Bava Kamma

If for goring at long intervals [during three days], there is [full] liability, how much more so for goring at short intervals.  They,  however, said to him: 'A zabah  disproves your argument, as by noticing her discharges at long intervals [three cases of discharge in three days], she becomes [fully] unclean,  whereas by noticing her discharges at short intervals [i.e. on the same day] she does not become [fully unclean].'  But he answered them: Behold, Scripture says: And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue.  Zab  has thus been made dependent upon [the number of] cases of 'noticing', and zabah upon that of 'days'. But whence is it certain that 'And this'  is to exempt zabah from being affected by cases of 'noticing'?  Say perhaps that it meant only to exempt zab from being affected by the number of 'days'?  — The verse says, And of him that hath on issue, of the man, and of the woman.  Male is thus made analogous to female: just as female is affected by [the number of] 'days' so is man affected by 'days'.  But why not make female analogous to male [and say]: just as male is affected by cases of 'noticing',  so also let female be affected by cases of 'noticing'?  — But Divine Law has [emphatically] excluded that by stating, 'And this'.  On what ground, however, do you say [that the Scriptural phrase excludes the one and not the other]? — It only stands to reason that when cases of 'noticing' are dealt with,  cases of 'noticing' are excluded;  [for is it reasonable to maintain that] when cases of 'noticing' are dealt with,  'days' should be excluded? Our Rabbis taught: What is Mu'ad? After the owner has been warned for three days;  but [it may return to the state of] Tam, if children keep on touching it and no goring results; this is the dictum of R. Jose. R. Simeon says: Cattle become Mu'ad, after the owner has been warned three times,  and the statement regarding three days refers only to the return to the state of Tam. R. Nahman quoting Adda b. Ahabah said: 'The Halachah is in accordance with R. Judah regarding Mu'ad, for R. Jose agrees with him.  But the Halachah is in accordance with R. Meir regarding Tam,  since R. Jose agrees with him [on this point].' Raba, however, said to R. Nahman: 'Why, Sir, not say that the Halachah is in accordance with R. Meir regarding Mu'ad for R. Simeon agrees with him, and the Halachah is in accordance with R. Judah regarding Tam, since R. Simeon agrees with him [on this point]?' He answered him: 'I side with R. Jose, because the reasons of R. Jose are generally sound.' There arose the following question: Do the three days [under discussion] apply to [the goring of] the cattle [so that cases of goring on the same day do not count as more than one], or to the owner [who has to be warned on three different days]?  The practical difference becomes evident when three sets of witnesses appear on the same day [and testify to three cases of goring that occurred previously on three different days]. If the three days apply to [the goring of] the cattle there would in this case be a declaration of Mu'ad;  but, if the three days refer to the warning given the owner, there would in this case be no declaration of Mu'ad, as the owner may say: 'They have only just now testified against me [while the law requires this to be done on three different days].' Come and hear: Cattle cannot be declared Mu'ad until warning is given the owner when he is in the presence of the Court of Justice. If warning is given in the presence of the Court while the owner is absent, or, on the other hand, in the presence of the owner, but outside the Court, no declaration of Mu'ad will be issued unless the warning be given before the Court and before the owner. In the case of two witnesses giving evidence of the first time [of goring], and another two of the second time, and again two of the third time [of goring], three independent testimonies have been established. They are, however, taken as one testimony regarding haza mah.  Were the first set found zomemim,  the remaining two sets would be unaffected; the defendant would, however, escape [full] liability  and the zomemim would still not have to pay him [for conspiring to make his cattle Mu'ad].  Were also the second set found zomemim, the remaining testimony would be unaffected; the defendant would escape [full] liability  and the zomemim would still not have to compensate him [for conspiring to make his cattle Mu'ad].  Were the third set also found zomemim, they would all have to share the liability [for conspiring to make the cattle Mu'ad];  for it is with reference to such a case that it is stated, Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother.  Now if it is suggested that the three days refer to [the goring of] the cattle [whereas the owner may be warned in one day], the ruling is perfectly right [as the three pairs may have given evidence in one day].