gored

Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

And that black bull gored the red one and pursued him over the earth, and thereupon I could no longer see that red bull.

But He who had said, “Ask, and ye shall receive,” gave to them when they asked, that death which each one had wished for. For when at any time they had been discoursing among themselves about their wish in respect of their martyrdom, Saturninus indeed had professed that he wished that he might be thrown to all the beasts; doubtless that he might wear a more glorious crown. Therefore in the beginning of the exhibition he and Revocatus made trial of the leopard, and moreover upon the scaffold they were harassed by the bear. Saturus, however, held nothing in greater abomination than a bear; but he imagined that he would be put an end to with one bite of a leopard. Therefore, when a wild boar was supplied, it was the huntsman rather who had supplied that boar who was gored by that same beast, and died the day after the shows. Saturus only was drawn out; and when he had been bound on the floor near to a bear, the bear would not come forth from his den. And so Saturus for the second time is recalled unhurt.

Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger. What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and guardian).

“An ox which causes damage in the private domain of him that is injured” how is this so? If it gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked in the public domain its owner pays only half damages. But if in the private domain of him that is injured, Rabbi Tarfon says, “He pays full damages.” The Sages says, “Half damages.” Rabbi Tarfon said to them: “Now, in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain, in which case he is exempt, and stringently in the private domain of him that is injured to pay full damages, then since they have dealt stringently with damage caused by the horn in the public domain, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain of him that was injured, so that full damages be imposed.” They (the sages) said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed]. He said to them: “I shall not derive the law in one case of damage caused by the horn from the law in another case of damage caused by the horn. Rather I will derive the law of damage caused by the horn from the law of damage caused by the foot. Now in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot or tooth in the public domain, they have dealt strictly with damage caused by the horn, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain. They (the sages) said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].

If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox.

If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox.

If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox.

If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox.

[If] an ox has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: the owner shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If money remains, it will go to the [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If money still remains, it will go to the [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says, “[If] an ox worth 200 gores an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets 100 and this one gets 100. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives 50. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives 50, and the first two receive 25.

An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.

An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.

[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.” An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”

[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.” An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”

[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.” An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”

If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty. So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter. If it gored a male slave or a female slave its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.

If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty. So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter. If it gored a male slave or a female slave its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.

If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.

If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.

If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.

If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.

If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.

If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. There, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it.

“Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Eleazar said: You say that in case the tetradrachma lost or added value. But for earnings or losses they split evenly. That is difficult! One gave 100 denars and the other gave ten, and you say so? The colleagues say, he may say to him, by my contribution the merchandise rose. So far, if they ran after little merchandise. If there was much merchandise? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he may say to him, by the time you sold one piece, I am selling ten. That is, at a nearby place. If it was far away? Rebbi Hila said, he may say to him, by the time you go and return once, I am going and returning ten times. There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi [Ze‘ira]: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame animal and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony, as we have stated: “A bull which gored three times on the same day is not notorious. Why does the verse say ‘from yesterday and the day before’? For if it mended its ways for three days one after the other it is judged to be tame.” We were thinking to say that practice follows Rav Huna who said following both of them. This is confirmed by Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame [bull] and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

HALAKHAH: “If his jar was broken in the public domain,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree at the moment of the accident. But after the accident everybody agrees that he must pay. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the disagreement is both at the moment of the accident and afterwards. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Eleazar: If he does not have to pay at the moment of the accident, is it not an inference de minore ad majus afterwards? Why should he be free at the moment of the accident? For a person declares his damaged property in the public domain as ownerless. A baraita supports both of them, as it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that somebody who puts down his stone or his load in the public domain does not have to pay if another person stumbled over it, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land.” Therefore, if Joshua had not distributed the Land on this condition, he would have to pay. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he intended use of the potsherds. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, if he intended to cause damage. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi La both say that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with the Sages that one has to pay if he declares his bull who gored in the public domain ownerless. Stationary damage cannot be compared to walking damage.

MISHNAH: Two tame bulls which injured one another; one pays half for the excess damage. If both are notorious, one pays in full for the excess damage. One tame and one notorious; the notorious over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the notorious pays half for the excess damage. Similarly, two people who injured one another pay in full for the excess damage. A human and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a human, one pays in full for the excess damage. A human and a tame animal; the human over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the human pays half for the excess damage. Rebbi Akiba says, also a tame animal which injured a human pays the excess damage in full. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; he takes the bull. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; Rebbi Meïr said, about this case it was said: “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.” Rebbi Jehudah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold “and also the cadaver they shall split.” What is this? That is a bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is worth 50 zuz, in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half from the cadaver.

