Bava Kamma

do not require a prosbul:  and so also Rami b. Hama learned that orphans do not require a prosbul,  since Rabban Gamaliel and his Court of law are the representatives  of orphans. The scoundrel Hanan, having boxed another man's ear, was brought before R. Huna, who ordered him to go and pay the plaintiff half a zuz.  As [Hanan] had a battered zuz he desired to pay the plaintiff the half zuz [which was due] out of it. But as it could not be exchanged, he slapped him again and gave him [the whole zuz]. MISHNAH. IF AN OX WAS MU'AD TO DO DAMAGE TO ITS OWN SPECIES BUT WAS NOT MU'AD TO DO DAMAGE TO ANY OTHER SPECIES [OF ANIMALS] OR IF IT WAS MU'AD TO DO DAMAGE TO THE HUMAN SPECIES BUT NOT MU'AD TO ANY SPECIES OF BEASTS, OR IF IT WAS MU'AD TO SMALL [CATTLE] BUT NOT MU'AD TO LARGE [CATTLE], IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE SPECIES TO WHICH IT WAS MU'AD THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, BUT IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THAT TO WHICH IT WAS NOT MU'AD, THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. THEY  SAID BEFORE R. JUDAH: HERE IS ONE WHICH WAS MU'AD TO DO DAMAGE ON SABBATH DAYS BUT WAS NOT MU'AD TO DO DAMAGE ON WEEK DAYS.  HE SAID TO THEM: FOR DAMAGE DONE ON SABBATH DAYS THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, WHEREAS FOR DAMAGE DONE ON WEEK DAYS THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. WHEN [CAN THIS OX] RETURN TO THE STATE OF TAM? WHEN IT REFRAINS [FROM GORING] ON THREE [CONSECUTIVE] SABBATH DAYS. GEMARA. It was stated: R. Zebid said: The proper reading of the Mishnah [in the first clause is], 'BUT WAS NOT MU'AD …';  whereas R. Papa said: The proper reading is 'IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD … '  R. Zebid, who said that' … BUT WAS NOT MU'AD …'is the proper reading of the Mishnah, maintained that until we know the contrary  such an ox is considered Mu'ad [to all species]. But R. Papa, who said that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD … is the correct reading of the Mishnah, maintained that even though we do not know the contrary the ox is not considered mu'ad [save to the species to which it had actually been Mu'ad]. R. Zebid inferred his view from the later clause [of the Mishnah], whereas R. Papa inferred his view from the opening clause. R. Zebid inferred his view from the later clause which states, IF IT WAS MU'AD TO SMALL [CATTLE] BUT NOT MU'AD TO LARGE [CATTLE]. Now this is quite in order if you maintain that BUT WAS NOT MU'AD' is the reading in the Mishnah, implying thus that in the absence of definite knowledge to the contrary the ox should be considered Mu'ad [to all species]. This clause would then teach us [the further point] that even where the ox was mu'ad to small [cattle] it would be mu'ad also to large [cattle] in the absence of knowledge to the contrary. But if you maintain that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD …' is the correct reading of the Mishnah, implying that even though we know nothing to the contrary the ox would not be considered mu'ad, could it not then be argued thus: Since in the case where the ox was mu'ad to do damage to small creatures of one species it would not be considered mu'ad with reference to small creatures of another species even if we have no definite knowledge to the contrary, was there any need to state that where the ox was mu'ad to small [cattle] it would not be considered mu'ad to big [cattle]?  — R. Papa, however, may say to you: It was necessary to state this, since otherwise you might have been inclined to think that since the ox started to attack a particular species, it was going to attack the whole of that species without making a distinction between the large creatures of that species and the small creatures of that species, it was therefore necessary to let us know that [with reference to the large creatures] it would not be considered Mu'ad. R. Papa on the other hand based his view on the opening clause, which states: WHERE IT WAS MU'AD TO THE HUMAN SPECIES IT WOULD NOT BE MU'AD TO ANY SPECIES OF BEASTS. Now this would be quite in order if you maintain that 'IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD …' is the text in the Mishnah denoting that even where we have no knowledge to the contrary the ox would not be considered mu'ad [to other species]; it was therefore necessary to make it known to us that even where the ox was mu'ad to the human species and though we knew nothing to the contrary, it would still not be Mu'ad to animals. But if you maintain that '… BUT WAS NOT MU'AD …' is the correct reading of the Mishnah, implying that in the absence of knowledge to the contrary the ox would be considered mu'ad [to all species], could we not then argue thus: Since in the case where the ox was Mu'ad to one species of beast it would in the absence of knowledge to the contrary be considered mu'ad also to any other species of beast, was there any need to state that where the ox was mu'ad to the human species it would also be considered mu'ad to animals?  — R. Zebid may, however, say to you: The opening clause refers to the reversion of the ox to the state of Tam, as, e.g., where the ox had been mu'ad to man and mu'ad to beast but has subsequently refrained from [doing damage to] beast, having stood near cattle on three different occasions without goring. It might then have been argued that since it has not refrained from injuring men, its refraining from goring cattle should [in the eye of the law] not be considered a proper reversion [to the state of Tam].  We are therefore told that the refraining from goring cattle is in fact a proper reversion. An objection was raised [from the following]: Symmachus says: If an ox is Mu'ad to man it is also Mu'ad to beast, a fortiori: if it is Mu'ad to injure man, how much more so is it Mu'ad to injure beast? Does this not prove that the view of the previous Tanna was that it would not be Mu'ad?'  — R. Zebid may, however, say to you: Symmachus was referring to the reversion to the state of Tam, and what he said to the previous Tanna was this: 'Referring to your statement that the refraining [from goring] beasts is a proper reversion, [I maintain that] the refraining [from goring] beasts is not a proper reversion, [and can prove it] by means of an argument a fortiori from the case of man. For since it has not refrained from [attacking] man, will it not assuredly continue attacking beasts? R. Ashi said: Come and hear: THEY SAID BEFORE R. JUDAH: HERE IS ONE WHICH IS MU'AD TO DO DAMAGE ON SABBATH DAYS BUT NOT MU'AD TO DO DAMAGE ON WEEK DAYS. HE SAID TO THEM: FOR DAMAGE DONE ON SABBATH DAYS, THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, WHEREAS FOR DAMAGE DONE ON WEEK DAYS THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. Now this is quite in order if you maintain that '… BUT WAS NOT MU'AD …' is the correct reading. The disciples were thus putting a question before him and he was replying to them accordingly. But If you contend that '… IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD …' is the correct text, [would it not appear as if his disciples] were giving instruction to him?  Again, what would then be the meaning of his reply to them?  R. Jannai thereupon said: The same can also be inferred from the opening clause, where it is stated: IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE SPECIES TO WHICH IT WAS MU'AD, THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, BUT IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THAT TO WHICH IT WAS NOT MU'AD, THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY. Now, this would be in order if you maintain that 'BUT IT WAS NOT MU'AD …'  is the correct text, in which case the clause just quoted would be explanatory. But if you maintain that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD …'  is the correct text, this statement is complete in itself, and why then the further statement 'IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE SPECIES TO WHICH IT WAS MU'AD, THE PAYMENT WILL HAVE TO BE IN FULL, BUT IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THAT TO WHICH IT WAS NOT MU'AD, THE COMPENSATION WILL BE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE ONLY? Have we not been told before how that in the case of mu'ad the payment is for half the damage whereas in the case of Mu'ad the payment has to be in full?  Yet even if you adopt the view of R. Papa,  where the animal gored an ox, an ass and a camel [successively] it would still become mu'ad to all [species of beasts]. Our Rabbis taught: If the animal sees an ox and gores it, another ox and does not gore it, a third ox and gores it, a fourth ox and does not gore it, a fifth ox and gores it, a sixth ox and does not gore it, the animal becomes Mu'ad to alternate oxen. Our Rabbis taught: If an animal sees an ox and gores it, an ass and does not gore it, a horse and gores it a camel and does not gore it, a mule and gores it, a wild ass and does not gore it, the animal becomes Mu'ad to alternate beasts of all species. The following question was raised: If the animal [successively] gored