## Bava Kamma Daf 23b

###### Bava Kamma 23b:1
[Bava Kamma 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:1)

כַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק דָּמֵי; דְּאִי כַּחֲצַר הַמַּזִּיק דָּמֵי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵי רִפְתָּךְ בְּפוּמָּא דְּכַלְבַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is like the courtyard of the injured** party, i.e., it is not a separate domain from the place in which the animal is eating. **As if** the mouth of the animal were to be considered **like the courtyard of the one responsible for the damage, let** the owner of the dog **say to** the injured party: **What is your bread doing in my dog’s mouth?** The dog’s mouth is my domain, and I am not liable for damage classified as Eating done to your property in my domain.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:2
[Bava Kamma 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:2)

דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פִּי פָרָה – כַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק דָּמֵי, אוֹ כַּחֲצַר הַמַּזִּיק דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: The need for this type of inference arises from the fact **that a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **Is the mouth of a cow like the courtyard of the injured** party, **or is it like the courtyard of the one responsible for the damage,** i.e., the owner of the cow?


###### Bava Kamma 23b:3
[Bava Kamma 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:3)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ כַּחֲצַר הַמַּזִּיק דָּמֵי, שֵׁן דְּחַיֵּיב רַחֲמָנָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if you say** that the mouth of the cow is **like the courtyard of the one responsible for the damage, how can you find** a case of damage classified as **Eating** for which **the Merciful One holds** the owner of the animal **liable?** The *halakha* is that one must pay for damage classified as Eating only if it occurred on the property of the injured party. If the mouth of an animal is deemed the domain of the animal’s owner, damage caused by an animal eating would always take place in the domain of the animal’s owner and he would therefore be exempt from liability in every case.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:4
[Bava Kamma 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:4)

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְחַכְּכָה בְּכוֹתֶל לַהֲנָאָתָהּ, וְטִנְּפָה פֵּירוֹת לַהֲנָאָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:** It is possible to describe a case of Eating that would render the animal’s owner liable according to the one who holds that the mouth of a cow is like the domain of its owner, **for example,** if the cow **rubbed** up **against a wall for its pleasure** and broke it, or if the cow **soiled produce for its** own **pleasure.** Any action in which an animal engages for its own pleasure is classified as Eating, and if the animal causes damage thereby within the domain belonging to the injured party, its owner will be held liable since nothing has entered the mouth of the animal.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:5
[Bava Kamma 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:5)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: וְהָא בָּעֵינָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״, וְלֵיכָּא! רָבִינָא אָמַר: דְּשָׁף צַלְמֵי, רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: דְּפַסַּעי פַּסּוֹעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra objects to** these examples of Eating: **But** in order to create liability under the *halakhot* of Eating, **I require** fulfillment of the verse: **“As consumes the tooth until it be all gone”** (I Kings 14:10), meaning that the damaged item must be completely destroyed or consumed, **and** here that is **not** the case, as the stones of the broken wall and the soiled produce have not been destroyed. To answer Mar Zutra’s question, **Ravina said:** It is possible for a cow to cause complete destruction by rubbing against a wall, e.g., a cow **that** completely **erases** any decorative **images** that were adorning the wall. **Rav Ashi said:** It is possible for cow to cause complete destruction by soiling produce, e.g., a cow **that trods on** the produce and crushes it, thereby totally eradicating it. Consequently, the initial question about the status of the cow’s mouth remains.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:6
[Bava Kamma 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שִׁיסָּה בּוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב, שִׁיסָּה בּוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ – פָּטוּר. מַאן פָּטוּר – מְשַׁסֶּה פָּטוּר, וְחַיָּיב בַּעַל כֶּלֶב; וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ כַּחֲצַר הַמַּזִּיק דָּמֵי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵי יְדָךְ בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּכַלְבַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from a *baraita*: If **he incited a dog against** another person, or if **he incited a snake against** another person, he is **exempt** (*Sanhedrin* 66b). The Gemara clarifies: **Who** is **exempt? The one who incited** the dog is **exempt, but** the **owner of** the **dog** is **liable. And if you say** that the mouth of the animal is **like the courtyard of the one liable for the damage, let** the owner of the dog **say to** the injured party: **What does your hand want,** i.e., what is it doing, **in my dog’s mouth,** which is my domain?


