## Bava Kamma Daf 24a

###### Bava Kamma 24a:1
[Bava Kamma 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:1)

רִיחֵק נְגִיחוֹתָיו – חַיָּיב; קֵירַב נְגִיחוֹתָיו לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זָבָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁרִיחֲקָה רְאִיּוֹתֶיהָ – טְמֵאָה, קֵירְבָה רְאִיּוֹתֶיהָ – טְהוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the ox **performs its gorings at intervals,** its owner is **liable;** if it **performs its gorings successively,** is it **not all the more so** that its owner is liable? **They said to** Rabbi Meir: The *halakha* with regard to **a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [*zava*] will prove** that your *a fortiori* inference is invalid: If **her sightings occur at intervals,** i.e., if she sees a flow of uterine blood on three consecutive days, she becomes **ritually impure;** while if **her sightings were consecutive,** for example if all three occurred on the same day, she remains **pure.**


###### Bava Kamma 24a:2
[Bava Kamma 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:2)

אָמַר לָהֶן, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְזֹאת תִּהְיֶה טֻמְאָתוֹ בְּזוֹבוֹ״ – תָּלָה הַכָּתוּב אֶת הַזָּב בִּרְאִיּוֹת, וְאֶת הַזָּבָה בְּיָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir **said to them:** The case of the *zava* does not disprove my opinion, because the verse **states** in reference to the parallel *halakha* of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*]: **“And this shall be his ritual impurity when he has a discharge”** (Leviticus 15:3). The word “this” emphasizes that in this matter the *halakha* requires following the instructions of the verse precisely as they were recorded, and in this case **the verse associates** the impurity of **the *zav* with** the number of **sightings** of discharges the man observed, **and** it associates **the** impurity of the ***zava* with** the number of **days** during which she experienced sightings of blood, as it says: “Many days” (Leviticus 15:25). By contrast, with regard to the goring ox, the *a fortiori* inference remains in place.


###### Bava Kamma 24a:3
[Bava Kamma 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:3)

מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״וְזֹאת״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי זָבָה מֵרְאִיּוֹת? אֵימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי זָב מִיָּמִים! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ – מַקִּישׁ זָכָר לִנְקֵבָה; מָה נְקֵבָה בְּיָמִים, אַף זָכָר בְּיָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks about this interpretation: **From where** is it determined **that this** additional phrase: **“And this,”** serves **to exclude a *zava* from** having her status determined by individual **sightings** of blood, associating it instead with the number of days on which she experienced bleeding? **Say** instead that it serves **to exclude** the ***zav* from** having his status determined by sightings on separate **days,** indicating that he will be rendered a *zav* only if he experienced three discharges on a single day and not on separate days. The Gemara answers: **The verse states** elsewhere: **“And one who has a discharge, whether it be a man or a woman”** (Leviticus 15:33). The verse **juxtaposes** the ritual impurity of **a male to** that of **a female** to teach that **just as** the **female’s** ritual impurity is caused by sightings on multiple **days, so too** the ritual impurity of **a male** can be caused by sightings on multiple **days.**


###### Bava Kamma 24a:4
[Bava Kamma 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:4)

וְלַקֵּישׁ נְקֵבָה לְזָכָר – מָה זָכָר בִּרְאִיּוֹת, אַף נְקֵבָה בִּרְאִיּוֹת! הָא מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״וְזֹאת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The derivation from the verse could just as easily lead to the opposite conclusion. **But let** him **compare** the **female to** the **male; just as a male** becomes ritually impure **based on** the number of **sightings,** even if they all occur on the same day, **so too** should **a female** become ritually impure **based on** the number of **sightings,** even on the same day. The Gemara answers: **But the Merciful One excluded** this possibility by making use of the term **“and this.”**


