## Bava Kamma Daf 16a

###### Bava Kamma 16a:1
[Bava Kamma 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:2
[Bava Kamma 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:2)

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;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:3
[Bava Kamma 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:4
[Bava Kamma 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:5
[Bava Kamma 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:5)

וְשֵׁן וָרֶגֶל מוּעָדִין מִתְּחִילָּתָן. וְהֵיכָן הֶעָדָתָן? בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:6
[Bava Kamma 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:6)

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״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Kamma 16a:7
[Bava Kamma 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Kamma 16a:8
[Bava Kamma 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 16a:9
[Bava Kamma 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:9)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 16a:10
[Bava Kamma 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:11
[Bava Kamma 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:11)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Kamma 16a:12
[Bava Kamma 16a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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 crouched 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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:13
[Bava Kamma 16a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

דִּלְמָא מִן הַצַּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:15
[Bava Kamma 16a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:15)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: וּלְמַעֵךְ אֶת הָאָדָם וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶת הַכֵּלִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 16a:17
[Bava Kamma 16a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דִּלְמָא מִן הַצַּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:18
[Bava Kamma 16a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:18)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Kamma 16a:19
[Bava Kamma 16a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?


###### Bava Kamma 16a:21
[Bava Kamma 16a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:21)

לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּצָבוֹעַ זָכָר, כָּאן בְּצָבוֹעַ נְקִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 16a:22
[Bava Kamma 16a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:22)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 16a:23
[Bava Kamma 16a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16a:23)

אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַצָּבוֹעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**