Study Bava Kamma folio 4A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And the defining characteristic [re’i] of the category of Eating, where it is not the objective of the animal to cause damage, is not similar to the defining characteristic of the category of Goring, where the objective of the animal is to cause damage.
The Talmud asks: But isn’t it possible to derive Goring from Eating by means of an a fortiori inference: If in a case of Eating, where it is not the objective of the animal to cause damage, its owner is liable, with regard to Goring, where the objective of the animal is to cause damage, should th
Rav Ashi said: Is that to say that in a case where one’s slave or female slave causes damage there is not a substantial reason to exempt the master? In that case there is concern that perhaps his master will provoke him and in retribution he will go and set fire to another’s stack of grain, and it i
Rather, the Mishnah refutes any possibility to derive the halakhot of Ox from Maveh or Maveh from Ox in this manner: The characteristic of the category of Goring, where the objective of the animal is to cause damage, is not similar to the characteristic of the category of Eating, where it is not th
According to Rav Yehuda’s explanation of Shmuel’s opinion, among the primary categories of damage caused by an ox, the Mishnah mentions only Goring and Eating. The Talmud asks: But what of the category of Trampling; did the tanna omit it from the Mishnah? The Talmud answers: The principle stated in