Bava Kamma

one ox, a [second] ox, and a [third] ox, an ass, and a camel, what is the legal position? Shall the last ox be counted together with the [first two] oxen, in which case the animal that gored will still be Mu'ad only to oxen whereas to any other species it will not be considered Mu'ad, or shall perhaps the last ox be counted together with the ass and camel, so that the animal that gored will become Mu'ad to all species [of beasts]? [Again,  where an animal has successively gored] an ass, a camel, an ox, another ox, and a [third] ox, what is the legal position? Shall the first ox be counted together with the ass and camel, so that the animal that gored will become Mu'ad to all species [of beasts], or shall it perhaps [rather] be counted together with the [other] oxen, in which case it will still be Mu'ad only to oxen, but not Mu'ad to any other species [of beasts]? [Again, where the consecutive gorings took place on] one Sabbath, [the next] Sabbath and [the third] Sabbath, and then on the [subsequent] Sunday and Monday, what is the legal position? Shall the last Sabbath be counted together with the [first two] Sabbaths, in which case the ox that gored would still be Mu'ad only for Sabbaths, whereas in respect of damage done on week days it would not yet be considered mu'ad, or shall it perhaps be counted together with Sunday and Monday and thus become Mu'ad in respect of all the days [of the week]? [Again, where the consecutive gorings took place on] a Thursday, the eve of Sabbath and the Sabbath, then on [the next] Sabbath and [the third] Sabbath, what is the legal position? Shall the first Sabbath be counted together with Thursday and the eve of Sabbath and the goring ox thus become mu'ad for all days, or shall perhaps the first Sabbath be counted together with the subsequent Sabbaths, in which case the goring ox would become mu'ad only for Sabbaths? — These questions must stand over. If [an ox has] gored an ox on the fifteenth day of a particular month, and [another ox] on the sixteenth day of the next month, and [a third ox] on the seventeenth day of the third month, there would he a difference of opinion between Rab and Samuel.  For it was stated:  If the symptom of menstruation has once been noticed on the fifteenth day of a particular month, [then] on the sixteenth day of the next month, and [then] on the seventeenth day of the third month, Rab maintained that a periodical recurrence  has thereby been established,  whereas Samuel said [that this periodicity is not established] until the skipping is repeated [yet] a third time. GEMARA. The [ruling in the] Mishnah is not in accordance with [the view of] R. Simeon b. Menasya; for it was taught: Where a private ox has gored consecrated cattle or where consecrated cattle has gored a private ox, there is not liability, as it is stated: The ox of his neighbour,  not [that is to say] an ox consecrated to the Temple. R. Simeon b. Menasya, however, says: Where consecrated cattle has gored a private ox there is no liability, but if a private ox has gored consecrated cattle, whether while Tam or mu'ad, payment is to be made for full damage.  I might ask, what was the principle adopted by R. Simeon? If the implication of 'his neighbour'  has to be insisted upon,  why then even in the case of a private ox goring consecrated cattle should there not be exemption? If on the other hand the implication of 'his neighbour' has not to be insisted upon, why then in the case of consecrated cattle goring a private ox should there also not be liability? If, however, you argue that he  does in fact maintain that the implication of 'his neighbour' has to be insisted upon, yet where a private ox has gored consecrated cattle there is a special reason for liability inferred by means of an a fortiori argument from the case of private cattle [as follows]: If where a private ox has gored private cattle there is liability, should not there be all the more liability where it has gored consecrated cattle? Why then [did he] not employ the principle of Dayyo  [i.e. that it was sufficient] that the object  to which the inference is made should be on the same footing as the object from which it was made?  And since Tam involves there the payment of half damages, [why then should it not] here also involve the payment of half damages [only]? — Resh Lakish therefore said: Originally all cases came under the law of full compensation;  when Scripture therefore particularised 'his neighbour' in the case of Tam, it meant that it was only where damage had been done to a neighbour that Tam would involve half damages [only], thus implying that where the damage had been done to consecrated property, whether by Tam or Mu'ad, the compensation must be in full;