We continue in tractate Bava Kamma, chapter 4, Mishnah 2, where we discuss the nature of an animal that is a mu'ad (a forewarned animal). We learned that "mu'ad" means the owner received a warning on three separate occasions that his animal is dangerous, and from that point on he bears an increased responsibility to guard it. If it causes damage from here on out, he is liable for full damages and not half damages, with unlimited liability. The question before us is: If his cow gored other cows three times, is it established as a mu'ad to attack goats as well?
"Shor shehu mu'ad lemino ve'eino mu'ad leshe'eino mino":
The Mishnah begins: "Shor shehu mu'ad lemino" - an ox that was established as dangerous toward its own species, meaning it attacks other oxen, "ve'eino mu'ad leshe'eino mino" - and at the same time it was proven that it is not dangerous toward animals that are not of its species. When it is among goats it does not attack them, which means that the ox is required to verify and prove itself as not being dangerous toward goats. If this is indeed the case, it will be considered a mu'ad regarding oxen and a tam regarding goats. However, it is a condition that it establishes its non-dangerous status: it must attack oxen three times, and during that same period be exposed to goats and not attack them.
In the absence of this data, when it is unknown how it behaves toward goats, we must assume according to our Mishnah that the ox is dangerous not only to oxen but also to goats, and the responsibility placed on the owner is greater. We will call this the maximalist approach: the Torah places responsibility on the owner that his ox is dangerous regarding all types of damages, unless it is proven that it is not dangerous in a specific scenario.
The Mishnah lists three examples of this distinction:
"Mu'ad lemino ve'eino mu'ad leshe'eino mino" - it attacks only its own species.
"Mu'ad le'adam ve'eino mu'ad levehemah" - the animal attacks people, whereas toward animals it has been clarified that it is not dangerous: among animals it is calm, and among people it attacks.
"Mu'ad liktanim ve'eino mu'ad ligdolim" - it consistently attacks young animals, such as a foal or calf, and it does not attack an adult horse or adult cow.
And in all these cases the law is: "Es shehu mu'ad lo meshalem nezek shalem" - for whatever it was established as dangerous, the owner pays full damages; "ve'es she'eino mu'ad lo meshalem chatzi nezek" - for whatever it was not established as dangerous, whether it was established as a tam or whether it is calm toward that type, the owner pays only half damages.
The Version of Rav Pappa - The Minimalist Approach:
The Mishnah is subject to a dispute regarding its version. According to most opinions, and this is the version before us, this is the version of Rav Zevid. Another version belonged to Rav Pappa, who read it without the conjunctive letter vav ("and"), and took an approach that we will call minimalist: we can assume that the cow remains in the status of a tam unless it is proven that it is specifically a mu'ad. According to his version, the Mishnah would be read like this:
"Shor shehu mu'ad lemino - eino mu'ad leshe'eino mino" - the very fact that it is established as dangerous toward other cows does not teach that it will be considered a mu'ad toward animals that are not of its species.
"Mu'ad le'adam - eino mu'ad levehemah" - it was established as dangerous toward people, and it is still not considered a mu'ad when it comes to animals.
"Mu'ad liktanim - eino mu'ad ligdolim" - it attacks young animals, and it is still not established as a mu'ad to pay full damages when it comes to adult animals.
It is worth emphasizing this reading, since the halachah follows Rav Pappa. The meaning of this is that the halachah adopts the minimalist approach, which is to a certain extent to the benefit of the damager: the owner is not liable for full damages unless it is proven that his cow is more generally dangerous toward the species that it attacked.
"Mu'ad leshabbasos ve'eino mu'ad liyemos hachol":
The Mishnah continues: "Amru lifnei Rabbi Yehudah" - His students challenged him: If there is a way to divide and limit where the cow is considered a mu'ad and where it is not, "Harei hu mu'ad leshabatot ve'eino mu'ad liyemot hachol" - what would be the law of a cow that gores on Shabbos and does not gore on weekdays? Does such a thing exist, that it is considered a mu'ad only on Shabbos and a tam during the rest of the week? "Amar lahem" - Rabbi Yehudah replied that indeed this is so: "Leshabatot meshalem nezek shalem" - If it gored on Shabbos, the owner pays full damages, as his responsibility is greater; "Veliyemot hachol meshalem chatzi nezek".
Why would the cow be more dangerous on Shabbos than during the rest of the week? Two reasons are given for this:
In the Babylonian Talmud: During the week, the animal works, whereas on Shabbos it is idle and has nothing to do. As the old saying goes, idleness leads to sin. Once it is bored, lacking stimulation or full of excess energy, it begins to act wildly and attack.
In the Jerusalem Talmud: During the week, people wear muted colors, such as simple work clothes, whereas on Shabbos they wear colorful and festive Shabbos clothing, and these arouse the animal to attack. This reason is stated specifically regarding human beings.
It emerges from here that the owner cannot find some sophisticated pattern to exempt himself from liability. He cannot claim: "By chance it happens that the three cows my cow gored had a spot on their left side, and since your cow has a spot on the right side, I am not liable for full damages". Such a claim is not accepted. However, since there is logical reasoning as to why the owner must be careful on Shabbos and not during the rest of the week - whether due to idleness or due to the colorful clothes - and in practice the cow attacked three times on Shabbos and not during the rest of the week, it can become a mu'ad for Shabbos alone and not for the rest of the week.
"Ve'eimatai hu tam":
When can the animal return to the status of a tam and revert to the law of half damages? According to Rabbi Yehudah, "Misheyachzeru bo sheloshah yemei shabbatot" - if three consecutive weeks pass, and on the three Shabboses within them the cow did not gore, the cow that was a mu'ad for Shabbos returns to being considered not a mu'ad even on Shabbos. This is consistent with Rabbi Yehudah's earlier statement, that three days are required on which the ox does not gore, and not just three times; and according to Rabbi Meir, when children can play with it and it does not gore - this is what returns the cow to the status of a tam.
Seemingly, Rabbi Yehudah is not teaching anything new here, so why does he repeat and state that three times on three different days are required? The answer is that regarding a cow that established a status of a mu'ad to attack on Shabbos, the owner cannot claim: "It only gores because it has nothing to do, and look, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday this week no work was done in the field and the cow did not gore, and therefore it should return to the status of a tam even on Shabbos". This claim is ineffective. The cow is required to prove itself three times on Shabbos itself, regardless of the fact that during the rest of the week it had nothing to do, or that people did not wear colorful clothes.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that the status of a mu'ad is not sweeping but is divided according to the type of victim and according to the circumstances: a mu'ad for its own species and not a mu'ad for another species, a mu'ad for a person and not a mu'ad for an animal, a mu'ad for children and not a mu'ad for adults - and for whatever it is a mu'ad it pays full damages, and for whatever it is not a mu'ad it pays half damages. We discussed the two versions of the Mishnah, the maximalist one of Rav Zevid and the restrictive one of Rav Papa, whose view the halachah follows, the distinction between Shabbos and weekdays and its reasons in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, and the condition for the animal to return to the status of a tam specifically in the same circumstances in which it established the status of a mu'ad.