## Bava Kamma Daf 3b

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

וְאִי דְּלָא אַפְקְרִינְהוּ – אִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִבּוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר; וְאִי לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ שׁוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** it is a case **where one did not declare them ownerless, there is still a difficulty. If** Rav Pappa’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel, who says: We learned** that one is liable for damage caused by **all** obstacles that he places in a public domain, whether or not he declares them ownerless, **from** the *halakhot* with regard to **one’s pit, these** cases **are** a subcategory of **Pit. And if** Rav Pappa’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav, who says: We learned** that one is liable for damage caused by **all** obstacles that he places in a public domain that he did not declare ownerless, **from** the *halakhot* with regard to **one’s ox** that gored another animal, **these** cases **are** a subcategory of **Ox.** With regard to the subcategories of Ox, the Gemara already established that their legal status is like that of the primary category of Ox.


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

מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן תְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – תְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתָן לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְבוֹר כְּבוֹר, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְמַבְעֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks concerning an obstacle that is a subcategory of Pit: **What is different** about **Pit** that it is defined it as a unique category? It is **that its initial formation,** i.e., the digging of the pit, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** it is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage to others, is incumbent **upon you.** In **these** subcategories of Pit, **too, their initial formation,** i.e., the placement of the obstacle in the public domain, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** they are **your property, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you. Rather,** it is apparent that the status of **a subcategory of Pit is like** that of the primary category of **Pit, and when Rav Pappa says:** There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he is referring **to a subcategory of *Maveh*.**


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

מַאי נִיהוּ? אִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: מַבְעֶה זוֹ שֵׁן – הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא תּוֹלָדָה דְשֵׁן כְּשֵׁן. אִי לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם – מַאי אָבוֹת וּמַאי תּוֹלָדוֹת אִית בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The meaning of the term *Maveh* is not clear; therefore, the Gemara asks: **What is** the primary category of *Maveh* to whose subcategories the Gemara referred? **If** one suggests that Rav Pappa said his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel, who says: *Maveh*, this** is the category of **Eating,** this cannot be Rav Pappa’s intent. **But didn’t we** already **establish** that the legal status of **a subcategory of Eating is like** that of the primary category of **Eating?** Clearly, Rav Pappa was not referring to subcategories of *Maveh*. And **if** one suggests that Rav Pappa said his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav, who says: *Maveh*, this** is the primary category of **Man,** which includes damage caused by a person, not by his property or animals, **what primary categories and what subcategories are there in** that category? The *halakha* is the same with regard to all damage that a person causes.


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָב – נֵיעוֹר, תּוֹלָדָה – יָשֵׁן; וְהָתְנַן: אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין עֵר בֵּין יָשֵׁן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that there is a distinction: The **primary category** is a case where one causes damage while **awake,** and **a subcategory** is a case where one causes damage while **asleep; but didn’t we learn** in a mishna (26a): The legal status of **a person** is **always** that of one **forewarned,** and he is liable for any damage that he causes, **both** when **he is awake and** when **he is asleep?** Accordingly, that is not the distinction between a primary category and a subcategory.


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

אֶלָּא אַכִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָזְלִי קָמַזְּקִי – כֹּחוֹ הָוֵה! אִי בָּתַר דְּנָיַיח – בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְמַבְעֶה כְּמַבְעֶה. וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, אַתּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps Rav Pappa was referring **to** cases where one causes damage with **his phlegm or his spittle.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** where one would be liable for damage in that case? **If** it is a case **where** his phlegm and spittle **cause damage as they were moving** through the air after the person expectorated, that **is** damage caused by **his** direct **action** and there is no room to distinguish between the damage that it caused and any other damage caused by one’s direct action. **If** it is a case where his phlegm or spittle causes damage **after it comes to rest** on the ground, e.g., if one slipped in the spittle, fell, and was injured, **both according to Rav and according to Shmuel this is** a subcategory of **Pit,** as the spittle is an ownerless obstacle in the public domain. **Rather,** it is apparent that the status of **a subcategory of *Maveh* is like** that of the primary category of ***Maveh*, and when Rav Pappa says:** There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them; he was referring **to a subcategory of Fire.**


