Study Bava Kamma folio 17B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Talmud: The Talmud analyzes the Mishnah: Ravina said to Rava: In the context of the category of Trampling, damage caused by an animal trampling an object with its foot is the same as damage caused by an animal breaking an object with its body. Why does the Mishnah repeat the same halakha twice? Ra
Ravina challenges this explanation: If that is so, the latter clause of the Mishnah (19b), which teaches, concerning the primary category of Eating: For what damage caused by Eating is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption, i
And what is the reason for the apparent redundancy in the Mishnah with regard to Eating? Rav Ashi said: First the tanna teaches the halakha of Eating by an undomesticated animal and then he teaches the halakha of Eating by a domesticated animal. And it was necessary to state both, as it enters you
The Talmud asks: If so, the tanna should have taught the halakha with regard to a domesticated animal first and only afterward taught the halakha with regard to an undomesticated animal, as the latter is included in the category of the former. The Talmud answers: On the contrary, that halakha, whic
The Talmud asks: If so, then with regard to the first clause, in this Mishnah too, let the tanna teach that which is not explicitly written first, as that which is derived from an interpretation is dear to him. The Talmud distinguishes between the cases: How can they be compared? There, with reg