from the bottom of the page. We are in the middle of a story about a man who blew into his friend’s ear and caused him embarrassment. The Gemara said that he had to pay a sela for the damage of embarrassment. It then explained that the sela used for this payment is a silver-medina coin, which is one-eighth of the value of a silver-Tzuri coin. Therefore, a sela in this context is actually worth half a dinar of silver-Tzuri, which is a relatively small amount of money.
Returning to the story, they told the man that he would receive half a zuz for the embarrassment caused to him by the other person. The man said, “Since it is only half a zuz, I am not interested. It is not worth it for me. You might as well give it to the poor.” He then changed his mind and said to Rabbi Yosef, “Give it to me. I will take it, buy some food with it, and make myself healthy.”
Rabbi Yosef replied, “I am sorry, but it is too late. The poor have already acquired that money.” In other words, even though there were no poor people present, Rabbi Yosef said that once the man had pledged the money to them, it already belonged to them. Why? Rabbi Yosef said, “I am the hand of the poor.” He was the charity collector, so he represented the poor. When he held the money, it was as though the poor themselves had received it. Therefore, the man could no longer retract his pledge.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, “Orphans do not need a debt-cancellation document.” During the Sabbatical year, all debts owed to a person are canceled unless he writes a debt-cancellation document, known as a prozbul, which transfers his debts to the court. An individual may not collect his debts during the Sabbatical year, but the court may collect them. Orphans do not need to write such a document, because the court is automatically considered the hand of the orphans. Their debts are therefore automatically transferred to the court.
Rabbi Ami bar Hama taught the same principle: Orphans do not need a debt-cancellation document, because the court automatically serves as their agent. Rabban Gamliel and the court were appointed as the guardians of orphans. Therefore, even without an explicit document, their debts are considered transferred to the court.
Similarly, Rabbi Yosef was saying, “I am the hand of the poor.” Once the man pledged the money to them and Rabbi Yosef took possession of it, the money belonged to the poor, and he could not retract his pledge.
The Gemara tells another story about a person who blew into his friend’s ear. There was a man named Hanan Bisha; bisha literally means “a bad person.” He blew into someone’s ear and was brought before Rav Huna for judgment. He was required to pay the money for embarrassment, which was half a zuz.
Hanan Bisha had a zuz, but the coin was badly worn. The image on it was no longer clear, and people would not accept it as change. He therefore wanted to pay half a zuz from that coin. However, he could not find anyone who would make change for him, because nobody wanted to accept the inferior coin.
What did he do? He blew into the other ear of the same person, or blew into his ear a second time. He now owed him an additional payment, so he gave him the entire coin. The Gemara is teaching us that we follow the view that the sela in this case is worth half a zuz, as we learned above. That is why he blew into his ear again: he was a wicked person, and he gave him the entire coin.
The next Mishnah discusses an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species. For example, an ox may have gored oxen three times, but it has not gored other animals. It is therefore considered forewarned with regard to its own species but not with regard to other species.
Similarly, an ox may be forewarned with regard to people but not with regard to animals. It may also be forewarned with regard to small animals, such as calves, but not with regard to large animals. For the species with regard to which it is forewarned, the owner must pay full damages. For the species with regard to which it is not forewarned, the owner pays only half damages.
The students asked Rabbi Yehuda: What is the law if an ox is forewarned with regard to goring on the Sabbath but is not forewarned with regard to goring during the week? Suppose that it gored on three consecutive Sabbaths, but it does not gore during the week. Do we consider the Sabbath and the weekdays separate categories? If so, when it gores on the Sabbath, the owner pays full damages, whereas when it gores during the week, the owner pays half damages. Or do we consider all the days the same, so that once the ox is forewarned with regard to the Sabbath, it is also forewarned with regard to the weekdays?
Why would an ox be more likely to gore on the Sabbath than during the week? The commentators explain that on the Sabbath the animal is not working. Since it has more time on its hands, it may become bored and get into mischief. It could therefore be forewarned with regard to the Sabbath but not with regard to the weekdays.