###### Bava Kamma 23b:7
[Bava Kamma 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:7)

אֵימָא: פָּטוּר אַף מְשַׁסֶּה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לְנִיבֵיהּ וְסַרְטֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna could be understood a different way. **Say** that **even the one who incited** the dog is **exempt,** as the dog is not his property, but the dog owner is also exempt because his dog’s mouth has a legal status similar to that of the dog owner’s courtyard. **And if you wish, say** instead that the case under discussion is one where the dog **extended his canine teeth and scratched the** victim, but the victim’s hand was not inside his mouth, and therefore this incident cannot be treated as if it took place in the domain of the owner of the dog.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:8
[Bava Kamma 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִשִּׁיךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a solution based on the continuation of the above mishna: If **one caused the snake to bite** a person by bringing the fangs of the snake to the victim’s body, and the snake killed him, **Rabbi Yehuda deems** the one who instigated the attack **liable** to receive the death penalty **and the Rabbis exempt** him.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:9
[Bava Kamma 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:9)

וְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: כְּשֶׁתִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר; לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֶרֶס נָחָשׁ – בֵּין שִׁינָּיו הוּא עוֹמֵד, לְפִיכָךְ מַכִּישׁ בְּסַיִיף, וְנָחָשׁ פָּטוּר. לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, אֶרֶס נָחָשׁ – מֵעַצְמוֹ מִקִּיא, לְפִיכָךְ נָחָשׁ בִּסְקִילָה, וּמַכִּישׁ פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says** in explanation of the dispute: When you analyze the matter **you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, the venom of a snake is** deemed to be constantly **present between its fangs,** and therefore when the snake is made to strike the victim it is not actively engaged in any action. **Consequently,** the person handling the snake is liable, similar to one who **strikes** a victim **with a sword,** while the **snake** itself is **exempt** as it has not done anything. And **according to the statement of the Rabbis, the venom of a snake** is not present between its fangs but rather the snake must **secrete** it **of its own volition. Consequently,** the **snake** receives the penalty of **stoning** like any animal that kills a person, while the one who instigated the attack **and striking** with it is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 23b:10
[Bava Kamma 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:10)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ פִּי פָרָה כַּחֲצַר הַמַּזִּיק דָּמֵי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵי יְדָךְ בְּפוּמָּא דְחִיוַּואי? לְעִנְיַן קְטָלָא לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **the mouth of the cow** is **like the courtyard of the one responsible for the damage, let** the owner of the snake metaphorically **say to** the injured party: **What is your hand doing in my snake’s mouth?** The Gemara answers: **We do not say** this principle **with regard to matters relating to** the **death** penalty; therefore, one who kills another is always liable, regardless of whether it occurred within the domain of the killer or within the domain of the victim.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:11
[Bava Kamma 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:11)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא? דְּתַנְיָא: הַנִּכְנָס לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וּמֵת – הַשּׁוֹר בִּסְקִילָה, וּבְעָלִים פְּטוּרִים מִן הַכּוֹפֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do you say** this? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 5:13): With regard to **one who enters the courtyard of a property owner without** his **permission, and the property owner’s ox gores** the intruder **and** he **dies, the ox** receives the penalty of **stoning while** the **owner** is **exempt from** having to pay **ransom.**


###### Bava Kamma 23b:12
[Bava Kamma 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:12)

בְּעָלִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַכּוֹפֶר מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: בִּרְשׁוּתִי מַאי בָּעֵית; שׁוֹרוֹ נָמֵי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בִּרְשׁוּתִי! אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קְטָלָא לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What is the reason** that the **owner** is **exempt from** paying **ransom?** He is exempt **because he can** metaphorically **say to** the victim: **What do you want in my domain,** i.e., why were you there without permission? Since he entered the premises without authorization, he bears responsibility for his own fate. But if that is so, the same applies to **his ox as well,** and **let** the owner of the ox **say to** the victim: **What do you want in my domain?** Rather, it must be that **we do not say** that this principle applies **with regard to matters relating to** the **death** penalty. Consequently, these cases do not prove that the mouth of the cow is like the courtyard of the victim within the scope of the *halakhot* of damages.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:13
[Bava Kamma 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:13)

הָנְהוּ עִיזֵּי דְּבֵי תַרְבּוּ דַּהֲווֹ מַפְסְדִי לֵיהּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי: זִיל אֵימָא לְהוּ לְמָרַיְיהוּ דְּלַיצְנְעִינְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי אֵיזִיל? דְּאִי אָזֵילְנָא, אָמְרִי לִי: לִגְדּוֹר מָר גְּדֵירָא בְּאַרְעֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There were **these goats,** belonging to **the Tarbu family, that would** frequently **damage Rav Yosef’s** property. Rav Yosef **said to Abaye: Go** and **tell their owners that they must keep** their goats enclosed within their own property. Abaye **said to** Rav Yosef in response: **Why should I go? If I go** and deliver this message, **they will say to me: Let** the **Master put a fence up around his property** so that the goats will not be able to get in there.


