## Bava Kamma Daf 14a

###### Bava Kamma 14a:1
[Bava Kamma 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:1)

וְלֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but he did not undertake** the responsibility of **safeguarding** the lender’s ox to prevent it **from causing damage.** Accordingly, the lender remains responsible for his ox, and if it caused damage to the borrower’s ox the lender is liable, as in any other case in which his ox caused damage.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:2
[Bava Kamma 14a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:2)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִפְרְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁפְּרָצוּהָ לִסְטִים, וְיָצְתָה וְהִזִּיקָה – פָּטוּר. הָא בַּיּוֹם – חַיָּיב? הָא לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so, say,** and try to explain accordingly, **the latter clause** of the *baraita*: If the ox was safely enclosed and a wall **broke open at night, or** if **bandits broke it open and** the ox **went out and caused damage,** the bailee is **exempt** from liability. The Gemara infers: If it broke open **during the day** and then caused damage, he is **liable.** The Gemara asks: According to the interpretation offered in explanation of the previous clause, the *baraita* concerns a case in which one borrowed an ox but did not undertake the responsibility to prevent it from causing damage. If so, how can the latter clause imply that there are cases in which he is liable? If **he did not undertake** the responsibility of **safeguarding** the lender’s ox to prevent it **from causing damage,** he should never be liable for the damage that it caused.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:3
[Bava Kamma 14a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:3)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו – חַיָּיב. נִפְרְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁפְּרָצוּהָ לִסְטִים, וְיָצְתָה וְהִזִּיקָה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the latter clause of the *baraita* concerns a different case than that of the previous clause. **This** is what the latter clause of the *baraita* **is saying: If,** by contrast, the borrower **did undertake** the responsibility of **safeguarding** the lender’s ox to prevent it **from causing damage,** if it causes damage, the borrower is **liable.** But if the ox was safely enclosed and the wall enclosing it **broke open at night, or** if **bandits broke it open and** the ox **went out and caused damage,** he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:4
[Bava Kamma 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:4)

אִינִי?! וְהָא תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: חֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִים, וְהַפּוּנְדָּק – חַיָּיב בָּהֶן עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its prior discussion of the mishna’s statement concerning property designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage. The Gemara cited Rabbi Elazar’s opinion that each partner is exempt from liability for any damage that falls within the categories of Trampling or Eating that their ox caused to the other partner’s property. The Gemara challenges his opinion: **Is that so? But didn’t Rav Yosef teach** in a *baraita*: **In a courtyard** designated for the joint use **of partners, or** in **an inn [*pundak*],** one is **liable for Eating and for Trampling** caused by an ox of one partner to the property of the other. It would appear that this *baraita* is **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar.**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:5
[Bava Kamma 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:5)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְתִסְבְּרַאּ?! מַתְנְיָתָא מִי לָא פְּלִיגִי? וְהָתַנְיָא, אַרְבָּעָה כְּלָלוֹת הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר בְּנִזָּקִין: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא רְשׁוּת לַנִּיזָּק וְלֹא לַמַּזִּיק – חַיָּיב בַּכֹּל. דְּמַזִּיק וְלֹא לַנִּיזָּק – פָּטוּר מִכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Elazar** could have **said to you: But** how can **you understand** that this *baraita* provides a refutation of my opinion? **Are there not *baraitot* that disagree** with regard to this issue? **And it is taught** in accordance with my opinion in a *baraita* in the *Tosefta* (1:9): **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would state four principles with regard to** the liability incurred based on where the **damage** occurs. With regard to **any** location **that is** the **property of the injured** party **and** is **not** the property **of the one liable for the damage,** the owner of an animal that causes damage is **liable for all** the damage caused there. If a place is the property **of the one liable for the damage and** is **not** the property **of the injured** party, the owner of an animal that causes damage is **exempt for all** the damage caused there.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:6
[Bava Kamma 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:6)