Rabbi Yehuda answered: For goring on the Sabbath, the owner pays full damages; for goring during the week, the owner pays half damages. When does the ox revert to its unproven status even with regard to the Sabbath? After it has become forewarned on the Sabbath, three animals of that species must be brought before it on three different Sabbaths, and it must refrain from goring them. It then returns to its original status. If it subsequently gores on the Sabbath, the owner pays only half damages.
The Gemara now analyzes the Mishnah. Rav Zevid said that the correct reading is, “It is not forewarned.” Rav Papa said that the correct reading is, “It is not forewarned,” without the connecting word. The question concerns a case in which the ox is forewarned with regard to its own species but not with regard to other species. What is the proper text and meaning of the Mishnah?
According to Rav Zevid, the reading indicates that we know as a fact that the ox is not forewarned with regard to the other species. Other animals were placed before it, and it did not gore them. The Mishnah is therefore saying that the ox pays full damages for the species that it gores, while it retains the status of an unproven ox with regard to the other species.
According to Rav Papa, however, once the Mishnah says that the ox is forewarned with regard to one species, it automatically means that it is not forewarned with regard to other species. We do not have to know this through an actual test. The fact that it was forewarned with regard to one species does not automatically make it forewarned with regard to every other species.
The practical difference between Rav Zevid and Rav Papa is this: According to Rav Zevid, the Mishnah is discussing a case in which we know that the ox is not forewarned because other animals were placed before it and it did not gore them. According to Rav Papa, there is no need for such knowledge. An ox that is forewarned with regard to one species is, by default, not forewarned with regard to other species.
Rav Zevid derives his position from the end of the Mishnah, where it says that the ox is forewarned with regard to small animals but is not forewarned with regard to large animals. According to Rav Zevid, this means that we know that it is not forewarned with regard to large animals because large animals were placed before it and it did not gore them. That is the novelty of the Mishnah.
If one follows Rav Papa, however, the Mishnah’s second case appears unnecessary. Once the Mishnah has already taught that an ox forewarned with regard to its own species is not automatically forewarned with regard to other species, why would it need to teach that an ox forewarned with regard to small animals is not forewarned with regard to large animals?
Rav Zevid answers that the second case is still necessary. Since the ox is pursuing small animals of that species, one might think that it has become aggressive toward the entire species, including the larger animals of that same species. Perhaps its being forewarned with regard to small animals would make it forewarned with regard to large animals as well, because they are still the same species. The Mishnah therefore teaches that even in this situation, the ox is not forewarned with regard to the larger animals.
Rav Papa derives his position from the beginning of the Mishnah, which says that an ox may be forewarned with regard to people but not with regard to animals. According to Rav Papa, this is itself a novelty. Although the ox is forewarned with regard to people, we do not assume that it is forewarned with regard to animals. One might have thought that since it is difficult for an animal to gore a person, an ox that gored a person three times should certainly be considered forewarned with regard to animals. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
According to Rav Zevid, however, the wording “it is not forewarned” means that we know as a fact that the ox is not forewarned with regard to animals, because animals were placed before it and it did not gore them. If we did not know this, then by default an ox forewarned with regard to people would be considered forewarned with regard to animals.
Rav Zevid explains that the first case of the Mishnah is referring to a different situation. The ox had previously been forewarned with regard to both people and animals, but it later reverted to its original status with regard to animals. For example, it had been forewarned with regard to people and with regard to animals, but after animals were placed before it three times and it did not gore them, it reverted to its original status with regard to animals. It nevertheless remained forewarned with regard to people.
This is a significant novelty. One might have thought that since the ox did not revert from its status with regard to people, its reversion with regard to animals should be disregarded, and it should remain forewarned with regard to both. The Mishnah teaches that the reversion with regard to animals is effective. It becomes unproven with regard to animals while remaining forewarned with regard to people.
According to Rav Zevid, then, when an ox is forewarned with regard to people, it is ordinarily assumed to be forewarned with regard to animals as well, unless we know as a fact that it is not. The Mishnah’s case is one in which it had been forewarned with regard to both and later reverted with regard to animals.
The Gemara raises a difficulty from a teaching of Sumchus. Sumchus says that an ox forewarned with regard to people is also considered forewarned with regard to animals. This implies that the first opinion in that teaching holds that an ox forewarned with regard to people is not necessarily forewarned with regard to animals. That would appear to contradict Rav Zevid.
