Talmud - Mas. Baba Kama 2b
and the Person who has been in contact with a human corpse.
[In this connection] their Resultants
are not equal to them in law; for a primary defilement
contaminates both human beings andutensils,
while Resultants defile only foods and drinks,
leaving human beings and utensilsundefiled. Here [in connection with damages] what is the [relationship in] law [between the principal and thesecondary kinds]? — Said R. Papa: Some of the derivatives are on a par with their Principalswhereas others are not. Our Rabbis taught: Three principal categories [of damage] have been identified in Scripture withOx: The Horn, The Tooth, and The Foot. Where is the authority for ‘Horn’? For our Rabbis taught:If it will gore.
There is no ‘goring’ but with a horn, as it is said: And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou gore theArameans;
and it is further said, His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are likethe horns of a unicorn: with them he shall gore the people together etc.
Why that ‘further’ citation? — Because you might perhaps say that Pentateuchal teachings cannotbe deduced from post-Pentateuchal texts;
come therefore and hear: His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of a unicorn etc.
But is that a [matter of] deduction? Isit not rather merely an elucidation of the term ‘goring’
as being effected by a horn?
— [Were itnot for the ‘further’ citation] you might say that the distinction made by Scripture between [thegoring of a] Tam
and [that of a] Mu'ad
is confined to goring effected by a severed horn,
whereas in the case of a horn still naturally attached, all goring is [habitual and consequently treatedas of a] Mu'ad; come therefore and hear: His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his hornsare like the horns of a unicorn, etc.
What are the derivatives of Horn? — Collision, Biting, [malicious] Falling and Kicking. Why this differentiation? If Goring is termed Principal because it is expressly written, If it willgore,
why should this not apply to Collision, as it is also written, If it will collide?
— Thatcollision denotes goring, as it was taught: The text opens with collision
and concludes withgoring
for the purpose of indicating that ‘collision’ here denotes ‘goring’. Why the differentiation between injury to man, regarding which it is written If it will gore,
andinjury to animal regarding which it is written if it will collide?
— Man who possesses foresight is,as a rule, injured [only] by means of [wilful] ‘goring’,
but an animal, lacking foresight, is injuredby mere ‘collision’. A [new] point is incidentally made known to us, that [an animal] Mu'ad to injureman is considered Mu'ad in regard to animal,
whereas Mu'ad to injure animal is not consideredMu'ad in regard to man.
‘Biting’: is not this a derivative of Tooth? — No; Tooth affords the animal gratification from thedamage while Biting affords it no gratification from the damage. ‘Falling and Kicking’; are not these derivatives of Foot? — No; the damage of foot occursfrequently while the damage of these does not occur frequently. But what then are the derivatives which, R. Papa says, are not on a par with their Principals? Hecan hardly be said to refer to these, since what differentiation is possible? For just as Horn does itsdamage with intent and, being your property, is under your control, so also these [derivatives] do