Bava Kamma

The whole Mishnah is in accordance with R. Tarfon. The commencing clause deals with premises set aside for the keeping of the plaintiff's fruits whereas both plaintiff and defendant may keep there their cattle. In respect of Tooth the premises are considered [in the eye of the law] the plaintiff's.  whereas in respect of Horn they are considered their common premises.  R. Kahana said: I repeated this statement in the presence of R. Zebid of Nehardea, and he answered me, 'How can you say that the whole Mishnah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? Has it not been stated TOOTH IS MU'AD TO CONSUME WHAT EVER IS FIT FOR IT? That which is fit for it is included,  but that which is unfit for it is not included.  But did not R. Tarfon say that for the unusual damage done by Horn on the plaintiff's premises full compensation must be paid?' — It must, therefore, still be maintained that the Mishnah is in accordance with the Rabbis, but there are some phrases missing there; the reading should be thus: 'There are five cases of Tam,'  all the five of them may eventually become Mu'ad.  Tooth and Foot are however Mu'ad ab initio, and their liability is confined to damage done on the plaintiff's premises.'  Rabina demurred: We learn later on: What is meant by [the statement] OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES [etc.]?  It is all very well if you say that this damage has previously been dealt with;  we may then well ask 'What is meant by it?' But if you say that this damage has never been dealt with previously, how could it be asked 'What is meant by it?'  — Rabina therefore said: The Mishnah is indeed incomplete, but its meaning is this: 'There are five cases of Tam,'  all the five of them may eventually become Mu'ad  — Tooth and Foot are Mu'ad ab initio.  In this way Ox is definitely Mu'ad. As to Ox doing damage on the plaintiff's premises there is a difference of opinion between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis.  There are other damage-doers which like these cases are similarly Mu'ad, as follows: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard. the panther, and the snake.' This very text has indeed been taught: 'There are five cases of Tam; all the five of them may eventually become Mu'ad. Tooth and Foot are Mu'ad ab initio. In this way Ox is definitely Mu'ad. As to Ox doing damage on the plaintiff's premises there is a difference of opinion between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis. There are other damage-doers which like these are similarly Mu'ad, as follows: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake.' Some arrived at the same interpretation by having first raised the following objection: We learn THERE ARE FIVE CASES OF TAM AND FIVE CASES OF MU'AD; are there no further instances?  Behold there are the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake!  — The reply was: Rabina said: The Mishnah is incomplete and its reading should be as follows: There are five cases of Tam; all the five of them may eventually become Mu'ad — Tooth and Foot are Mu'ad ab initio. In this way Ox is definitely Mu'ad. As to Ox doing damage on the plaintiff's premises there is a difference of opinion between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis. There are other damage-doers which like these are similarly Mu'ad, as follows: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake. NOR TO FALL DOWN. R. Eleazar said: This is so only when it falls down on large pitchers, but in the case of small pitchers it is a usual occurrence.  May we support him [from the following teaching]: 'Animal is Mu'ad to walk in the usual manner and to break or crush a human being, or an animal, or utensils'? — This however may mean, through contact sideways.  Some read: R. Eleazar said: Do not think that it is only in the case of large pitchers that it is unusual, whereas in the case of small pitchers it is usual. It is not so, for even in the case of small pitchers it is unusual. An objection was brought: '… or crush a human being, or an animal or utensils?'  — This  may perhaps mean through contact sideways.  Some arrived at the same conclusion by having first raised the following objection: We have learnt: NOR TO FALL DOWN.  But was it not taught: '… or crush a human being, or an animal or utensils'?  R. Eleazar replied: There is no contradiction: the former statement deals with a case of large pitchers,  whereas the latter deals with small pitchers. THE WOLF, THE LION, THE BEAR, THE LEOPARD AND THE BARDALIS [PANTHER].  What is bardalis? — Rab Judah said: nafraza.  What is nafraza? — R. Joseph said: apa.  An objection was raised: R. Meir adds also the zabu'a.  R. Eleazar adds, also the snake.  Now R. Joseph said that zabu'a means apa!  — This, however, is no contradiction, for the latter appellation [zabu'a] refers to the male whereas the former [bardalis] refers to the female,  as taught elsewhere: The male zabu'a [hyena] after seven years turns into a bat,  the bat after seven years turns into an arpad,  the arpad after seven years turns into kimmosh,  the kimmosh after seven years turns into a thorn, the thorn after seven years turns into a demon. The spine of a man after seven years turns into a snake,  should he not bow  while reciting the benediction, 'We give thanks unto Thee'. The Master said: 'R. Meir adds also the zabu'a;