MISHNAH: Two tame bulls which injured one another; one pays half for the excess damage. If both are notorious, one pays in full for the excess damage. One tame and one notorious; the notorious over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the notorious pays half for the excess damage. Similarly, two people who injured one another pay in full for the excess damage. A human and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a human, one pays in full for the excess damage. A human and a tame animal; the human over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the human pays half for the excess damage. Rebbi Akiba says, also a tame animal which injured a human pays the excess damage in full. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; he takes the bull. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; Rebbi Meïr said, about this case it was said: “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.” Rebbi Jehudah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold “and also the cadaver they shall split.” What is this? That is a bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is worth 50 zuz, in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half from the cadaver.

MISHNAH: Two tame bulls which injured one another; one pays half for the excess damage. If both are notorious, one pays in full for the excess damage. One tame and one notorious; the notorious over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the notorious pays half for the excess damage. Similarly, two people who injured one another pay in full for the excess damage. A human and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a human, one pays in full for the excess damage. A human and a tame animal; the human over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the human pays half for the excess damage. Rebbi Akiba says, also a tame animal which injured a human pays the excess damage in full. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; he takes the bull. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; Rebbi Meïr said, about this case it was said: “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.” Rebbi Jehudah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold “and also the cadaver they shall split.” What is this? That is a bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is worth 50 zuz, in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half from the cadaver.

HALAKHAH: “A bull worth a mina” etc. “A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth a mina; weakened (it) in the amount of 50 zuz; he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury and therefore, if the bull died or was weakened, he only has that bull. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and weakened it in the amount of 50 zuz; then the second [bull] couter-attacked and injured it to the amount of three gold [denars]. The first pays half a gold denar to the second. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and now is worth 400; but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz. If it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it was weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rebbi La said, so is the baraita: The agressor improved; if it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage; if it weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.

HALAKHAH: “A bull worth a mina” etc. “A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth a mina; weakened (it) in the amount of 50 zuz; he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury and therefore, if the bull died or was weakened, he only has that bull. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and weakened it in the amount of 50 zuz; then the second [bull] couter-attacked and injured it to the amount of three gold [denars]. The first pays half a gold denar to the second. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and now is worth 400; but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz. If it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it was weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rebbi La said, so is the baraita: The agressor improved; if it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage; if it weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.

HALAKHAH: “A bull worth a mina” etc. “A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth a mina; weakened (it) in the amount of 50 zuz; he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury and therefore, if the bull died or was weakened, he only has that bull. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and weakened it in the amount of 50 zuz; then the second [bull] couter-attacked and injured it to the amount of three gold [denars]. The first pays half a gold denar to the second. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and now is worth 400; but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz. If it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it was weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rebbi La said, so is the baraita: The agressor improved; if it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage; if it weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.

HALAKHAH: “A bull worth a mina” etc. “A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth a mina; weakened (it) in the amount of 50 zuz; he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury and therefore, if the bull died or was weakened, he only has that bull. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and weakened it in the amount of 50 zuz; then the second [bull] couter-attacked and injured it to the amount of three gold [denars]. The first pays half a gold denar to the second. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and now is worth 400; but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz. If it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it was weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rebbi La said, so is the baraita: The agressor improved; if it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage; if it weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.

MISHNAH: A bull which gored four or five bulls, one after the other, should pay for the last of them If there is anything left, it should revert to the penultimate. If then there is anything left, it should revert to the one before the penultimate. The later one is always advantaged, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if a bull worth 200 gored a bull worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, each one takes a mina. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100 and the preceding each take 50. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100, the preceding one takes 50 zuz, and the two first ones each a gold denar.

MISHNAH: A bull which gored four or five bulls, one after the other, should pay for the last of them If there is anything left, it should revert to the penultimate. If then there is anything left, it should revert to the one before the penultimate. The later one is always advantaged, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if a bull worth 200 gored a bull worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, each one takes a mina. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100 and the preceding each take 50. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100, the preceding one takes 50 zuz, and the two first ones each a gold denar.

MISHNAH: A bull which gored four or five bulls, one after the other, should pay for the last of them If there is anything left, it should revert to the penultimate. If then there is anything left, it should revert to the one before the penultimate. The later one is always advantaged, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if a bull worth 200 gored a bull worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, each one takes a mina. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100 and the preceding each take 50. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100, the preceding one takes 50 zuz, and the two first ones each a gold denar.

MISHNAH: A bull which gored four or five bulls, one after the other, should pay for the last of them If there is anything left, it should revert to the penultimate. If then there is anything left, it should revert to the one before the penultimate. The later one is always advantaged, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if a bull worth 200 gored a bull worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, each one takes a mina. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100 and the preceding each take 50. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100, the preceding one takes 50 zuz, and the two first ones each a gold denar.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored four or five bulls,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi Meïr attacks him from two sides: As you take it, if it is yours, give it to me. If it is not yours, hand it over to me that I may satisfy my claim. But did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the guarding of damages parallels the guarding of acquisitions? Rebbi Jehudah told him, it was delivered to him for his damages but it remains a pledge.

