## Bava Kamma Daf 24b

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

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְיַיעוֹדֵי גַּבְרָא, לֵימְרוּ הָנָךְ קַמָּאֵי: אֲנַן מִי הֲוָה יָדְעִינַן דְּבָתַר תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי – אָתוּ הָנֵי וּמְיַיעֲדִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that the witnesses came **to forewarn the man,** to caution him to safeguard his animal from causing harm, then they must have come on three separate days. And if so, **let these first** witnesses **say: Did we know that after three days these** other witnesses **were going to come to testify about** the animal? Therefore, it must be that the case in the *baraita* is one where the three groups of witnesses all came on the same day, and if that is so, the purpose of the testimony must be to render the ox forewarned.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וַאֲמַר לִי: וּלְיַיעוֹדֵי תּוֹרָא מִי נִיחָא?! וְלֵימְרוּ הָנָךְ בָּתְרָאֵי: אֲנַן מְנָא יָדְעִינַן דְּכֹל דְּקָאֵי בֵּי דִינָא – לְאַסְהוֹדֵי בְּתוֹרָא קָאָתוּ? אֲנַן לְחַיּוֹבֵי גַּבְרָא פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא אָתֵינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: I recited** this ***halakha* before Rav Kahana and he replied to me** in response to this proof: **And does it work out well** to say that they are coming **to render the ox forewarned?** Even in a case where all of the witnesses arrive in court on the same day, **let these last** witnesses **say: From where were we to know that all** those **standing in court came to testify about the ox? We came to make this person liable** to pay for **half** the cost of **the damage** his animal allegedly caused, but we are not responsible for the attempt to make him pay the full cost of the damage for the third incident.


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

דְּקָמְרַמְּזִי רַמּוֹזֵי. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ רְצוּפִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It must be that the case concerns a situation **where** the different groups of witnesses **were** observed **signaling** to each other, and therefore it is clear that they were aware of each other’s testimony and that they came to the court for this purpose. **Rav Ashi said:** The case is one **where they** all **came in succession,** one following the other, and therefore it is clear that the latter witnesses are aware of the former.


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

רָבִינָא אָמַר: בְּמַכִּירִין בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר, וְאֵין מַכִּירִין אֶת הַשּׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** In this case the witnesses said that they were **acquainted with the owner of the** goring **ox but** they were **not familiar with the ox** itself. This indicates that they were coming to court to render the ox forewarned, as the witnesses are not able to identify the goring ox and they would not be able to hold its owner liable to pay for half the cost of the damage, as this payment is paid only from the proceeds of the sale of the animal. Therefore, the only purpose of their testimony would be to hold the owner liable to pay the full cost of the damage for the third incident, as this payment is made from the owner’s superior-quality land.


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

אֶלָּא הֵיכִי מְיַיעֲדִי לֵיהּ? דְּאָמְרִי: תּוֹרָא נַגְּחָנָא אִית לָךְ בְּבַקְרָךְ, אִבְּעִי לָךְ לְנַטּוֹרֵי לְכוּלֵּיהּ בַּקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if they were not familiar with the ox, **how could they render it forewarned?** The Gemara answers: **They said** to the animal’s owner: **You have a goring ox among your cattle, and** therefore **you need to safeguard all of the cattle.**


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

אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַמְשַׁסֶּה כַּלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ, מַהוּ? מְשַׁסֶּה – וַדַּאי פָּטוּר; בַּעַל כֶּלֶב – מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא – מַאי עָבֵידְנָא לֵיהּ? אוֹ דִלְמָא, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּיָדְעַתְּ בְּכַלְבָּךְ דִּמְשַׁסֵּי לֵיהּ וּמִשְׁתַּסֵּי, לָא אִבְּעִי לָךְ לְאַשְׁהוֹיֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In the case of **one who incites another’s dog against another,** i.e., a third person, and he is injured, **what is** the *halakha*? **The one who incited** the animal against him is **certainly exempt,** since he did not cause the damage directly and neither did his property; but **what** is the *halakha* with regard to the **owner of the dog?** The Gemara explains the different sides of the question: **Do we say** that the owner of the dog **can say to** the injured party: **What did I do to** the dog? **Or perhaps we say to him: Since you were aware that if others incite your dog it is prone to** being **affected** by the **incitement** and attacking, **you ought not to have kept it** in your possession. Since you did, you are liable for the damage and the injuries it causes.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: וְתָם – שֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵחַ. הָא נוֹגֵחַ – חַיָּיב! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, מִי קָתָנֵי: נָגַח חַיָּיב? דִּלְמָא הָא נָגַח – לָא הָוֵי תָּם; וּבְהָהִיא נְגִיחָה לָא מִחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said: Come** and **hear** a solution from the *baraita*: **And** an ox reverts to its former **innocuous** status **if children pet it and** nevertheless **it does not gore.** It can be inferred from this that **if it gores** when the children pet it, the owner would be **liable** to pay for the damage. An ox that gores because children pet it can be likened to one that gores because it was incited to do so, and nevertheless the mishna holds the owner liable. **Abaye said: Is it taught** in the *baraita* that if **it gored** the owner is **liable? Perhaps** that is not what the *baraita* means. It merely means that **if it gored it** does **not** revert to **innocuous** status; but the owner is **not liable for** any of the damage caused by **that goring** because the children incited the animal to do so, and therefore nothing can be conclusively demonstrated from the *baraita*.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: שִׁיסָּה בּוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב, שִׁיסָּה בּוֹ נָחָשׁ – פָּטוּר. מַאי, לָאו פָּטוּר מְשַׁסֶּה, וְחַיָּיב בַּעַל כֶּלֶב? לָא; אֵימָא: פָּטוּר אַף מְשַׁסֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to prove this point from another source: **Come** and **hear** a solution from a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 76b): If one **incited a dog against another** person, or **incited a snake against another** person, he is **exempt. What, is it not that the one who incited** the dog against him is **exempt, but** the **owner of the dog** is **liable?** The Gemara rejects this: **No, say** that **even the one who incited** the animal against him is **exempt,** as well as the owner.


