and the other said: For seven days. Others, however, said: For thirty days.1
Our Rabbis taught: And they did him honour at his death, in the case of Hezekiah the king of Judah, means that there marched before him thirty-six2 thousand [warriors] with bare shoulders;3 this is the view of R. Judah. R. Nehemiah, however, said to him: Did they not do the same before Ahab?4 [In the case of Hezekiah] they placed the scroll of the Law upon his coffin and declared: 'This one fulfilled all that which is written there.' But do we not even now do the same [on appropriate occasions]?5 — We only bring out [the scroll of the Law] but do not place [it on the coffin].5 It may alternatively be said that sometimes we also place [it on the coffin] but do not say. 'He fulfilled [the law] …'
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: I was once following R. Johanan for the purpose of asking him about the [above] matter. He, however, at that moment went into a toilet room. [When he reappeared and] I put the matter before him, he did not answer until he had washed his hands, put on phylacteries and pronounced the benediction.6 Then he said to us: Even if sometimes we also say. 'He fulfilled [the law] …' we never say. 'He expounded [the law] …' But did not the Master say: The importance of the study of the law is enhanced by the fact that the study of the law is conducive to [the] practice [of the law]?7 — This, however, offers no difficulty; the latter statement deals with studying [the law], the former with teaching [the law].
R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai:8 What is the meaning of the verse: Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters, that send forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass?9 Whoever is occupied with [the study of] the law and with [deeds of] charity, is worthy of the inheritance of two tribes,10 as it is said: Blessed are ye that sow … Now, sowing [in this connection] signifies 'charity', as stated, Sow to yourselves in charity, reap in kindness;11 again, water [in this connection] signifies 'the law' as stated, Lo, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.12
'He is worthy of the inheritance of two tribes:' He is worthy of an inheritance13 like Joseph, as it is written: Joseph is a fruitful bough … whose branches run over the wall;14 he is also worthy of the inheritance of Issachar, as it is written: Issachar is a strong ass.15 There are some who say, His enemies will fall before him, as it is written: With them he shall push the people together, to the ends of the earth.16 He is worthy of understanding like Issachar, as it is written: And of the children of Issachar which were men that had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do.17
MISHNAH. WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT IS FOOT MU'AD?18 [IT IS MU'AD:] TO BREAK [THINGS] IN THE COURSE OF WALKING. ANY ANIMAL IS MU'AD TO WALK IN ITS USUAL WAY AND TO BREAK [THINGS]. BUT IF IT WAS KICKING OR PEBBLES WERE FLYING FROM UNDER ITS FEET AND UTENSILS WERE [IN CONSEQUENCE] BROKEN, [ONLY] HALF-DAMAGES WILL BE PAID. IF IT TROD UPON A UTENSIL AND BROKE IT, AND A FRAGMENT [OF IT] FELL UPON ANOTHER UTENSIL WHICH WAS ALSO BROKEN, FOR THE FIRST UTENSIL FULL DAMAGES MUST BE PAID,19 BUT FOR THE SECOND, [ONLY] HALF-DAMAGES WILL BE PAID.20
Baba Kamma 17b
GEMARA. Rabina said to Raba: Is not FOOT [Mentioned in the commencing clause] identical with ANIMAL [mentioned in the second clause]?1 — He answered him: [In the commencing clause the Mishnah] deals with Principals2 whereas [in the second clause] derivatives are introduced.3 But according to this, the subsequent Mishnah stating, 'Tooth is Mu'ad … Any animal is Mu'ad …'4 what Principals and what derivatives could be distinguished there?5 — Raba, however, answered him humorously, 'I expounded one [Mishnah], it is now for you to expound the other.' But what indeed is the explanation [regarding the other Mishnah]? — R. Ashi said: [In the first clause, the Mishnah] speaks of 'Tooth' of beast, whereas [in the second place] 'Tooth' of cattle is dealt with. For it might have been thought that since he shall put in be'iroh [his cattle]6 is stated in Scripture, the law concerning Tooth should apply only to cattle, but not to beast; it is therefore made known to us that beast is included in the term 'animal'. If so, cattle7 should be dealt with first! — Beast, which is deduced by means of interpretation, is more important [to the Mishnah which thus gives it priority]. If so, also in the opening Mishnah [dealing with FOOT, the same method should have been adopted] to state first that which is not recorded [in Scripture]?8 — What a comparison! There [in the case of Tooth] where both [beast and cattle] are Principals, that which is introduced by means of interpretation is preferable; but here [in the case of Foot], how could the Principal be deferred and the derivative placed first?9 You may alternatively say: Since [in the previous chapter the Mishnah] concludes with 'Foot',10 it commences here with 'Foot'.
