## Bava Kamma Daf 3a

###### Bava Kamma 3a:1
[Bava Kamma 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:1)

הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the tooth until it be all gone”** (I Kings 14:10).


###### Bava Kamma 3a:2
[Bava Kamma 3a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:2)

אָמַר מָר: ״וְשִׁלַּח״ זוֹ הָרֶגֶל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita* just cited: **“And he sends forth,” this** is a reference to **the** category of **Trampling, and likewise it says:** “Happy are you that sow beside all waters **that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey”** (Isaiah 32:20). The Gemara infers: **The reason** that the phrase: “And he sends forth,” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Trampling is **that the Merciful One writes: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey.”** The Gemara asks: Were **it not for this** verse, **with regard to what would you have interpreted** that phrase?


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

אִי קֶרֶן – כְּתִיב! אִי שֵׁן – כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to **Goring,** that cannot be, as Goring **is written** in a different verse. **If** you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to **Eating,** that too cannot be, as Eating **is written** in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Trampling, and the *baraita* had no need to prove this from the phrase: “That send forth the feet.”


###### Bava Kamma 3a:4
[Bava Kamma 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:4)

אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַשֵּׁן, וְהָא דְּמִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, הָא דְּלָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that it **is necessary** for the *baraita* to cite the verse: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey,” as it **could enter your mind to say** that both **this** phrase: “And he sends forth,” **and that** phrase: “And it consumed,” are referring **to** the primary category of **Eating, and that** phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case **where the object** damaged **is completely destroyed,** and **this** phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case **where the object** damaged **is not completely destroyed.** Therefore, the verse “that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” **teaches us** that the phrase “and he sends forth,” is referring to Trampling.


###### Bava Kamma 3a:5
[Bava Kamma 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:5)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא אַרֶגֶל, שֵׁן דְּלָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And now that we have interpreted** that the phrase “and he sends forth” is referring **to Trampling, from where do we** derive that one is liable with regard to acts categorized as **Eating** in a case **where the object** damaged **is not completely destroyed?** The primary category of Eating is derived from the phrase “and it consumed.” The connotation of that phrase is damage in which the object is completely destroyed.


###### Bava Kamma 3a:6
[Bava Kamma 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:6)

דּוּמְיָא דְרֶגֶל, מָה רֶגֶל – לָא שְׁנָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא; אַף שֵׁן – לָא שְׁנָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Eating is juxtaposed to and therefore **similar to** the category **of Trampling: Just as** with regard to liability for the category of **Trampling, it is no different** if **the object** damaged **is completely destroyed and it is no different** if **the object** damaged **is not completely destroyed; so too,** with regard to liability for the category of **Eating, it is no different** whether **the object** damaged **is completely destroyed and it is no different** whether **the object** damaged **is not completely destroyed.**


###### Bava Kamma 3a:7
[Bava Kamma 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:7)

אָמַר מָר: ״וּבִעֵר״ זוֹ הַשֵּׁן, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְנָא לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in that *baraita*: When the verse states: **“And it consumed”** (Exodus 22:4), **this is** a reference to **the** category of **Eating. And likewise it states:** “And I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, **as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone”** (I Kings 14:10). The Gemara infers: **The reason** that the phrase “and it consumed” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Eating is **that the Merciful One writes: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone.”** The Gemara asks: Were **it not for this** verse, **with regard to what** case **would you have interpreted** that phrase?


###### Bava Kamma 3a:8
[Bava Kamma 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:8)

אִי קֶרֶן – כְּתִיב! אִי רֶגֶל – כְּתִיב! אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַרֶגֶל, הָא דְּאָזֵיל מִמֵּילָא, הָא דְּשַׁלַּח שַׁלּוֹחֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to **Goring,** that cannot be, as Goring **is written** in a different verse. And **if** you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to **Trampling,** that too cannot be, as Trampling, **is written** in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Eating. The Gemara answers that it **is necessary** for the *baraita* to cite the verse: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone,” as it **could enter your mind to say** that both **this** phrase: “And it consumed,” **and that** phrase: “And he sends forth,” are referring **to** the primary category of **Trampling, and this** phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case **where** the animal **went** and caused damage **on its own,** and **that** phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case **where** the owner **sent** the animal to cause damage. Therefore, the verse “as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” **teaches us** that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring to Eating.


