## Bava Kamma Daf 25b

###### Bava Kamma 25b:1
[Bava Kamma 25b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:1)

זוֹבוֹ שֶׁל זָב, וְרוּקּוֹ, וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ, וּמֵימֵי רַגְלָיו, וְדַם הַנִּדָּה – מְטַמְּאִין בֵּין בְּמַגָּע בֵּין בְּמַשָּׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
are the ***ziva* of a *zav*, and his spittle, and his semen, and his urine, and the blood of a menstruating woman,** all of which **impart impurity both by touching and by carrying.**


###### Bava Kamma 25b:2
[Bava Kamma 25b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:2)

וְדִלְמָא הָכִי נָמֵי – לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר בְּלֹא צִחְצוּחֵי זִיבָה! אִם כֵּן, לִתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי זוֹבוֹ; מַאי שְׁנָא דְּקָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי רוּקּוֹ? אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי מֵרוּקּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this assertion: **But perhaps** here too the reason for the severity of ritual impurity of the semen is **indeed because it is impossible** for it to emerge **without small drops of *ziva*** accompanying it, but it is not due to the impurity of the semen itself. The Gemara rejects this opinion: **If** that would be **so, let** the *tanna* of the mishna **teach it** in the list of bodily fluids **along with,** meaning list it immediately following, **his *ziva*. What is different** about semen **that he teaches it along with: His spittle? Rather,** it is **because its** *halakha* **comes from,** i.e., it is derived from, that of **his spittle,** and therefore the semen itself imparts impurity by carrying, even if there would not be small drops of *ziva* accompanying it.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:3
[Bava Kamma 25b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא לָא דָּרֵישׁ דַּיּוֹ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִפְּרִיךְ קַל וָחוֹמֶר! דְּתַנְיָא: מַפָּץ בְּמֵת מִנַּיִין? וְדִין הוּא, וּמָה פַּכִּין קְטַנִּים – שֶׁטְּהוֹרִים בְּזָב, מְטַמֵּא בְּמֵת; מַפָּץ – שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּזָב, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא בְּמֵת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the primary discussion concerning the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an *a fortiori* inference to be like its source. **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But** there is **this *tanna*** who **does not apply** the principle: **It is sufficient,** at all, **even though** such application would **not refute** the entire ***a fortiori*** inference. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived that a thick **mat** can contract ritual impurity **from a corpse? It is a logical derivation** based on an *a fortiori* inference: **And just as small** clay **vessels,** into which even a finger cannot be inserted because of their narrow opening and **which** remain **ritually pure** despite contact **with a *zav*,** nevertheless **become impure** if present under one roof **with a corpse,** then **is it not right that a mat, which can become impure** due to contact **with a *zav*, will** similarly **become impure** if present under one roof **with a corpse?**


###### Bava Kamma 25b:4
[Bava Kamma 25b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:4)

וְקָמַיְיתֵי לַהּ בֵּין לְטוּמְאַת עֶרֶב, בֵּין לְטוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. וְאַמַּאי? אֵימָא: אַהֲנִי קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְטוּמְאַת עֶרֶב, וְאַהֲנִי דַּיּוֹ לְאַפּוֹקֵי טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *tanna* **cites this** *a fortiori* inference **both** to derive the *halakha* that the mat becomes ritually impure **with impurity** that lasts until **nightfall,** as it would if it were to come into contact with a *zav*, **and** to derive that the mat becomes ritually impure **with impurity** that lasts for **seven** days, as would any vessel that contracted ritual impurity from a corpse. **And why** does he do so? **Say** instead that the ***a fortiori*** inference **is effective** in deriving the *halakha* that the mat can contract ritual impurity from a corpse, but only **with regard to** rendering it **impure until nightfall,** and also say that the principle: **It is sufficient, is effective** by limiting the scope of the *a fortiori* inference **to exclude** the possibility that the mat would be rendered **impure for seven** days.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:5
[Bava Kamma 25b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר רְמָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר זְכַרְיָה לְאַבָּיֵי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תַּנָּא – מִמַּפָּץ בְּשֶׁרֶץ מַיְיתֵי לַהּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מַפָּץ בְּשֶׁרֶץ מִנַּיִין? וְדִין הוּא, וּמָה פַּכִּין קְטַנִּים – שֶׁטְּהוֹרִים בְּזָב, טְמֵאִין בְּשֶׁרֶץ; מַפָּץ – שֶׁטָּמֵא בְּזָב, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא טָמֵא בְּשֶׁרֶץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said to** Rav Aḥa: This question **was already raised** by **Rav Naḥman bar Zekharya to Abaye, and Abaye said to him** in response: This ***tanna*** does not derive the *halakha* with regard to the mat through an *a fortiori* inference from the case of a *zav*. Rather, he **derives it from** the *halakha* of **a mat** that came into contact **with** the carcass of **a creeping animal, and this is** what **he is saying:** The first derivation is as follows: **From where** is it derived that **a mat** is susceptible to impurity imparted **by** the carcass of **a creeping animal? And it is a logical derivation** based on an *a fortiori* inference: **And just as small vessels, which** remain **pure** despite contact **with a *zav*,** nevertheless become **impure from** contact with the carcass of **a creeping animal, is it not right that a mat, which** becomes **impure from the impurity of a *zav*, will** likewise become **impure from** contact with the carcass of **a creeping animal?**