Rav Zevid answers that the teaching of Sumchus is also discussing a case of reversion. The ox had been forewarned with regard to both people and animals, and it then reverted from its forewarned status with regard to animals. The first opinion holds that the reversion with regard to animals is effective: it becomes unproven with regard to animals while remaining forewarned with regard to people. Sumchus, however, holds that reversion with regard to animals is ineffective as long as the ox remains forewarned with regard to people, because goring a person is considered the more difficult act.
According to Sumchus, once the ox has been forewarned with regard to both people and animals, its reversion with regard to animals does not accomplish anything. According to the first opinion, the reversion with regard to animals is effective, even though the ox remains forewarned with regard to people. This is precisely the way Rav Zevid explains the case in the Mishnah.
Rav Ashi says, “Come and hear” a proof for Rav Zevid from our Mishnah. The students asked Rabbi Yehuda about an ox that is forewarned with regard to the Sabbath but not with regard to the weekdays. If the Mishnah’s correct reading is that it is known as a fact that the ox is not forewarned with regard to the weekdays, then the students were asking an actual question: What is the law when the ox is forewarned with regard to the Sabbath but unproven with regard to the weekdays?
Rabbi Yehuda answered that for the Sabbaths the owner pays full damages, while for the weekdays he pays half damages. This fits Rav Zevid’s reading, because the phrase “it is not forewarned” indicates that the ox was tested during the week and did not gore.
According to Rav Papa, however, the Mishnah is merely making a statement: An ox forewarned with regard to the Sabbath is not forewarned with regard to the weekdays. If so, what question were the students asking Rabbi Yehuda? What halachic information were they teaching him, and what exactly was Rabbi Yehuda answering? It therefore appears that the students were presenting a question based on a known fact, supporting Rav Zevid’s reading.
Rabbi Yanai’s son also brings a proof for Rav Zevid from the first case of the Mishnah. The Mishnah says that for the species with regard to which the ox is forewarned, the owner pays full damages, while for the species with regard to which it is not forewarned, the owner pays half damages.
This indicates that the Mishnah is discussing a case in which we know that the ox is forewarned with regard to one species and is not forewarned with regard to the others. The Mishnah then teaches the practical law: full damages are paid for the species with regard to which it is forewarned, and half damages for the species with regard to which it remains unproven.
According to Rav Papa, however, the Mishnah is simply stating that an ox forewarned with regard to one species is not automatically forewarned with regard to other species. Once it has taught that point, why must the Mishnah continue by stating that full damages are paid for the forewarned species and half damages for the unproven species? That law would already be understood from the general laws of a forewarned and an unproven ox.
According to Rav Zevid, the continuation is necessary because the Mishnah is discussing a case in which the ox was actually tested with the other species and did not gore them. It must therefore teach the resulting law: full damages for the species with regard to which it is forewarned, and half damages for the species with regard to which it is not forewarned. This provides another proof for Rav Zevid.
The Gemara now considers a case that may support Rav Papa. Even Rav Papa would agree that if an ox gored three different species—an ox, a donkey, and a camel—it becomes forewarned with regard to all species. Although it did not gore the same species three times, its having gored three different kinds of animals shows that it is not selective and attacks animals generally.
There is a teaching concerning an ox that gored an ox, did not gore the next ox, gored another ox, did not gore the next one, and then gored again. It becomes forewarned intermittently with regard to oxen. In other words, it gored the first ox, did not gore the second, gored the third, did not gore the fourth, and gored the fifth. It is therefore forewarned with regard to the pattern of alternating attacks. If it then gores the seventh ox, the owner pays full damages; if it gores the eighth ox, the owner pays half damages. The ox is forewarned according to this alternating pattern, but not with regard to every single ox.
The Rabbis taught a similar case: The ox gored an ox, did not gore a donkey, gored a horse, did not gore a camel, gored a mule, and did not gore a wild donkey. It is considered forewarned intermittently with regard to different species. Since it gored three different types of animals, it is considered forewarned, but only according to the alternating pattern. For the next animal in the pattern, the owner pays full damages, while for the animal in the intervening position, the owner pays half damages.
