Gemara in Bava Kama page 3

I wanted to write something fast about the Gemara in Bava Kama page 3 side A and then correct my spelling errors later.
And I wanted to point out how this is relevant in a larger way to general understanding of the Gemara. First I wanted to say that this part of the Talmud we need to divide into three parts. Part one and two deal with the braita [outside teaching = teaching that is not part of the Mishna] and the third part derives all four cases of tooth and foot in a different way.


The first way of the Braita is clear. We use "he sent" for foot and to get  to the lesser case [it walked by itself] we use a to tooth. The braita does the same with it ate. It uses it for tooth and to fill in the lesser case it uses a hekesh to foot.
 At this point--part three the Gemara uses "he sent" for both tooth and foot without us. And to get to the two other lesser cases it uses "ubier" ("It ate").. It does this but it only says one case for "it ate." The case the animal walked by itself. the  on the מהרש''א explains that it gets to the second less several case of tooth by means of the logic the gemara just got done using--the fact that tooth and foot are in equilibrium. so if you use it ate for foot you have to use it for tooth also.

 The natural question תוספות asks here is why does the gemara not ask like it did above what do you use the verse  כאשר יבער הגלל?

What this means is that about the Talmud uses    כאשר יבער הגלל to fill in all the gaps. The חמור case of נכלה השורש tooth and לא נכלה. Now what can now after the Talmud derives everything without that verse, what  do you need the verse for?

תוספות answers that the ברייתא means to say that if we did not have the ברייתא way of deriving all for cases we would be able to fall back on the way of the braita,


Ok this piece was what I wrote fast. Now I would like to explain a few things. one thing is that I used simplified approach in explaining this Gemara. You probably noticed that I left out the fact that part one and part two of the gemara assumes that all distinctions of tooth go into foot and visa verse. you cant have missed it because it is an essential part of the reasoning of the Gemara. And yet when I explained the Gemara used on two cases for foot [(a) he sent the animal, and (b) it went by itself] and two cases for tooth [it ate all, it ate part.]  For those of you familiar with covariant coordinates this is easy to explain why I did this. I similar changed the coordinates. I used vertical lines instead of slanted lines to go through my graph. The end result ends up the exact same way.

hard words

hekesh [“similarity” = same aspects of different cases= “what is it with this case? Thus and thus. So is it with that case.]

בבא קמא ג' ע''א 

 First I wanted to say that this part of the תלמוד we need to divide into three parts. Part one and two deal with the ברייתא, and the third part derives all four cases of שן and רגל in a different way.


The first way of the ברייתא is clear. We use ושילח for ניזקי רגל and to get  to  איפה שהלכה  בעצמה we use  שן. The ברייתא does the same with וביער בשדה אחר. It uses it for שן and to fill in the lesser case it uses a היקש to רגל.
 At this point the גמרא uses ושילח for both שן and רגל without us. And to get to the two other lesser cases it uses "וביער בשדה אחר. It does this but it only says one case for וביער בשדה אחר. The case the animal walked by itself. The מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א explains that it gets to the second less several case of שן by means of the logic the גמרא just got done using  that is fact that שן and רגל are שווים. So if you use וביער for רגל you have to use it for שן also.

 The natural question תוספות asks here is why does the גמרא not ask like it did above, What do you use the verse כאשר יבער הגלל.

What this means is that about the גמרא uses כאשר יבער הגלל to fill in all the gaps. The מצב  החמור of שן and the מצב הקל.  Now after the גמרא derives everything without that verse, what can do you need the verse for?

 תוספות answers that the ברייתא means to say that if we did not have the third way of deriving all for cases we would be able to fall back on the way of the ברייתא,

Trust in God

We do not find that the Alter of Navardok [the Madragat HaAdam] ( Joseph Yozel Horwitz )  tried to justify Torah based on reason.
In fact it seems that one of the minor themes that are developed in his book is the idea of tests. That is that people can have tests of their faith because of reality.

It is hard to know what he would've said about the Guide for the Perplexed of Maimonides.


On the surface it does look like a basic difference in approach.


I would like to suggest that there is no contradiction and that Joseph Yozel Horwitz was referring to a Platonic level of reality that supersedes physical reality.
 [I may not have said it in so many words, but I tend to look at the world as a superposition of a lot of planes of existence. There is a moral plane- -a world as real as this, and it is superimposed on this physical reality. This is not a thing different than Plato except that I think there are these planes right "inside" of things like Aristotle ]





I think in the West people been highly influenced by the empiricists like Hume and thus find this approach to be difficult to accept.


One of the most famous essays in the history of philosophy, and specifically in the philosophy of religion, is Hume's "Of Miracles," which is Section X in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Yet Hume's argument against miracles suffers from a logical circularity.
While Hume is the most famous for undermining the certainty and necessity of the Principle of Causality, that every event has a cause, miracles do not in fact violate the Principle of Causality. They are caused. The Red Sea parts, not because it just happens, but because God makes it happen.
[Trust in God and learning Torah,  Gemara, Rashi, and Topshot were the major themes in the book of Joseph Horowitz. Tests that prevent one from this path were a minor theme also mentioned in his book. He seems to have the idea that Torah always comes with tests. But the tests will be different for each person. In his days the attraction of the wider world seems to have been the major test.

Today people might have tests of different paths that lay claim to be legitimate Torah paths. But regardless of the type tests involved the Alter of Navardok thought that learning Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot  every day as much as feasible defines the true Torah path.
To get to Torah you have to deal with several layers of tests. One is being thrown out of good yeshivas. The other is to run from the frauds and charlatans that claim to be following the path of Torah. There might many other tests , but these two are the main ones. Even Hillel got thrown out of teh yeshiva of Shamaiya and Avtalyon. and in the Gemara there were plenty of great amoraim that had this happen to them too.