###### Bava Kamma 25b:6
[Bava Kamma 25b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:6)

אֶלָּא מַפָּץ בְּמֵת מִנַּיִין? נֶאֱמַר ״בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר״ בְּשֶׁרֶץ, וְנֶאֱמַר ״בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר״ בְּמֵת; מָה ״בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר״ הָאָמוּר בְּשֶׁרֶץ – מַפָּץ טָמֵא בּוֹ, אַף ״בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר״ הָאָמוּר בְּמֵת – מַפָּץ טָמֵא בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The second derivation is as follows: **But from where** is it derived that **a mat** contracts impurity **from a corpse?** It is derived through a verbal analogy. **With regard to** impurity imparted by the carcass of **a creeping animal, it is stated:** “Or **a garment or leather”** (Leviticus 11:32), **and with regard to** impurity imparted by **a corpse it is stated: “A garment, or** anything made of **leather”** (Numbers 31:20). **Just as** with regard to the terms **“garment” and “leather” stated with regard to a creeping animal, a mat** becomes **impure from it, so too** with regard to the terms **“garment” and “leather” stated with regard to a corpse, a mat** becomes **impure from it.**


###### Bava Kamma 25b:7
[Bava Kamma 25b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:7)

מוּפְנֶה; דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֶה, אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ: מָה לְשֶׁרֶץ – שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, תֹּאמַר בְּמֵת – שֶׁאֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: It must be that the words “garment” and “leather” are **free,** i.e., those terms must be extraneous in their contexts, and the Torah included them for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy, as a verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted. **Because if** these terms are **not free,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted: What** is unique **about a creeping animal?** It is unique in **that** it **renders** items **impure** even **by means of** contact with **a lentil-bulk** of a creeping animal. **Shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to a corpse,** whose *halakhot* are less strict **in that** it **does not render** items **impure by means of** contact with **a lentil-bulk** of a corpse but **rather by means of** contact with **an olive-bulk?** Unless the terms are free, the analogy can be refuted.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:8
[Bava Kamma 25b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:8)

לָאיֵי אִפְּנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה – מִכְּדֵי שֶׁרֶץ אִתַּקַּשׁ לְשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא וְגוֹ׳״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל שֶׁרֶץ״; וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע: ״וְכׇל בֶּגֶד וְכׇל עוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה עָלָיו שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara affirms: **Indeed,** the terms **are free.** The Gemara proves that the terms “garment” and “leather” are extraneous in their context. **Now, since** ritual impurity imparted by contact with **a creeping animal is juxtaposed to** ritual impurity imparted by contact with **semen, as it is written:** “And one who comes into contact with anyone impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, **or a man from whom** semen **is emitted”** (Leviticus 22:4), **and juxtaposed to that** verse is the verse: **“Or a man who touches any creeping animal** which makes him impure, or a person who may make him impure with any impurity that he has” (Leviticus 22:5); **and it is written with regard to** the impurity of **semen: “And every garment and all leather that has semen on it** shall be washed with water and will be impure until evening” (Leviticus 15:17), since the verses appear next to each other, the *halakhot* of each can be derived from the other.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:9
[Bava Kamma 25b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:9)

״בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּשֶׁרֶץ – לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, **why do I** need the words **“garment” and “leather” that the Merciful One wrote with regard to a creeping animal?** The relevant *halakha* could be derived from the *halakhot* of seminal impurity. Consequently, **learn from it** that “garment” and “leather” were mentioned **to render them free,** i.e., extraneous, but the Torah included them for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:10
[Bava Kamma 25b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:10)