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

תּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא אַבְנוֹ, סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ, וְנָפְלוּ בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה וְהִזִּיקוּ; הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָזְלוּ קָא מַזְּקִי – הַיְינוּ אֵשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is a subcategory of Fire? If we say** that it is a case of **his stone, his knife, or his load, where he placed them on top of his roof, and they fell** off the roof **by means of a common wind, and they caused damage, what are the circumstances** in which one would be liable for the damage that was caused? **If** it is a case **where** those items **caused damage as they were moving** through the air propelled by the wind, **that is** a case of **Fire.**


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

מַאי שְׁנָא אֵשׁ – דְּכֹחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – כֹּחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ! אֶלָּא תּוֹלָדָה דְאֵשׁ כְּאֵשׁ, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – אַתּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **what is different** about **Fire** that defines it as a unique category? What is different is **that another force,** the wind, **is involved with** the fire in causing damage, as the wind causes the fire to spread, **and** the fire is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** In **these** subcategories of Fire **too, another force is involved with** the items placed on the roof and causes damage, as the wind causes them to fall, **and** they are **your property, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you. Rather,** it is apparent that the status of **a subcategory of Fire is like** that of the primary category of **Fire, and when Rav Pappa says:** There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he was referring **to a subcategory of Trampling.**


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

רֶגֶל?! הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל כְּרֶגֶל! בַּחֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: A subcategory of **Trampling? But didn’t we** already **establish that** the status of **a subcategory of Trampling is similar to** that of the primary category of **Trampling?** The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa was referring **to** one’s liability to pay **half the** cost of the **damage** caused by **pebbles** in a case where they were inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, **which is a *halakha* learned through tradition** and not explicitly written in the Torah.


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

וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל? לְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if it is a unique halakhic category and the payment is different, **why is it characterized** as **a subcategory of Trampling?** The Gemara explains: It is due to the fact that it shares a common aspect with Trampling. One whose animal propels pebbles while it walks and thereby causes damage is liable **to pay** half of the damages **from** his **superior-quality** property, and he does not pay only from the body of his animal, as is the *halakha* concerning half the cost of the damage paid by the owner of an innocuous ox that gored a person or an animal.


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

וְהָא מִבַּעְיָא בָּעֵי רָבָא – דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת – מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, אוֹ מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rava raise a dilemma** with regard to that matter? **As Rava raised a dilemma:** With regard to one’s liability to pay **half** the cost of **the damage** caused by **pebbles** propelled by the foot of his animal, does **one pay** damages exclusively **from** the **body** of his ox that caused the damage, **or** does **one pay** damages **from** his **superior-quality** property?


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

לְרָבָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, לְרַב פָּפָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Although **it is a dilemma for Rava, it is obvious to Rav Pappa** that one pays from his superior-quality property, and in that sense, he classified the pebbles that cause damage as a subcategory of Trampling.


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

לְרָבָא דְּמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, אַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל? לְפוֹטְרָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to Rava, who raises it as a dilemma, why is it characterized** as **a subcategory of Trampling** when its legal status is different both in terms of the extent of one’s liability and in terms of the manner of payment? The Gemara explains: It is classified as a subcategory of Trampling in order **to exempt** from liability pebbles that cause damage **in the public domain,** just as damage in the category of Trampling is exempt in the public domain.


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

הַמַּבְעֶה וְהַהֶבְעֵר כּוּ׳. מַאי ״מַבְעֶה״? רַב אָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַבְעֶה זֶה הַשֵּׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ One of the primary categories of damage enumerated in the mishna is **the** category of ***Maveh* and** another is **the** category of **Fire.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of ***Maveh*? Rav says: *Maveh*, that** is the category of **Man,** which includes a person who causes damage, but not the property or animal of a person that causes damage. **And Shmuel says: *Maveh*, this** is **the** category of **Eating.**


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

רַב אָמַר מַבְעֶה זֶה אָדָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״אָמַר שֹׁמֵר אָתָא בֹקֶר וְגַם לָיְלָה, אִם תִּבְעָיוּן בְּעָיוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rav says: *Maveh*, this** is the category of **Man, as it is written: “The watchman said: Morning has come, and also night; if you will inquire [*tivayun*], inquire [*be’ayu*]”** (Isaiah 21:12). The terms “*tivayun*” and “*be’ayu*,” meaning inquire, refer to a person, who is able to inquire. Accordingly, *Maveh* relates to an action performed by a person.


