## Bava Kamma Daf 16b

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

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

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


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

תְּנִי: נָחָשׁ.

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


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ דָּרְסָה נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אִי הָכִי, חֲצִי נֶזֶק בָּעֵי לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי! דְּאִיַּיעַד.

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** מָה בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד?

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

״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.

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


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

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

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


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

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

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


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

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.

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


###### Bava Kamma 16b:24
[Bava Kamma 16b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:24)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 16b:25
[Bava Kamma 16b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:25)

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבָּנַן, חַד אָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree** with regard to this yeshiva: **One said:** They studied there for **three** days.