###### Bava Kamma 24a:5
[Bava Kamma 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:5)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא, קָאֵי בִּרְאִיּוֹת – מְמַעֵט רְאִיּוֹת; קָאֵי בִּרְאִיּוֹת – מְמַעֵט יָמִים?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what did you see** to make you exclude associating the ritual impurity of women with the number of sightings, rather than excluding associating the ritual impurity of men with the number of days? The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** that this is so, as the context of the verse **deals with sightings,** and therefore an additional phrase serves to **exclude sightings,** but can you say that in a context where it **deals with sightings it excludes days?** The exclusionary term “and this” appears in the section discussing the *halakhot* of the *zav*, in the context of which it mentions sightings and not days, and therefore when it excludes something from these *halakhot* and limits them to specific cases, it will exclude it from being associated with sightings.


###### Bava Kamma 24a:6
[Bava Kamma 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ מוּעָד – כֹּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים; וְתָם – שֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵחַ; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מוּעָד – כֹּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אֶלָּא לַחֲזָרָה בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the subject of classifying an ox as innocuous or forewarned: **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Which** type of ox **is** deemed **forewarned? Any** animal **about which** witnesses **testified** that it gored on **three days** is forewarned. **And** it reverts to its former **innocuous** status **if children pet it and** nevertheless **it does not gore;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: A forewarned** ox is **any** ox **about which** witnesses **testified** that it gored **three times, and** the Sages **spoke** about **three days only with regard to reversals,** meaning that in order for an ox to revert to innocuous status, the ox must refrain from goring on three separate days. Each of these additional views on this subject combine aspects of both of the opinions mentioned in the mishna, those of Rabbi Yehuda and those of Rabbi Meir.


###### Bava Kamma 24a:7
[Bava Kamma 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמוּעָד, שֶׁהֲרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה לוֹ; וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּתָם, שֶׁהֲרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** that **Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda concerning** the criteria for deeming an animal **forewarned, as Rabbi Yosei concedes to his** opinion on this issue, **and** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir concerning** the criteria for reverting the status of an animal to **innocuous, as Rabbi Yosei concedes to his** opinion on that issue.


###### Bava Kamma 24a:8
[Bava Kamma 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וְלֵימָא מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמוּעָד, שֶׁהֲרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה לוֹ; וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּתָם, שֶׁהֲרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה לוֹ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבִירָא לִי, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי נִימּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master say** the reverse, that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir concerning** the criteria for deeming an animal **forewarned, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to his** opinion on this issue **and** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda concerning** the criteria for reverting the status of an ox to **innocuous, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to his** opinion on that issue. Rav Naḥman **replied to** Rava: **I hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei’s analysis [*nimmuko*] is with him,** i.e., it is sound.


###### Bava Kamma 24a:9
[Bava Kamma 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:9)

אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים״ דְּקָתָנֵי – לְיַיעוֹדֵי תּוֹרָא, אוֹ לְיַיעוֹדֵי גַּבְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised** before the Sages: The **three days that** the mishna **teaches** in the context of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion with regard to the testimony needed to assign the status of forewarned to an ox, are they needed in order **to render the ox forewarned, or** are they needed in order **to forewarn the man** who owns the ox, to inform him that he needs to take precautions to keep it from causing further harm?


###### Bava Kamma 24a:10
[Bava Kamma 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:10)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאָתוּ תְּלָתָא כִּיתֵּי סָהֲדִי בְּחַד יוֹמָא. אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְיַיעוֹדֵי תּוֹרָא, מִיַּיעַד; וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לְיַיעוֹדֵי גַּבְרָא, לָא מִיַּיעַד – מֵימָר אָמַר: הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּקָמַסְהֲדוּ בִּי. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the** practical **difference** between the two possibilities? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is in a case **where three groups of witnesses came** to the court **on one day,** each testifying about a separate instance of goring caused by the ox on three separate days. **If you say** that their testimony serves to **render the ox forewarned** by determining that it gored on three separate days, then in this case the animal **has been classified** as **forewarned** on the basis of their testimony. **But if you say** that their testimony serves to **forewarn the man,** the ox **has not been classified** as **forewarned** on the basis of this testimony since the owner heard all of the testimony on a single day. This enables **him to say:** It is only **now** that they **testified against me;** and therefore his ox will not be deemed forewarned until he has been issued warnings over the course of three separate days. **What,** then, is the solution to the dilemma raised above?