###### Bava Kamma 3a:9
[Bava Kamma 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:9)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקֵי אַשֵּׁן, רֶגֶל דְּאָזְלָה מִמֵּילָא – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And now that we have interpreted** that the phrase “and it consumed” is referring **to Eating, from where do we** derive that one is liable with regard to actions categorized as **Trampling** in a case **where** the animal **went** and caused damage **on its own?** The primary category of Trampling is derived from the phrase “and he sends forth.” The connotation of that phrase is a case where the owner sent the animal to cause damage.


###### Bava Kamma 3a:10
[Bava Kamma 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:10)

דּוּמְיָא דְשֵׁן, מָה שֵׁן – לָא שְׁנָא שַׁלְּחַהּ שַׁלּוֹחֵי, לָא שְׁנָא דְּאָזֵל מִמֵּילָא; אַף רֶגֶל – לָא שְׁנָא שַׁלְּחַהּ שַׁלּוֹחֵי, לָא שְׁנָא אָזְלָה מִמֵּילָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is derived because the category of Trampling is juxtaposed to and therefore **similar to** the category **of Eating: Just as** with regard to liability for the category of **Eating, it is no different** if the owner **sent** the animal to cause damage and **it is no different** if the animal **went** and caused damage **on its own, so too,** with regard to liability for the category of **Trampling, it is no different** if the owner **sent** the animal to cause damage and **it is no different** if the animal **went** and caused damage **on its own.**


###### Bava Kamma 3a:11
[Bava Kamma 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:11)

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְשִׁלַּח״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״וּבִעֵר״; דְּמַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן – מַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל, דִּכְתִיב: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״; וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁן בְּהֵמֹת אֲשַׁלַּח בָּם״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let the Merciful One write** only the first phrase, **“and he sends forth,” and there would be no need** to write the second phrase, **“and it consumed,” as** the phrase “and he sends forth” **connotes Trampling and connotes Eating. It connotes Trampling, as it is written: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey”** (Isaiah 32:20), and **it connotes Eating, as it is written: “And the teeth of animals I will send forth against them”** (Deuteronomy 32:24).


###### Bava Kamma 3a:12
[Bava Kamma 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:12)

אִי לָאו קְרָא יַתִּירָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אוֹ הָא אוֹ הָא – אוֹ רֶגֶל דְּהֶזֵּיקוֹ מָצוּי, אוֹ שֵׁן דְּיֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If not for the additional** phrase in the **verse,** “and it consumed,” **I would say** that the verse refers **either** to **this** category of damage **or** to **that** category of damage: It refers **either** to **Trampling, where its damage is** commonplace, **or** to **Eating, where there is pleasure** for the animal **in** the course of **its** causing **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 3a:13
[Bava Kamma 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:13)

מִכְּדֵי שְׁקוּלִין הֵן, וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם – דְּהֵי מִנַּיְיהוּ מַפְּקַתְּ? אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכִי דְּשַׁלַּח שַׁלּוֹחֵי, אֲבָל אָזְלָא מִמֵּילָא – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Since** both interpretations **are** of **equal** validity, **let both of them come** and be derived from the verse, **as which of them will you exclude?** Since there is no reason to prefer one category over the other, perforce both are derived, and the phrase “and it consumed” is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: The additional phrase **is necessary,** as it might **enter your mind to say** that **this matter** of liability **applies** only in a case **where** the owner **sent** the animal to cause damage, **but** in a case **where** the animal **went** and caused damage **on its own,** the owner would **not** be liable for the damage. Therefore, the phrase “and it consumed” **teaches us** that the owner is liable even in a case where the ox went and caused damage on its own.


###### Bava Kamma 3a:14
[Bava Kamma 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:14)

תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן מַאי הִיא? נִתְחַכְּכָה בְּכוֹתֶל לַהֲנָאָתָהּ, וְטִינְּפָה פֵּירוֹת לַהֲנָאָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having clarified the sources for the primary categories of Eating and Trampling, the Gemara proceeds to identify their subcategories and to determine whether it was with regard to these primary categories of damage that Rav Pappa said: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them. **What is a subcategory of Eating?** It is a case where, for example, an animal **rubbed against a wall for its pleasure** and damaged the wall, **or** where **it sullied produce** by rolling on it **for its pleasure.**