There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones each a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

MISHNAH: The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of Temple property or the bull of Temple property which gored a bull of an Israel are not liable since it was said “his neighbor’s bull”, not a bull of Temple property. The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable; the bull of a non-Jew which gored a bull of an Israel pays full damages, whether tame or notorious.

MISHNAH: The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of Temple property or the bull of Temple property which gored a bull of an Israel are not liable since it was said “his neighbor’s bull”, not a bull of Temple property. The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable; the bull of a non-Jew which gored a bull of an Israel pays full damages, whether tame or notorious.

MISHNAH: The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of Temple property or the bull of Temple property which gored a bull of an Israel are not liable since it was said “his neighbor’s bull”, not a bull of Temple property. The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable; the bull of a non-Jew which gored a bull of an Israel pays full damages, whether tame or notorious.

MISHNAH: The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of Temple property or the bull of Temple property which gored a bull of an Israel are not liable since it was said “his neighbor’s bull”, not a bull of Temple property. The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable; the bull of a non-Jew which gored a bull of an Israel pays full damages, whether tame or notorious.

HALAKHAH: “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws. Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.

HALAKHAH: “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws. Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.

It happened that the [Roman] government sent two officials to study Torah with Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practice, and homilies. At the end, they told him: All of your teachings are beautiful and commendable except two things which you say: “A Jewish woman shall not act as midwife to a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may act as midwife for a Jewish woman; a Jewish woman shall not nurse the child of a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may nurse for a Jewish woman with her consent; what was robbed from a Jew is forbidden but from a Gentile it is permitted.” At that moment did Rabban Gamliel decide that what was robbed from a Gentile be forbidden because of desecration of the Name. “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable,” etc. But we shall not inform the government of this. Nevertheless, by the time they reached the Tyrian ladder they had forgotten everything.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore. It was stated: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable, after judgment was rendered he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable.”

MISHNAH: A bull which gored a human who then died, if it is notorious [the owner] pays weregilt, if tame he is not liable for weregilt; in both cases they have to be killed. The same holds for a son or a daughter. It it gored a male or female slave, [the owner] pays 30 tetradrachmas, whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold denar.

MISHNAH: A bull which gored a human who then died, if it is notorious [the owner] pays weregilt, if tame he is not liable for weregilt; in both cases they have to be killed. The same holds for a son or a daughter. It it gored a male or female slave, [the owner] pays 30 tetradrachmas, whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold denar.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated: “But the owner of the bull is free,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, etc. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it. But some want to say, from what we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel, still birth but killed a viable [child], he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”’? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,” the verse speaks of the notorious. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”.

MISHNAH: A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

MISHNAH: A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

MISHNAH: A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

MISHNAH: A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

MISHNAH: A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

HALAKHAH: “A bull gored a cow”, etc. Do all cows have miscarriages? Should we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Yose said, in another case they applied a majority argument in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: “If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that certainly the one in heat killed it.”

“And similarly, if a cow gored an ox,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: Because it is in doubt; therefore if it were certain, each one would give half? Would I say that a foot of a person is the entire person? Each one would give half? He said to him, the Mishnah deals with a notorious animal. “Its foot is sold to you,” he sold half. “Its second foot is sold to you,” he sold half of the [remaining] half. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all these traditions are Levi’s.

MISHNAH: If somebody put his bull in a private courtyard without permission and the owner’s bull gored it or his dog bit it, [the owner] is not liable; if it gored the owner’s bull, he is liable. If it fell into his cistern and caused it to stink, he is liable. If his father or son were inside, he pays weregilt. But if he put it in by permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable; Rebbi says, in all these cases, only if he agreed to watch.

MISHNAH: If somebody put his bull in a private courtyard without permission and the owner’s bull gored it or his dog bit it, [the owner] is not liable; if it gored the owner’s bull, he is liable. If it fell into his cistern and caused it to stink, he is liable. If his father or son were inside, he pays weregilt. But if he put it in by permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable; Rebbi says, in all these cases, only if he agreed to watch.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

Our Rabbis have taught : Five things are said in connection with the ox : Who [dreams that he] eats of its flesh will grow rich; that an ox had gored him, he will have sons who will contend with each other in Torah; that it bit him, sufferings will come upon him ; that it kicked him, a long journey is destined for him ; that he rode upon it, he will ascend to greatness. But there is a teaching :

they are like the ox that has gored an ox, an ass, and a camel, and has been made a precedent of warning for all men. R. Papa said, If R. Hunna had heard that this is the Baraitha, viz., Who is a fool? it is he who destroys all that is given to him, he would have recalled his words. It is a question as regards his recalling of his words, whether he would have recalled his words only in the case of the man who tears his clothes, in consideration of the Baraitha which is like it, or whether he would have recalled them in the case of all three. The matter was left undecided.