לָזֶה וְלָזֶה, כְּגוֹן חֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִים וְהַבִּקְעָה – פָּטוּר בָּהּ עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל; עַל הַנְּגִיחָה וְעַל הַנְּגִיפָה וְעַל הַנְּשִׁיכָה וְעַל הָרְבִיצָה וְעַל הַבְּעִיטָה – תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a place is the property **of** both **this** one **and that** one, **e.g., a courtyard** designated for the joint use **of partners or** a field in **the valley** that is used by the public, the owner of an animal that causes damage is **exempt for Eating and for Trampling** performed by his animal **in** that place. But **for goring, and for pushing, and for biting, and for crouching** upon items in order to damage them, **and for kicking,** which are all subcategories of the primary category of Goring, if the ox is **innocuous,** the owner **pays half** the value of **the damage, and** if it is **forewarned, he pays** the **full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:7
[Bava Kamma 14a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:7)

לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה, כְּגוֹן חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם – חַיָּיב בּוֹ עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל; עַל הַנְּגִיחָה וְעַל הַנְּשִׁיכָה וְעַל הַנְּגִיפָה וְעַל הָרְבִיצָה וְעַל הַבְּעִיטָה – תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a place where the damage occurs is the property **of neither this** one **nor that** one, **e.g., a courtyard that is not** owned by either **of the two of them,** the owner of an animal that causes damage is **liable for Eating and for Trampling** performed by his animal **in** that place. But **for goring, and for pushing, and for biting, and for crouching** upon items in order to damage them, **and for kicking,** which are all subcategories of the primary category of Goring, if the ox is **innocuous,** the owner **pays half** the value of **the damage, and** if it is **forewarned, he pays** the **full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:8
[Bava Kamma 14a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:8)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, חֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִין וְהַבִּקְעָה – פָּטוּר בָּהּ עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **in any event** the *baraita* **teaches** that in **a courtyard** designated for the joint use **of partners or** a field in **the valley** that is jointly owned, the owner of an animal that causes damage is **exempt for Eating and for Trampling** performed by his animal **in** that place. This *baraita* supports Rabbi Elazar’s opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:9
[Bava Kamma 14a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:9)

קַשְׁיָא אַהֲדָדֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: These *baraitot* **are difficult,** as they seem to contradict **one another.**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:10
[Bava Kamma 14a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:10)

כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּחָצֵר מְיוּחֶדֶת לָזֶה וְלָזֶה בֵּין לְפֵירוֹת בֵּין לִשְׁווֹרִים. הָהִיא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף – בְּחָצֵר מְיוּחֶדֶת לְפֵירוֹת, וְאֵינָהּ מְיוּחֶדֶת לִשְׁווֹרִים; דִּלְגַבֵּי שֵׁן – הָוְיָא לַהּ חֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **When that** *baraita* **is taught,** it is **with regard to** a jointly owned **courtyard,** which under the terms of their partnership is **designated for** the use of both **this** one **and that** one, i.e., as partners, **for** bringing **both produce and oxen** there. Since both partners have a right to keep their oxen there, they are not liable for any damage their oxen cause in the jointly owned space. **That** *baraita* **of Rav Yosef** is taught **with regard to** a jointly owned **courtyard,** which under the terms of their partnership is **designated for** the purpose of bringing their **produce** there, **but it is not designated for** bringing **oxen** there. Accordingly, **with regard to** damage of the category of **Eating** caused by one partner’s ox to the other’s produce, **it is** equivalent to **a courtyard** owned exclusively by **the injured** party, and therefore he is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:11
[Bava Kamma 14a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:11)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי – דְּקָתָנֵי הָכָא דּוּמְיָא דְפוּנְדָּק, וְקָתָנֵי הָתָם דּוּמְיָא דְבִקְעָה; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: In accordance with this explanation, the language of each of these *baraitot* is **also precise, as it teaches here,** in the *baraita* of Rav Yosef, the case of a courtyard that is **similar to an inn,** where oxen are usually not allowed to be brought, **and it teaches there,** in the second *baraita*, the case of a courtyard that is **similar to** a field in the **valley,** where oxen are usually allowed to enter. **Conclude from it** that the Gemara’s distinction between the two *baraitot* is correct.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:12
[Bava Kamma 14a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:12)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: כֵּיוָן דִּמְיוּחֶדֶת לְפֵירוֹת?! הָא בָּעֵינַן ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira objects to this** interpretation of Rav Yosef’s *baraita*: **Since** the courtyard is **designated for** both of them to keep their **produce** there, they should not be liable for damage caused by their oxen there, as in order for one to be liable **don’t we need** a case that fits the depiction of the verse: **“And it consumed in a field of another”** (Exodus 22:4), **and** since they both have the right to use the courtyard it **does not** fulfill this condition.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:13
[Bava Kamma 14a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּאֵינָהּ מְיוּחֶדֶת לִשְׁווֹרִים, ״שְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: Since it is not designated for** them to keep **oxen** there, that is sufficient **for it to be termed “a field of another.”**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:14
[Bava Kamma 14a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: לֵימָא מִדְּמַתְנְיָתָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, אָמוֹרָאֵי נָמֵי לָא פְּלִיגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Given the distinction between the cases discussed in the *baraitot*, the Gemara reconsiders the dispute between Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Elazar concerning the mishna’s statement about property whose use is designated for both the injured party and the one liable for the damage. **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Let us say** that **from** the fact **that the *baraitot* do not disagree,** as they are referring to different cases, so too, the ***amora’im*,** i.e., Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Elazar, **also do not disagree,** as they are similarly referring to these different cases.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:15
[Bava Kamma 14a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי – בְּקוּשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא וּבְפֵירוּקָא דְאַבָּיֵי פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said to him: Yes,** that is correct. **And** even **if you say** that **they disagree,** their dispute does not concern every case of a jointly owned courtyard, as the Gemara had assumed; rather, their dispute concerns specifically a courtyard designated for the use of their produce, but not the use of their oxen. And **they disagree whether** to accept **the difficulty** raised **by Rabbi Zeira,** that such a courtyard cannot be considered “a field of another,” **or** whether **to** accept **the resolution of Abaye,** that it can be considered “a field of another.”


###### Bava Kamma 14a:16
[Bava Kamma 14a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:16)

גּוּפָא – אַרְבָּעָה כְּלָלוֹת הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר בְּנִזָּקִין: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא רְשׁוּת לַנִּיזָּק וְלֹא לַמַּזִּיק – חַיָּיב בַּכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to **the** matter **itself** and analyzes the *baraita* in the *Tosefta* cited above. It states: **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would state four principles with regard to** the liability incurred based on where the **damage** was caused. With regard to **any** location **that is** the **property of the injured** party **and** is **not** the property **of the one liable for the damage,** the owner of an animal that causes damage is **liable for all** the damage caused there.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:17
[Bava Kamma 14a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:17)

״עַל הַכֹּל״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״חַיָּיב בַּכֹּל״ – בְּכוּלֵּי[הּ] נֶזֶק;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: The *baraita* **does not teach:** One is liable **for any [*al hakkol*]** damage caused there, which would suggest that one is liable for all types of damage. **Rather,** it teaches: **One is liable for all [*bakkol*]** the damage caused, which can be translated as: **For** the **full** cost of the **damage.** This indicates that even were one’s ox considered to be innocuous and caused damage of the category of Goring, which would generally incur liability for half the value of the damage, in this case the owner is liable for the full cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:18
[Bava Kamma 14a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:18)

מַנִּי – רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Whose** opinion is this? **It is** in accordance with 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.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:19
[Bava Kamma 14a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:19)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה, כְּגוֹן חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם – חַיָּיב בָּהּ עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If this is so, **say,** and try to explain accordingly, **the latter clause** of the *baraita*: If a place where the damage occurs is the property **of neither this** one **nor that** one, **e.g., a courtyard that is not** owned by either **of the two of them,** the owner of an animal that causes damage is **liable for Eating and for Trampling** performed by his animal **in** that place.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:20
[Bava Kamma 14a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:20)