The Gemara raises several questions about how to organize such a pattern. Suppose the ox gored three oxen, then a donkey, and then a camel. Where should the third ox be placed? Should it be included with the first group of oxen? If so, the ox gored three oxen and is forewarned with regard to oxen only. Or should the third ox be considered part of the later sequence of an ox, a donkey, and a camel? If so, the ox may be considered forewarned with regard to all three species.
A similar question arises in the reverse order: Suppose the ox gored a donkey and a camel, followed by three oxen. Where should the first of those three oxen be placed? Should it be included with the donkey and camel as part of the alternating pattern, or should it be included with the later group of three oxen? The Gemara leaves these questions unresolved.
The same issue arises with regard to days. Suppose an ox gored on the first Sabbath, the second Sabbath, and the third Sabbath, and then gored on Sunday and Monday. Where should the third Sabbath be placed? Should it be included with the first group of Sabbaths, making the ox forewarned only with regard to Sabbaths? Or should it be included with Sunday and Monday, making the ox forewarned with regard to the entire week?
The Gemara asks the reverse question as well. Suppose the ox gored on Thursday, Friday, and the Sabbath, and then gored on the following Sabbath and the Sabbath after that. Should the first Sabbath be included with Thursday and Friday, making the ox forewarned with regard to the entire week? Or should it be included with the later group of Sabbaths, meaning that the ox is forewarned only with regard to Sabbaths? The Gemara leaves all these questions unresolved.
The Gemara presents another scenario. An ox gored on the fifteenth day of one month, the sixteenth day of the following month, and the seventeenth day of the third month. The question is whether this establishes an alternating pattern. If it gores on the eighteenth day of the following month, would it already be considered forewarned according to this pattern?
The Gemara compares this question to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning the laws of a menstruating woman who has an established cycle. A cycle can be established in different ways. For example, if a woman sees menstrual blood on the same day of the month for three consecutive months, she has an established cycle.
This has practical consequences. If she has an established cycle and she becomes ritually impure on that day, we can assume that the impurity began on that day rather than earlier without her knowledge. Therefore, anything she touched before that point remains pure. If she does not have an established cycle, however, when she sees blood we must be concerned that it may have begun as much as twenty-four hours earlier. Anything she touched during that period may therefore become retroactively impure.
Rav says that if she saw blood on the fifteenth day of one month, the sixteenth day of the next month, and the seventeenth day of the following month, she has established a cycle according to this ascending pattern. She has therefore established a cycle of increasing by one day each month, and the eighteenth day of the next month would also be considered part of her established cycle.
Shmuel says that three changes in the pattern are required. The first sighting does not count as a change. The change from the fifteenth to the sixteenth is the first, the change from the sixteenth to the seventeenth is the second, and the change from the seventeenth to the eighteenth is the third. Therefore, according to Shmuel, the cycle is not established until she sees blood on the eighteenth day as well.
The Gemara applies the same dispute to the ox. According to Rav, if the ox gored on the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth days of successive months, it is already considered forewarned according to the ascending pattern. It does not need to gore on the eighteenth day. According to Shmuel, however, four gorings are required. The first goring does not count as part of the pattern; the changes from fifteen to sixteen, sixteen to seventeen, and seventeen to eighteen constitute the three required changes. Thus, according to Shmuel, the ox becomes forewarned according to the pattern only when it gores on the eighteenth day.
Accordingly, the dispute concerning the establishment of a cycle in the laws of menstruation is parallel to the dispute concerning an ox that follows an ascending pattern. Rav requires three sightings or gorings, while Shmuel requires four.
Rava says: If an ox hears the sound of a shofar and gores, then hears it again and gores, and then hears it a third time and gores, it is considered forewarned with regard to the sound of the shofar. If someone blows the shofar again and the ox goes out and gores, the owner must pay full damages.
The Gemara asks: Is that not obvious? The Gemara answers that it is not obvious. One might have thought that the first blowing of the shofar merely frightened the ox, and that its first goring was only a reflexive reaction to fear. Perhaps that first goring should not count as the first of the three gorings required to establish the ox as forewarned. Rava teaches that even the first goring counts. After the ox has heard the shofar three times and gored each time, it is forewarned, and the owner must pay full damages.
May the One who grants understanding bless us forever. Amen and amen.