###### Bava Kamma 24a:11
[Bava Kamma 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין הַשּׁוֹר נַעֲשֶׂה מוּעָד, עַד שֶׁיָּעִידוּ בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי בְעָלִים וּבִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין. הֵעִידוּ בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בְעָלִים, בִּפְנֵי בְעָלִים וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה מוּעָד, עַד שֶׁיָּעִידוּ בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וּבִפְנֵי בְעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a solution from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 2:3): **An ox does not become forewarned until** witnesses **testify against it in the presence of** its **owner and in the presence of a court.** If **they testified against it in the presence of a court but not in the presence of** its **owner,** or **in the presence of** its **owner but not in the presence of a court, it does not become forewarned until they testify against it in the presence of a court and in the presence of** its **owner.**


###### Bava Kamma 24a:12
[Bava Kamma 24a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:12)

הֶעִידוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – הֲרֵי כָּאן שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדִיּוֹת, וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, if **two** witnesses **testified against** the ox **concerning** its **first** incident of goring, **and two** other witnesses testified against it **concerning** the **second** incident, **and two** other witnesses testified against it **concerning** the **third** incident, **there are three** separate **testimonies here, but** they **are** considered as **one with regard to rendering** their statements as **conspiring testimony.**


###### Bava Kamma 24a:13
[Bava Kamma 24a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:13)

נִמְצֵאת כַּת רִאשׁוֹנָה זוֹמֶמֶת – הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת, וְהוּא פָּטוּר וְהֵן פְּטוּרִים. נִמְצֵאת כַּת שְׁנִיָּה זוֹמֶמֶת – הֲרֵי כָּאן עֵדוּת אַחַת, וְהוּא פָּטוּר וְהֵן פְּטוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, if **the first set** of witnesses **is determined to be conspiring** witnesses, **there are two testimonies** remaining **here** that claim that the ox gored, and the owner must pay for half the cost of the damage in each case. **But** the owner of the ox is **exempt** from having to pay the full cost of the damage, **and** the conspiring witnesses are **exempt** from paying the owner what he would have had to pay were their testimony accepted and his ox deemed forewarned, as they testified only concerning the first incident of goring, and the ox would not have been deemed forewarned on the basis of this testimony alone. And similarly, if **the second set** of witnesses was also **determined to be conspiring** witnesses, **there is one testimony** remaining **here** that claims that the ox gored, the third. At this point too, the owner of the ox is **exempt** from having to pay the full cost of the damage **and** the conspiring witnesses are **exempt** from having to pay the owner the full cost of the damage.


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

נִמְצֵאת כַּת שְׁלִישִׁית זוֹמֶמֶת – כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the third group** of witnesses was also **determined to be conspiring witnesses, all** the witnesses become **liable.** The third group is liable to pay the owner of the animal the payment for half the cost of the damage they tried to make him pay for the third incident of goring, and all three groups must share in the payment of the other half of the damage for the final incident that they tried to charge him for by classifying his ox as forewarned. **And concerning this it is stated: “And you shall do unto him as he had conspired to do** unto his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19).


###### Bava Kamma 24a:15
[Bava Kamma 24a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/24a:15)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְיַיעוֹדֵי תּוֹרָא – שַׁפִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **If you say** that the purpose of the testimony is **to render the ox forewarned,** the *halakha* presented in this *baraita* **works out well,** as according to this opinion it can be said that all of the witnesses came on the same day at the behest of the alleged victim of the third incident, and therefore they were all certainly aware of each other’s testimony. Consequently, the first set of witnesses shares in the responsibility for the testimony of the last group, as they are all co-witnesses in the effort to have the ox rendered forewarned.