## Bava Kamma Daf 5b

###### Bava Kamma 5b:1
[Bava Kamma 5b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/5b:1)

לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא תַּרְתֵּי, וְתֵיתֵי אִידַּךְ מִינַּיְיהוּ; הֲדַר אָמַר: חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי לָא אָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let the Merciful One write** only **two** of the primary categories **and derive** the **other** categories **from them. Then** the *tanna* **says:** It is **not** possible to **derive one** category **from two** other categories, as each category has its own unique characteristics, which prevent the derivation of a new category even from a combination of two categories.


###### Bava Kamma 5b:2
[Bava Kamma 5b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/5b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְכוּלְּהוּ כִּי שָׁדֵית בּוֹר בֵּינַיְיהוּ – אָתְיָא כּוּלְּהוּ בַּמֶּה הַצַּד, לְבַר מִקֶּרֶן; מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ, מָה לְכוּלְּהוּ שֶׁכֵּן מוּעָדִין מִתְּחִילָּתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: And** with regard to **all of** the primary categories in the mishna, **when you cast** the primary category of **Pit among them, all** of the rest **of them can** then **be derived through** an analogy based on **the common factor** of two categories. This is the case with all of the categories **except for Goring, due to** the fact **that there is** room **to refute** the analogy to teach the *halakha* of Goring with the following contention: **What** is notable **about all of** the other categories? They are notable **in that they are forewarned from their outset.** Since it is the typical manner of the animal to trample and eat, and the typical manner of fire to burn, and the typical manner of a pit to serve as an obstacle, the owner is always forewarned with regard to safeguarding against damage and is liable to pay full damages for his failure to prevent the damage even the first time. With regard to Goring, the animal is innocuous for the first three instances of damage and only thereafter is the animal forewarned, rendering its owner liable to pay full damages.


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

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אַדְּרַבָּה, קֶרֶן עֲדִיפָא – שֶׁכַּוּוֹנָתוֹ לְהַזִּיק; אֲפִילּוּ קֶרֶן נָמֵי אָתְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to the one who says: On the contrary, Goring is superior** in the sense that one’s liability in a case of Goring is more apparent, **as the objective of** the ox’s action **is to cause damage, even Goring** can **be derived** from the common factor of two sources.


###### Bava Kamma 5b:4
[Bava Kamma 5b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/5b:4)

אֶלָּא לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא כַּתְבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא? לְהִלְכוֹתֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if all the categories can be derived from another category and Pit, **for** the purpose of deriving **what *halakha* did the Merciful One write** all the primary categories explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is in order **to** derive **their** unique ***halakhot*** that apply exclusively to each category.


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

קֶרֶן – לְחַלֵּק בֵּין תַּמָּה לְמוּעֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Goring** is written explicitly in order **to distinguish between** the *halakhot* of damage caused by **an innocuous** animal **and** damage caused by **a forewarned** animal.


###### Bava Kamma 5b:6
[Bava Kamma 5b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/5b:6)

שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל – לְפוֹטְרָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Eating and Trampling** are written explicitly in order **to exempt** from liability those whose animals perform the actions in these categories **in a public domain.**


###### Bava Kamma 5b:7
[Bava Kamma 5b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/5b:7)

בּוֹר – לִפְטוֹר בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּמְחַיֵּיב עַל נִזְקֵי כֵלִים בְּבוֹר – לִפְטוֹר בּוֹ אֶת הָאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Pit** is written explicitly in order **to exempt** one from liability **for** damage to **vessels** caused when they fall into a pit. The Gemara adds: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable** even **for damage to vessels** caused when they fall **into a pit,** Pit was written in order **to exempt** one from liability **for** the death of **a person** who was killed by falling into a pit. Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the possessor of the pit is exempt because the person who ultimately fell into the pit was capable of avoiding it.


###### Bava Kamma 5b:8
[Bava Kamma 5b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/5b:8)

אָדָם – לְחַיְּיבוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Man** is written explicitly in order **to render him liable for four** additional **types** of indemnity, beyond the payment of damages for the diminution in value caused when one injures a person.


###### Bava Kamma 5b:9
[Bava Kamma 5b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/5b:9)

אֵשׁ – לִפְטוֹר בּוֹ אֶת הַטָּמוּן. וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּמְחַיֵּיב עַל נִזְקֵי טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Fire** is written explicitly in order **to exempt** one from liability for damage caused to **a concealed** object, e.g., one hidden by grain, that was consumed by fire. The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable** even **for damage** done to **a concealed** object damaged by **fire, to add what** *halakha* does the Torah mention the category of Fire explicitly?