מַאי ״לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה כְּלָל – אֶלָּא דְּאַחֵר; וְהָא בָּעֵינָא ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** does the *baraita* mean by saying the property is **of neither this** one **nor that** one? **If we say** the intention of the *baraita* is that the property is **of neither this** one **nor that** one **at all,** but **rather** it belongs **to another** person, why should either partner be liable? **But don’t I need** a case that fits the depiction of the verse: **“And it consumed in a field of another”** (Exodus 22:4), which is understood to mean that the consumed produce belongs to the owner of the field in which the act of consumption occurred; **and** since the injured party does not have any rights to this place it **does not** fulfill this condition?


###### Bava Kamma 14a:21
[Bava Kamma 14a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:21)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה – אֶלָּא דְּחַד; וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is obvious** that the intention of the *baraita* is that the property is **of neither this** one **nor that** one together; **rather,** it belongs **to** only **one** of them, i.e., the injured party, **and the latter clause teaches:** If the ox is **innocuous,** the owner **pays half** the value of **the damage, and** if it is **forewarned, he pays** the **full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:22
[Bava Kamma 14a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:22)

אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, חֲצִי נֶזֶק הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, in the latter clause **we arrive at** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say:** The *halakha* of cases of **Goring** performed by an innocuous animal, which is **atypical,** occurring **in the courtyard of the injured** party, is that the owner of the ox **pays half** the value of **the damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:23
[Bava Kamma 14a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:23)

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Could it be that **the first clause** of the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon and the last clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis?**


###### Bava Kamma 14a:24
[Bava Kamma 14a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:24)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes,** that is **as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda** with regard to another mishna (15b): ***Shinnana*, leave the mishna and follow after me** and my interpretation that **the first clause** of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon and the last clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** In this *baraita* as well, the different clauses are taught in accordance with different Sages’ opinions.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:25
[Bava Kamma 14a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:25)

רָבִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הִיא; וּמַאי לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה – לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה לְפֵירוֹת, אֶלָּא דְּחַד; לָזֶה וְלָזֶה לִשְׁווֹרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a different interpretation of the *baraita*: **Ravina said in the name of Rava: The entire** *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon, and what** does it mean by saying that the property is **of neither this** one **nor that** one? The property does **not** belong both **to this** one **and that** one; **rather,** it is designated **for** the use of only **one** of them, **for** him to keep his **produce** there. Only the injured party has the right to keep his produce there. But it is designated both **for this** one **and for that** one, **for** them to keep their **oxen** there, as both have this right.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:26
[Bava Kamma 14a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:26)

דִּלְגַבֵּי שֵׁן – הָוְיָא לַהּ חֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, לְגַבֵּי קֶרֶן – הָוְיָא לַהּ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, **with regard to** damage of the category of **Eating,** the property **is** considered to be the **courtyard of the injured** party; therefore, the one responsible for the damage is liable to pay for the damage. By contrast, **with regard to** damage of the category of **Goring,** since they both have the right to keep their oxen there, the property **is** considered to be like **a public domain,** and therefore even Rabbi Tarfon agrees that if one’s innocuous ox causes damage there one is liable for only half the value of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:27
[Bava Kamma 14a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:27)

אִי הָכִי, אַרְבָּעָה?! שְׁלֹשָׁה הָווּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** does the *baraita* list **four** principles? **There are** only **three.** In other words, according to the way Ravina explains the latter clause, i.e., the fourth principle, it does not teach anything that is not already known from the first three principles, as the fact that one is liable for Eating and Trampling in property designated for the use of the injured party is explicitly stated in the first principle, and the fact that one is liable for only half the cost of the damage in a case of Goring in a jointly owned courtyard is expressed in the third principle.


###### Bava Kamma 14a:28
[Bava Kamma 14a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14a:28)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:**