Our Rabbis taught: An animal is Mu'ad to walk in its usual way and to break [things]. That is to say, in the case of an animal entering into the plaintiff's premises and doing damage [either] with its body while in motion, or with its hair while in motion, or with the saddle [which was] upon it, or with the load [which was] upon it, or with the bit in its mouth, or with the bell on its neck,11 similarly in the case of an ass [doing damage] with its load, the payment must be in full. Symmachus says: In the case of Pebbles12 or in the case of a pig burrowing in a dunghill and doing damage. the payment is [also] in full.
[In the case of a pig] actually doing damage, is it not obvious [that the payment must be in full]?13 — Read therefore: 'When it had caused [something of the dunghill] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, the payment will be in full.' But have Pebbles ever been mentioned [in this Baraitha, that Symmachus makes reference to them]? — There is something missing [in the text of the Baraitha where] the reading should be as follows: Pebbles, though being quite usual [with cattle, involve nevertheless] only half-damages; in the case of a pig digging in a dunghill and causing [something of it] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, only half-damages will therefore be paid. Symmachus, however, says: In the case of Pebbles, and similarly in the case of a pig digging in a dunghill and causing [something of it] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, the payment must he in full.
Our Rabbis taught: In the case of poultry flying from one place to another and breaking utensils with their wings. the payment must be in full: but if the damage was done by the vibration that resulted from their wings, only half-damages will be paid.14 Symmachus. however, says: [In all cases] the payment must be in full.15
Another [Baraitha] taught: In the case of poultry hopping upon dough or upon fruits which they either made dirty or picked at, the payment will be in full; but if the damage resulted from their raising there dust or pebbles, only half damages14 will be paid. Symmachus. however, says: [In all cases] the payment must be in full.
Another [Baraitha] taught: In the case of poultry flying from one place to another, and breaking vessels with the vibration from their wings, only half-damages will be paid. This anonymous Baraitha records the view of the Rabbis.16
Raba said: This fits in very well with [the view of] Symmachus who maintains that [damage done by an animal's] force17 falls under the law applicable to [damage done by its] body;18 but what about the Rabbis? If they too maintain that [damage done by an animal's] force is subject to the same law that is applicable to [damage done by its] body, why then not pay in full? If on the other hand it is not subject to the law of damage done by a body, why pay even half damages? — Raba [in answer] said: It may indeed be subject to the law applicable to damage done by a body, yet the payment of half damages in the case of Pebbles is a halachic principle based on a special tradition.19
Raba said: Whatever would involve defilement in [the activities of] a zab20 will in the case of damage involve full payment, whereas that which in [the activities of] a zab would not involve defilement,21 will in the case-of damage involve only half damages. Was Raba's sole intention to intimate to us [the law of] Pebbles?22 — No, Raba meant to tell us the law regarding cattle23 drawing a waggon [over utensils which were thus broken].24 It has indeed been taught in accordance with [the view expressed by] Raba: An animal is Mu'ad to break [things] in the course of walking. How is that? In the case of an animal entering into the plaintiff's premises and doing damage either with its body while in motion, or with its hair while in motion, or with the saddle [which was] upon it, or with the load [which was] upon it, or with the bit in its mouth, or with the bell on its neck, similarly in the case of an ass [doing damage] with its load, or again, in the case of a calf drawing a waggon [over utensils which were thus broken], the payment must be in full.
Our Rabbis taught: In the case of poultry picking at a cord attached to a pail so that the cord was snapped asunder and the bucket broken, the payment must be in full.
Raba asked: In the case of [cattle] treading upon a utensil which has not been broken at once, but which was rolled away to some other place where it was then broken, what is the law? Shall we go by the original cause [of the damage in our determination of the law], which would thus amount to damage done by the body,25 or shall only [the result, i.e.] the breaking of the utensil be the determining factor, amounting thus to Pebbles? — But why not solve the problem from a statement made by Rabbah?26 For Rabbah said:27 If a man threw [his fellow's] utensil from the top of a roof and another one came and and broke it with a stick [before it fell upon the ground. where it would in any case have been broken], the latter is under no liability to pay, as we say. 'It was only a broken utensil that was broken by him.' [Is not this the best proof that it is the cause of the damage which is the determining factor?]28 — To Rabbah that was pretty certain, whereas to Raba it was doubtful.
Come and hear: 'Hopping [with poultry] is not Mu'ad.29 Some however say: It is Mu'ad.'30 'Could 'hopping' [in itself] be thought [in any way not to be habitual with poultry]? Does it not therefore mean: 'Hopping that results in making [a utensil] fly [from one place to another so that it is broken] … 'so that the point at issue is this: The latter view maintains that the original cause [of the damage] is the determining factor30 but the former maintains that only [the result, i.e.,] the breaking of the utensil is the determining factor?31 — No,
- To Next Folio -