Bava Kamma

that here also it is to be understood that the control of man's body is his own. R. Mari, however, demurred: Say perhaps MAB'EH denotes water [doing damage], as it is written, As when the melting fire burneth, fire tib'eh [causeth to bubble] water?  — Is it written, 'Water bubbles'? It is written, Fire causes bubbling.  R. Zebid demurred: Say then that MAB'EH denotes Fire, as it is fire to which the act of 'tib'eh' in the text is referred? — If this be so what is then the explanation of THE MAB'EH AND THE FIRE? If you suggest the latter to be the interpretation of the former,  then instead of 'FOUR' there will be 'three'? If however, you suggest that OX constitutes two [kinds of damage],  then what will be the meaning of [the Mishnaic text]: NOR ARE THE ASPECTS OF EITHER OF THEM [OX and MAB'EH] IN WHICH THERE IS LIFE? Is there any life in fire? Again, what will be conveyed by [the concluding clause] AS THOSE OF THE FIRE? R. Oshaia: taught There are thirteen principal categories of damage: The Unpaid Bailee and the Borrower, the Paid Bailee and the Hirer, Depreciation, Pain [suffered]. Healing, Loss of Time, Degradation and the Four enumerated in the Mishnah, thus making [a total of] thirteen. Why did our Tanna mention [only the Four and] not the others? According to Samuel,  this presents no difficulty, as the Mishnah mentions only damage committed by one's possessions and not that committed by one's person, but according to Rab  let the Mishnah also mention the others? — In the mention of Man all kinds of damage committed by him are included. But does not R. Oshaia also mention Man?  — Two kinds of damage could result from Man: Man injuring man is treated as one subject, and Man damaging chattel  as another. If this be so let R. Oshaia similarly reckon Ox twice, as two kinds of damage could result also from Ox: [i] Ox damaging chattel  and [ii] Ox injuring man? — But is that a logical argument? It is quite proper to reckon Man in this manner as Man damaging chattel pays only for Depreciation, while Man injuring man may also have to pay for four other kinds of damage,  but how can Ox be thus reckoned when the liability for damage done by it to either man or chattel is alike and is confined to [only one kind of damage, i.e.] Depreciation? But behold, are not the Unpaid Bailee and the Borrower, the Paid Bailee and the Hirer, within the sphere of Man damaging chattel and they are nevertheless reckoned by R. Oshaia? — Direct damage and indirect damage are treated by him independently. R. Hiyya taught: There are twenty-four principal kinds of damage: Double Payment,  Fourfold or Fivefold Payment,  Theft,  Robbery,  False Evidence,  Rape,  Seduction,  Slander,  Defilement,  Adulteration,  Vitiation of wine,  and the thirteen enumerated above by R. Oshaia,  thus making [the total] twenty-four. Why did not R. Oshaia reckon the twenty-four? — He dealt only with damage involving civil liability but not with that of a punitive nature. But why omit Theft and Robbery which also involve civil liability? — These kinds of damage may be included in the Unpaid Bailee and the Borrower.  Why then did not R. Hiyya comprehend the former in the latter? — He reckoned them separately, as in the one case the possession of the chattel was acquired lawfully,  while in the other  the acquisition was unlawful. [Why did not R. Oshaia]