###### Bava Kamma 3a:15
[Bava Kamma 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:15)

מַאי שְׁנָא שֵׁן – דְּיֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – יֵשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקָן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן כְּשֵׁן, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **what is different** about **Eating** that it is defined as a unique primary category? What is different is **that there is pleasure** for the animal **in** the course of **its** causing **damage, and** the ox is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you,** its owner. In **these** subcategories of **Eating, as well, there is pleasure** for the animals **in** the course of the **damage** that **they** cause **and** the oxen are **your property, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent your oxen from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** Therefore, the subcategories of Eating are not dissimilar to the primary category. **Rather,** it is apparent that the status of **a sub-category of Eating is like** that of the primary category of **Eating, and when Rav Pappa says:** There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring **to a subcategory of Trampling.**


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

תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל מַאי הִיא? הִזִּיקָה בְּגוּפָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ, בִּשְׂעָרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ, בִּשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is a subcategory of Trampling?** The classification is applied in a case where, for example, an animal **caused damage with its body,** not its legs, in the **course of its walking;** or caused damage **with its hair** that became entangled with an object in the **course of its walking;** or caused damage **with a rope that is upon it;** or caused damage **with a bit [*bifrumbiya*] that is in its mouth;** or caused damage **with a bell that is around its neck.**


###### Bava Kamma 3a:17
[Bava Kamma 3a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:17)

מַאי שְׁנָא רֶגֶל – דְּהֶזֵּיקוֹ מָצוּי, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – הֶזֵּיקָן מָצוּי, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל כְּרֶגֶל, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **what is different** about **Trampling** that it is defined as a unique category? What is different is **that its damage is commonplace, and** the animal is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you,** its owner. In **these** subcategories of Trampling, **as well, their damage is commonplace, and** the oxen are **your property, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** Therefore, the subcategories of Trampling are not dissimilar to the primary category. **Rather,** it is apparent that the status of **a subcategory of Trampling is like** that of the primary category of **Trampling, and when Rav Pappa says:** There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring **to a subcategory of Pit.**


###### Bava Kamma 3a:18
[Bava Kamma 3a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:18)

תּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא אָב – עֲשָׂרָה, וְתוֹלָדָה – תִּשְׁעָה; לָא תִּשְׁעָה כְּתִיבִי, וְלָא עֲשָׂרָה כְּתִיבִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara examines that assertion: **What is a subcategory of Pit? If we say** that the **primary category** of Pit applies when, in the public domain, one leaves an uncovered pit that is **ten** handbreadths deep, and that is the pit mentioned in the Torah, **and a subcategory** of Pit applies when one leaves an uncovered pit that is **nine** handbreadths deep, there is no basis for that distinction, as **neither nine** handbreadths **are written** in the Torah, **nor are ten** handbreadths **written** in the Torah.


###### Bava Kamma 3a:19
[Bava Kamma 3a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:19)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא; ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, עֲשָׂרָה – עָבְדָן מִיתָה, תִּשְׁעָה – נְזִיקִין עָבְדִי, מִיתָה לָא עָבְדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This** is **not difficult,** as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And the carcass shall be for him”** (Exodus 21:34), **and the Sages have** an accepted **tradition** that a pit **ten** handbreadths deep **causes** the **death** of an animal that falls into it, but a pit **nine** handbreadths deep **causes damage** to an animal that falls into it but **does not cause death.** Accordingly, the pit written in the Torah (Exodus 21:33), which mentions the death of the animal that fell therein, is ten handbreadths deep. This is classified as the primary category of Pit, and a pit nine handbreadths deep is its subcategory.


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

סוֹף סוֹף, זֶה אָב לְמִיתָה, וְזֶה אָב לִנְזָקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Ultimately, this** pit that is ten handbreadths deep **is a primary category** of damage with regard **to death, and that** pit that is nine handbreadths deep **is a primary category** with regard **to damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 3a:21
[Bava Kamma 3a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:21)

אֶלָּא אַאַבְנוֹ, סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rav Pappa’s statement: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, was stated in reference **to** these subcategories of Pit: **His stone, his knife, or his load,** any of **which he placed in a public domain** as obstacles, **and they caused damage** when people stumbled upon them.


###### Bava Kamma 3a:22
[Bava Kamma 3a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/3a:22)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ – בֵּין לְרַב וּבֵין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** where one is liable for damage caused by these obstacles? **If** it is a case **where one declared** these items **ownerless, both according to** the opinion of **Rav and according to** the opinion of **Shmuel,** cited later in the Gemara, **these** cases **are** a subcategory of **Pit,** as both Rav and Shmuel agree that any obstacle declared ownerless by its owner that causes damage in the public domain is a subcategory of Pit.