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

אָמַר רָבָא, אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר: הַמְשַׁסֶּה כַּלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ – חַיָּיב; שִׁיסָּהוּ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? כׇּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה, וּבָא אַחֵר וְשִׁינָּה בּוֹ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Even **if you say** that one who **incites the dog of another against** yet **another** person is **liable,** nevertheless if **he incited the dog against himself,** i.e., the dog bit the one who was inciting it to attack, he is **exempt. What is the reason** for this? Due to the principle that with regard to **anyone who deviates** from normative behavior in his actions, **if another came along** afterward **and deviates** from the norm **with regard to** the action the first has done and thereby causes damage to him, the one who causes the damage is **exempt** from liability. Since this individual deviated from the normative behavior and incited the dog against himself, the owner of the dog is not responsible for any damage the dog causes to him as a result, although generally speaking any time a dog bites it is in and of itself a deviation from its typical behavior and something for which its owner would normally be held liable.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: אִיתְּמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ כְּווֹתָיךְ – דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אַחַת רְבוּצָה וְאַחַת מְהַלֶּכֶת, וּבִעֲטָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בִּרְבוּצָה – פְּטוּרָה. רְבוּצָה בִּמְהַלֶּכֶת – חַיֶּיבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rava: It was stated in the name of Reish Lakish in accordance with your** opinion, that if anyone deviates from normative behavior in his actions, if another came along afterward and deviates from the norm with regard to the action the first has done and thereby causes damage to him, the one who causes the damage is exempt from liability. **As Reish Lakish says:** If there were **two cows in the public domain, one prone** in the street **and** the other **one walking,** if the **walking** cow **kicked** the **prone** cow, its owner is **exempt** from liability. But if the **prone** cow kicked the **walking** cow, its owner is **liable.** The rationale for this is that since it is typical behavior for cows to walk in the public domain and the prone cow deviated from this behavior, even if the walking cow also acted atypically and kicked the prone cow, the owner is exempt from liability.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא – בְּהָהִיא חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיֵּיבְנָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: כִּי אִית לָךְ רְשׁוּתָא – לְסַגּוֹיֵי עֲלַי; לְבַעוֹטֵי בִּי לֵית לָךְ רְשׁוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said** back **to** Rav Pappa: That is not in accordance with my opinion, as **I would have held** the owner of the walking cow **liable in that** case, **because** in my opinion **we say to him** on behalf of the prone cow: It is true **that you have the right to tread on me** in the public domain but **you do not have the right to kick me,** and therefore Rava’s and Reish Lakish’s opinions are not exactly the same.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, כֵּיצַד? נָגַח, נָגַף, נָשַׁךְ, רָבַץ, בָּעַט; בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק – רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And what is** the case of the **ox that causes damage** while **on the property of the injured** party, mentioned in an earlier mishna (15b) that listed animals that are forewarned? If the animal **gored, pushed, bit, squatted** upon, or **kicked** another animal **in the public domain,** the owner is liable to **pay half** the cost of **the damage** if the ox was innocuous, but if it acted while **on the property of the injured** party, **Rabbi Tarfon says:** He must pay the **full** cost of **the damage, and the Rabbis say:** He must pay **half** the cost of **the damage,** as in any other case classified as Goring.


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

אֲמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהֵקֵל עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר; הֶחְמִיר עֲלֵיהֶן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק – לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם; מְקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְמִיר עַל הַקֶּרֶן – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, לְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק; אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנַּחְמִיר עָלָיו בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק – לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Tarfon said to the** Rabbis: **If in a place where** the Torah **was lenient with regard to** damage classified as **Eating and with regard to Trampling,** specifically **in the public domain, as** the owner **is exempt** from liability, nevertheless the Torah was **strict with regard to these** forms of damage if they occurred **on the property of the injured** party, requiring him **to pay** the **full** cost of **the damage,** then in **a place where** the Torah **was strict with regard to** cases of damage classified as **Goring,** specifically **in the public domain,** requiring the owner **to pay for half** the cost of **the damage, is it not right that we** should **be strict with regard to this** form of damage if it occurs **on the property of the injured** party to likewise require the owner of the animal **to pay** the **full** cost of **the damage?**


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

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין – לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן. מָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אַף בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק – חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him:** Although there is an *a fortiori* inference being applied here, still **it is sufficient for the** conclusion that **emerges from** an *a fortiori* **inference to be like** its **source,** meaning that the *halakha* cannot be stricter with the inference than it is with the case that serves as the source of the inference. Therefore, **just as** one is liable to pay **half** the cost of **the damage** classified as Goring **in the public domain, so too,** for damage classified as Goring **on the property of the injured** party he is liable to pay only **half** the cost of **the damage.**


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

אָמַר לָהֶם: אַף אֲנִי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Tarfon **said to them:** If that is your opinion, then **I as well**