Question: What is R. Meir's reason?

Answer: If it becomes Mu'ad after intermittent gorings, all the more so when the gorings are close together!

Chachamim: A Zavah (a woman who experienced post- menstrual bleeding) disproves this. If she sees blood on three consecutive days, she is a Zavah, but not for three sightings on one day!

R. Meir: The verse "this is the law of his Tum'ah through his emissions" (mentions emissions three times. This) shows that a Zav (a man who sees Zivah, i.e. emissions of uncooked semen) becomes Tamei through (three) sightings (even if they are in one day), but a Zavah does not (she must see on distinct days. If not for the verse, a Kal va'Chomer would be Metamei a Zavah who had sightings in one day. Our Sugya discusses Tum'ah that persists until seven clean days without sightings. Even a single sighting of blood or Zivah is Metamei for one day.)

Question: How do we know that "this" excludes a Zavah (from Tum'ah unless she saw on consecutive days)? Perhaps it excludes a Zav from Tum'ah if he sees on consecutive days!

Answer: "And one who has a flow, a male or a female" equates men and women;

Just like a woman becomes Temei'ah through sightings on consecutive days, also a man.

Suggestion: We should also equate them, and say that just like a man becomes Tamei through sightings on one day, also a woman!

Rejection: "This" excludes a woman.

Question: Perhaps we should learn oppositely! (A woman becomes Temei'ah through sightings on one day, like a man, and "this" excludes a man who sees on consecutive days.)

Answer: The verse "this..." discusses sightings (on one day). It is more reasonable to explain that it excludes sightings (of a woman) on one day, than to say that it exclude sightings (of a man) on consecutive days.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): An animal is Mu'ad after witnesses testify that it gored on three days. It reverts to be Tam when children play with it and it does not gore;

R. Shimon says, after witnesses testify three times that it gored, it is Mu'ad;

The relevance of three days to a Mu'ad pertains to reverting to being Tam (if it doesn't gore in three days).

(Rav Nachman): The Halachah is like R. Yehudah regarding a Mu'ad, and like R. Meir regarding a Tam, because R. Yosi agree with them.

Question (Rava): Perhaps the Halachah is like R. Meir regarding a Mu'ad, and like R. Yehudah regarding a Tam, because R. Shimon agrees with them!

Answer (Rav Nachman): I hold like R. Yosi because he has superb reasons and proofs.

Question: Are three days required (to make it a Mu'ad) to establish that the ox gores, or to warn the man?

Question: What difference does it make?

Answer: If three sets of witnesses testify on one day about gorings on three days, this suffices to establish that the ox gores;

It does not suffice to warn the man. He can say 'I learned about the gorings only now.'

Answer (Beraisa): An ox becomes Mu'ad only if they testify about it in front of the owner and in front of Beis Din;

If two witnesses testified about the first goring, two about the second, and two about the third, they are three testimonies, but they are considered one testimony regarding Hazamah:

If the first two witnesses were found to be Zomemim (they testified about something they were not present to see), the latter two testimonies stand. The ox is not Mu'ad, and the Zomemim are not punished (for trying to make the ox Mu'ad);

If also the next two witnesses were found to be Zomemim, the last testimony stands. The ox is not Mu'ad, and the lying witnesses are not punished;

If all the witnesses were found to be Zomemim, they are all punished - "you will do to him like he plotted."

This is like the opinion that the testimony is to establish the ox to gore.

If we need three days to warn the man, why are the first two pairs of witnesses punished? They can say ('we didn't intend to make it Mu'ad.) We didn't know that more witnesses would come!'

Question (Rav Kahana): We can ask similarly if the testimony is to establish the ox to gore!

The witnesses about the last goring can say 'we came only to obligate the owner half-damage. We didn't know why the other witnesses were in Beis Din! (Rashi - the case is, the third victim asked all six witnesses to testify. The witnesses about the first gorings know that he wants to make the ox Mu'ad. Tosfos - the case is, the witnesses about the previous gorings testified only after the witnesses about the last goring. Surely, they wanted to make it Mu'ad! Ra'avad - even the witnesses about the last goring can claim that they came only to obligate half-damage.)

Answer #1: The witnesses gestured to each other. (Rashi - this (and the coming) answers are like the opinion that the testimony is to establish the ox like a gorer; Tosfos - the answers are valid also for the opinion that the testimony is to warn the man.)

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The witnesses came together.

Answer #3 (Ravina): The witnesses do not know which ox gored (so they cannot obligate half-damage), but they know whose ox gored.

Question: If so, how can they make it Mu'ad?

Answer: They say that since the man has a goring ox, he must guard his whole herd.

Question: If Levi incited Reuven's dog to bite Shimon, what is the law?

Surely, Levi is exempt (he merely caused damage). Is Reuven liable?

Can he say 'I didn't do anything!'

Or, since he knows that his dog can be incited, he should not have such a dog!

Answer (R. Zeira - Mishnah): If an animal does not gore when children play with it, it is Tam;

(Inference): If it gores other oxen (when incited by children), it is liable!

Rejection (Abaye): No. If it gores when incited, it is Mu'ad, but it is exempt for that goring.

(Mishnah): If a man incited a dog or snake to bite, he is exempt.

Question: Who is exempt?

Suggestion: The inciter is exempt, but the owner of the dog or snake is liable.

Answer: No, even the inciter is exempt.

(Rava): Even if you will say that when Levi incited Reuven's dog to bite Shimon, Reuven is liable, but if it bit Levi, Reuven is exempt.

This is because if one party does something abnormal, and another party acts abnormally and damages the first, the second party is exempt.

(Rav Papa): Reish Lakish supports Rava.

(Reish Lakish): If a cow was crouching in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and another cow was walking, and the walking cow kicked the crouching cow, it is exempt;

If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow, it is liable.

(Rava): I say that even in the first case, it is liable. The walking cow has the right to walk over the crouching cow, but it may not kick it.

(Mishnah): What is the law of an ox that damaged in the victim's premises?

If it gored, pushed, bit, crouched or kicked in Reshus ha'Rabim, it pays half-damage;

In the victim's premises, R. Tarfon obligates full damage;

Chachamim say, it pays half-damage.

R. Tarfon: In a Reshus ha'Rabim, the Torah is lenient to exempt Shen and Regel, but they pay full damage in the victim's premises. Keren pays half- damage in a Reshus ha'Rabim. All the more so it pays full damage in the victim's premises!

Chachamim: Dayo (we cannot learn from a Kal va'Chomer more than the source). Just like Keren pays half-damage in a Reshus ha'Rabim, also in the victim's premises.

R. Tarfon: I need not learn Keren from Keren. I can learn Keren from Regel!

In a Reshus ha'Rabim, the Torah is lenient to exempt Shen and Regel, but Keren pays half- damage. In the victim's premises, where Shen and Regel pay full damage, all the more so Keren pays full damage!

Chachamim: Dayo. It pays only half-damage, like in a Reshus ha'Rabim.