Bava Kamma — Daf 3a

הגלל עד תומו

אמר מר ושלח זו הרגל וכן הוא אומר משלחי רגל השור והחמור טעמא דכתב רחמנא משלחי רגל השור והחמור הא לאו הכי במאי מוקמת לה

אי קרן כתיב אי שן כתיב

איצטריך סד"א אידי ואידי אשן והא דמכליא קרנא הא דלא מכליא קרנא קמ"ל

והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל שן דלא מכליא קרנא מנלן

דומיא דרגל מה רגל לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא אף שן לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא

אמר מר (שמות כב, ד) ובער זו השן וכן הוא אומר (מלכים א יד, י) כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו טעמא דכתב רחמנא כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו הא לאו הכי במאי אוקימנא לה

אי קרן כתיב אי רגל כתיב איצטריך סד"א אידי ואידי ארגל הא דאזיל ממילא הא דשלח שלוחי קמ"ל

והשתא דאוקי אשן רגל דאזלה ממילא מנלן

דומיא דשן מה שן לא שנא שלחה שלוחי ל"ש דאזל ממילא אף רגל לא שנא שלחה שלוחי לא שנא אזלה ממילא

ולכתוב רחמנא ושילח ולא בעי וביער דמשמע רגל ומשמע שן משמע רגל דכתיב (ישעיהו לב, כ) משלחי רגל השור והחמור ומשמע שן דכתיב (דברים לב, כד) ושן בהמות אשלח בם

אי לאו קרא יתירה ה"א או הא או הא או רגל דהזיקו מצוי או שן דיש הנאה להזיקו

מכדי שקולין הן ויבאו שניהם דהי מנייהו מפקת אצטריך סד"א הני מילי היכי דשלח שלוחי אבל אזלא ממילא לא קמ"ל

תולדה דשן מאי היא נתחככה בכותל להנאתה וטינפה פירות להנאתה

מאי שנא שן דיש הנאה להזיקו וממונך ושמירתו עליך הני נמי יש הנאה להזיקן וממונך ושמירתן עליך אלא תולדה דשן כשן וכי קאמר רב פפא אתולדה דרגל

תולדה דרגל מאי היא הזיקה בגופה דרך הילוכה בשערה דרך הילוכה בשליף שעליה בפרומביא שבפיה בזוג שבצוארה

מאי שנא רגל דהזיקו מצוי וממונך ושמירתו עליך הני נמי הזיקן מצוי וממונך ושמירתן עליך אלא תולדה דרגל כרגל וכי קאמר רב פפא אתולדה דבור

תולדה דבור מאי ניהו אילימא אב י' ותולדה ט' לא ט' כתיבי ולא י' כתיבי

הא לא קשיא (שמות כא, לד) והמת יהיה לו אמר רחמנא וקים להו לרבנן י' עבדן מיתה ט' נזיקין עבדי מיתה לא עבדי

סוף סוף זה אב למיתה וזה אב לנזקין

אלא אאבנו סכינו ומשאו שהניחן ברשות הרבים והזיקו

היכי דמי אי דאפקרינהו בין לרב ובין לשמואל היינו בור

to entirety. The Master has [just] enunciated: 'And he shall send forth denotes Foot, as it is [elsewhere] expressed, That send forth the feet of the ox and the ass.' His reason then is that the Divine Law  [also] says, That send forth the feet of the ox and the ass, but even were it not so, how else could you interpret the phrase?  It could surely not refer to Horn which is already [elsewhere] set down,  nor could it refer to Tooth since this is likewise [already] set down?  — It was essential  as otherwise it might have entered your mind to regard both [phrases]  as denoting Tooth: the one when there is destruction of the corpus and the other when the corpus remains unaffected; it is therefore made known to us that this is not the case. Now that we have identified it with Foot, whence could be inferred the liability of Tooth in cases of non-destruction of the corpus? From the analogy of Foot;  just as [in the case of] Foot no difference in law is made between destruction and non-destruction of corpus, so [in the case of] Tooth no distinction is made between destruction and non-destruction of corpus. The Master has [just] enunciated: 'And it shall consume denotes Tooth, as elsewhere expressed, As the tooth consumeth to entirety.' His reason then is that the Divine Law [also] says, As the tooth consumeth to entirety, but even were it not so, how else could you interpret the phrase? It could surely not refer to Horn which is already elsewhere set down,  nor could it refer to Foot, since this is likewise elsewhere set down?  — It is essential,  as otherwise it might have entered your mind to regard both phrases  as denoting Foot: the one when the cattle went of its own accord and the other  when it was sent by its owner [to do damage]; it is, therefore, made known to us that this is not so. Now that we have identified it with Tooth, whence could be inferred the liability of Foot in cases when the cattle went of its own accord? — From the analogy of Tooth;  just as in the case of Tooth there is no difference in law whether the cattle went of its own accord or was sent by its owner, so [in the case of] Foot there is no difference in law whether the cattle went of its own accord or was sent by its owner. But supposing Divine Law had only written, And he shall send forth,  omitting And it shall consume, would it not imply both Foot and Tooth? Would it not imply Foot, as it is written, That send forth the feet of the ox and the ass? Again, would it not also imply Tooth, as it is written, And the teeth of beasts will I send upon them?  — If there were no further expression I would have said either one or the other [might be meant], either Foot, as the damage done by it is of frequent occurrence, or Tooth, as the damage done by it affords gratification.  Let us see now, they are equally balanced, let them then both be included, for which may you exclude?  — It is essential [to have the further expression], for [otherwise] it might have entered your mind to assume that these laws [of liability] apply only to intentional trespass,  exempting thus cases where the cattle went of its own accord; it is, therefore, made known to us that this is not the case. The derivative of Tooth, what is it? — When [the cattle] rubbed itself against a wall for its own pleasure [and broke it down], or when it spoiled fruits [by rolling on them] for its own pleasure. Why are these cases different? Just as Tooth affords gratification from the damage [it does] and, being your possession, is under your control, why should not this also be the case with its derivatives which similarly afford gratification from the damage [they do] and, being your possession are under your control? — The derivative of Tooth is therefore equal to Tooth, and R. Papa's statement [to the contrary]  refers to the derivative of Foot. What is the derivative of Foot? — When it did damage while in motion either with its body or with its hair, or with the load [which was] upon it, or with the bit in its mouth, or with the bell on its neck. Now, why should these cases be different? Just as Foot does frequent damage and, being your possession, is under your control, why should not this also be the case with its derivatives which similarly do frequent damage and, being your possession, are under your control? The derivative of Foot is thus equal to Foot, and R. Papa's statement [to the contrary]  refers to the derivative of the Pit. What is the derivative of Pit? It could hardly be said that the Principal is a pit of ten handbreadths deep and its derivative one nine handbreadths deep, since neither nine nor ten is stated in Scripture! — That is no difficulty: [as] And the dead beast shall be his  the Divine Law declares, and it was quite definite with the Rabbis  that ten handbreadths could occasion death, whereas nine might inflict injury but could not cause death. But however this may be, is not the one [of ten] a principal [cause] in the event of death, and the other [of nine] a principal [cause] in the event of [mere] injury? — Hence [Rab Papa's statement] must refer to a stone, a knife and luggage which were placed on public ground and did damage. In what circumstances? If they were abandoned [there], according to both Rab and Samuel,  they would be included in [the category of] Pit;