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

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַבְעֶה זֶה הַשֵּׁן, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיךְ נֶחְפְּשׂוּ עֵשָׂו, נִבְעוּ מַצְפֻּנָיו״. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵיכְדֵין אִיתְבְּלֵישׁ עֵשָׂו, אִתְגַּלִּין מַטְמֹרוֹהִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says: *Maveh*, this is the** category of **Eating, as it is written: “How is Esau searched out [*neḥpesu*]; how are his hidden places revealed [*nivu*]”** (Obadiah 1:6)? The terms *nivu* and *maveh* share a common root. The Gemara asks: **From where may** it **be inferred** that *nivu* connotes Eating? The Gemara explains that it is **as Rav Yosef translates** the verse into Aramaic: **How is Esau searched out [*itbelish*]; how are his hidden places revealed [*itgaleyan*]?** The meaning of the Aramaic term *itgaleyan* means revealed, and that is the meaning of the Hebrew term “*nivu*.” *Maveh* references the animal’s teeth, which are covered when its mouth is closed and revealed when it eats.


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

וְרַב, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל? אָמַר לָךְ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״נִבְעֶה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rav, what is the reason** that **he did not say** that *Maveh* refers to Eating, **as** does **Shmuel?** The Gemara explains that Rav could have **said to you: Is it taught** in the mishna: ***Niveh*?** *Niveh* is the passive form of the word *maveh*, which would be the appropriate form if the reference was to teeth that are revealed. The term in the mishna is *maveh*, an active form of the verb.


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

וּשְׁמוּאֵל, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב? אָמַר לְךָ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״בּוֹעֶה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for **Shmuel, what is the reason** that **he did not say** that *Maveh* refers to the category of Man, **as** does **Rav?** The Gemara explains that Shmuel could have **said to you: Is it taught** in the mishna: ***Bo’eh*?** *Bo’eh* is a form of the word *maveh* connoting an action taken directly, which would be appropriate were the reference to one’s actions that cause damage. The term in the mishna is *maveh*, which connotes an action that one causes another to take.


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

מִכְּדֵי קְרָאֵי לָא כְּמַר דָּיְיקִי וְלָא כְּמַר דָּיְיקִי, רַב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל? תְּנָא שׁוֹר – וְכׇל מִילֵּי דְשׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **After all, the** meaning of the term in the **verses is not precise according to** one **Sage,** Rav, **and** it **is not precise according to** the other **Sage,** Shmuel. It is apparent that their dispute is not based upon their interpretation of the verses; it must be based on another issue. The Gemara asks again: As for **Rav, what is the reason** that **he did not say** that *Maveh* refers to Eating, **as** does **Shmuel?** The Gemara explains: Rav holds that the *tanna* **teaches** the primary category of **Ox** in the mishna. This includes damage caused by an ox **and all matters** involving damaging actions **that** are completed by **an ox,** i.e., the actions included in the categories of Goring, Eating, and Trampling. Perforce, *Maveh* refers to a different category of damage, i.e., Man.


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

וּשְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ שׁוֹר! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: תְּנָא שׁוֹר – לְקַרְנוֹ, וּמַבְעֶה – לְשִׁינּוֹ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא רְאִי הַקֶּרֶן – שֶׁאֵין הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקוֹ, כִּרְאִי הַשֵּׁן – שֶׁיֵּשׁ הֲנָאָה לְהֶזֵּיקָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Shmuel too,** who interpreted *Maveh* as Eating, **doesn’t** the mishna **teach** the category of **Ox,** which should include all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox? **Rav Yehuda said** that according to Shmuel, the *tanna* **teaches Ox** specifically with regard **to** damage caused with **its horn, and** it teaches ***Maveh*** with regard **to** damage caused with **its tooth. And** when the mishna contrasts Ox with *Maveh*, **this is** what the *tanna* **is saying:** The defining **characteristic** of **the** primary category of **Goring, where there is no** inherent **pleasure** for the animal **in** the course of **its** causing **damage, is not similar to** the defining **characteristic** of **the** category of **Eating, where there is pleasure** for the animal **in** the course of **its** causing **damage.**