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא! הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד – לְמֵידִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין, שַׁפִּיר; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמֵידִין וּמְשִׁיבִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And still,** the terms “garment” and “leather” **are free** only **from one side** of the verbal analogy, because although the terms “garment” and “leather,” stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal, are extraneous in their context, as the relevant *halakha* could have been derived in another manner, those terms stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse are not extraneous in their context. **This works out well according to the one who says** that with regard to a verbal analogy that is **free from** only **one side, one can derive from it and** one **cannot refute** it logically; **it is well. But according to the one who says** that **one can derive** a *halakha* **from** a verbal analogy of this kind **and** one **can** also **refute** it logically, **what can be said?** It has already been established that the carcass of a creeping animal is stricter in some senses than a corpse.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:11
[Bava Kamma 25b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:11)

דְּמֵת נָמֵי אִפְּנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה – מִכְּדֵי מֵת אִתַּקַּשׁ לְשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכׇל טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ, אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ וְגוֹ׳״; וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע: ״וְכׇל בֶּגֶד וְכׇל עוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה עָלָיו שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״; ״בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמֵת – לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי, וְהָוֵי מוּפְנֶה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The terms “garment” and “leather,” as stated **with regard to** impurity imparted by **a corpse, are also free. Since** the impurity of **a corpse is juxtaposed with** that of **semen, as it is written: “And one who comes into contact with anyone impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, or a man from whom** semen **is emitted”** (Leviticus 22:4), **and it is written with regard to semen: “And every garment and all leather that has semen on it”** (Leviticus 15:17), **why do I** need the terms **“garment” and “leather” that the Merciful One wrote with regard to** impurity imparted by **a corpse? Learn from it** that they are mentioned in order **to render them free, and** therefore **it is free from both sides.**


###### Bava Kamma 25b:12
[Bava Kamma 25b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:12)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ – וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַאּ; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this from a different angle: **This works out well according to the one who says: Infer** the *halakha* **from it and interpret it according to its** new **place.** This would mean that the *halakha* that a mat becomes impure from a corpse is derived from the *halakha* that a mat becomes impure from semen, but the details of that impurity, i.e., the length of the time it is impure, are interpreted according to the *halakhot* of impurity imparted by a corpse, for seven days. **But according to the one who says: Infer** the *halakha* **from it and** infer the details of the *halakha* **from it** as well, which would mean that the details of the impurity would also be interpreted according to the *halakhot* of impurity imparted by semen, **what can be said?** According to the latter opinion, it should be concluded that just as the impurity imparted to a mat by the carcass of a creeping animal lasts only until nightfall, so too, a mat rendered impure by a corpse remains impure only until nightfall.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:13
[Bava Kamma 25b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:13)

אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִבַּסְתֶּם בִּגְדֵיכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי״ – כׇּל טְמָאוֹת שֶׁאַתֶּם מִטַּמְּאִין בְּמֵת, לֹא יְהוּ פְּחוּתִין מִשִּׁבְעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response to this, **Rava said:** This opinion does not lead to that conclusion, as there is a Torah edict indicating otherwise. **The verse states** (Numbers 31:24): **“And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day.”** This teaches that **any ritually impure** items **that you render impure** due to contact **with a corpse must** remain impure for a period of **no less than seven** days. Therefore, since it has been inferred that the mat is susceptible to the impurity imparted by a corpse, it automatically falls into the same category of other items similarly rendered impure by a corpse and must remain impure for a period of at least seven days.


###### Bava Kamma 25b:14
[Bava Kamma 25b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:14)

וּתְהֵא שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל חַיָּיב בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר – וּמָה קֶרֶן, שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חַיֶּיבֶת; שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל, שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חַיָּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Up to this point, the Gemara discussed how to properly apply the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an *a fortiori* inference to be like its source. It now returns to discussing the main subject of the mishna, which is the various views concerning Goring, the primary category of damage. The Gemara suggests: **And let** one be held **liable** for **Eating and Trampling** if these take place **in the public domain.** This can be inferred **via** an ***a fortiori*** inference, as follows: **And if** with regard to damage classified as **Goring, for which,** if it took place **on the property of the injured** party, according to the Rabbis one is liable to **pay only half** the cost of **the damage, yet** the owner of the animal is nevertheless **liable** for damage caused **in the public domain,** then with regard to damage classified as **Eating and Trampling,** whose *halakhot* are more strict, **as** one **pays the full** cost of the **damage** caused **on the property of the injured** party, **is it not right that** one should be **liable** for damage caused **in the public domain?**


###### Bava Kamma 25b:15
[Bava Kamma 25b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/25b:15)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ – וְלֹא בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **The verse states** with regard to Eating or Trampling (Exodus 22:4): **“And it consumed in the field of another,”** meaning that one’s liability for this form of damage is limited to damage caused on the property of the injured party, but **not** for damage caused **in the public domain.**