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

וְאִי גָּדַר, שֵׁן דְּחַיֵּיב רַחֲמָנָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּשֶׁחָתְרָה. אִי נָמֵי, דְּנָפֵיל גּוּדָּא בְּלֵילְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this claim: **And if** an individual **did put up a fence** to safeguard his property from the Eating of other animals because he was required to do so, and had he not done so the owners of those animals would not be liable to pay for the damage caused by their animals, **how can you find** damage classified as **Eating for** which **the Merciful One** holds the owner of the animal **liable?** As, if it is the responsibility of the injured party to fence in his property, animals will not be able to get inside. The Gemara answers: A case in which the Torah holds the owner of the animal liable can be explained as one **where** the animal **burrowed under** the fence. **Alternatively,** it could be explained as a case **where** the separating **fence collapsed in** middle of **the night** and the owner of the fence did not have the opportunity to repair it before the animals caused damage.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:15
[Bava Kamma 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:15)

מַכְרֵיז רַב יוֹסֵף וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה: דְּסָלְקִין לְעֵילָּא וּדְנָחֲתִין לְתַחְתָּאה – הָנֵי עִיזֵּי דְשׁוּקָא דְּמַפְסְדִי, מַתְרֵינַן בְּמָרַיְיהוּ תְּרֵי וּתְלָתָא זִמְנִין. אִי צָיֵית – צָיֵית. וְאִי לָא – אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: תִּיב אַמְּסַחְתָּא וְקַבֵּל זוּזָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Rav Yosef, and some say** it was **Rabba, would announce: Those that ascend** to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, bringing with them the rulings of the Babylonian Sages, **as well as those that descend** to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, bringing the rulings of the sages of Eretz Yisrael with them, all agree to the following *halakha*: With regard to **these goats** that loiter **in the market** until they are slaughtered and in the meantime **cause damage** to others, **we warn their owner two or three times. If** the owner of the goats **heeds** the warning and safeguards his animals from damaging others, then **he heeds** it and no further action is necessary. **But if not, we say to him:** Go, **sit next to the butcher shop and take your money,** meaning we instruct him to slaughter his goats immediately. Since he in any event intends to slaughter them, the court can force him to do so immediately. Otherwise, he cannot be forced to slaughter them as a preventive measure.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵיזֶהוּ תָּם וְאֵיזֶהוּ מוּעָד? מוּעָד – כֹּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים, וְתָם – מִשֶּׁיַּחְזוֹר בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מוּעָד – שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים, וְתָם – כֹּל שֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Which** type of ox **is** deemed **innocuous and which** is deemed **forewarned?** An ox is deemed **forewarned** in **any** case **where** witnesses **testified about it** that it gored on **three** different **days. And** it reverts back to its previous **innocuous** status **from when it reverses its** behavior and refrains from goring for **three** consecutive **days;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says:** It is deemed **forewarned** in any case **where** witnesses **testified** that **it** gored **three times,** regardless of the number of days on which this behavior occurred. **And** it reverts back to its previous **innocuous** status in **any** case **where children pet it** and play with it **and it does not gore** them.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:17
[Bava Kamma 23b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:17)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״תְּמֹל״ – חַד; ״מִתְּמֹל״ – תְּרֵי; ״שִׁלְשֹׁם״ – תְּלָתָא; ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו״ – אֲתָאן לִנְגִיחָה רְבִיעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda** that an ox is deemed forewarned only if it gored on three separate days? **Abaye said:** It states in the verse: “Or if it is known that the ox was a goring ox from yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner has not secured it” (Exodus 21:36). This leads to the following inference: **“Yesterday”** indicates **one** day, **“from yesterday”** indicates **two** days, **“the day before yesterday”** indicates **three** days, **“and its owner has not secured it”;** here **we arrive at a fourth** incident of **goring,** for which the owner pays the full amount of damages.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:18
[Bava Kamma 23b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:18)

רָבָא אָמַר: ״תְּמֹל–מִתְּמֹל״ – חַד; ״שִׁלְשֹׁם״ – תְּרֵי; ״וְלָא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״ הָאִידָּנָא – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: “Yesterday”** and **“from yesterday”** are not to be expounded separately. Rather, the inference from this phrase is that “from yesterday” indicates **one** day, **“the day before yesterday”** indicates **two** days, **“and its owner has not secured it”** indicates **now,** the third incident of goring, as it is **liable** as a forewarned animal for the third goring.


###### Bava Kamma 23b:19
[Bava Kamma 23b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/23b:19)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** for the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who does not determine the forewarned status of an ox by the number of days on which the animal gored but simply by the number of times? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir said:**