(16a:1)כולה רבי טרפון היא רישא בחצר המיוחדת לפירות לאחד מהן ולזה ולזה לשורים דלגבי שן הויא לה חצר הניזק ולגבי קרן הויא רשות הרבים
(16a:1)The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon; the first part of the latter clause is stated with regard to a jointly owned courtyard, which under the terms of their partnership is designated for the use of one of them, i.e., the injured party, to keep his produce there, and for this one and for that one to keep their oxen there. Accordingly, with regard to damage of the category of Eating caused by one partner’s ox to the injured party’s produce in that courtyard, it is equivalent to the case of a courtyard owned exclusively by the injured party, and the ox’s owner is liable for all the damage. But with regard to damage of the category of Goring, since they are both allowed to keep oxen there, the courtyard is equivalent to a public domain, and if one’s innocuous ox causes damage there, one is liable for only half the cost of the damage.
(16a:2)אמר רב כהנא אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא ואמר לי מי מצית מוקמת לה כולה כרבי טרפון הקתני השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה ראוי לה אין שאין ראוי לה לא
(16a:2)Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching of Rabbi Elazar before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, and he said to me: Are you really able to interpret that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? But doesn’t the mishna teach: Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. This indicates that only if what it eats is fitting for it, then yes, one is liable for the full cost of the damage, but if it eats something that is not fitting for it, the owner would not be liable for the full cost of the damage, but only for half the cost of the damage.
(16a:3)ואי ר' טרפון האמר משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם משלם
(16a:3)Rav Kahana explains his difficulty: And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, the owner should be liable to pay the full cost of the damage even if his animal ate something not fitting for it, as doesn’t Rabbi Tarfon say: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage even if the ox is innocuous.
(16a:4)אלא לעולם רבנן היא וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין
(16a:4)Rather, Rav Kahana said: Actually it must be that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The opening clause should be understood as saying: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times, with regard to the five acts they are considered forewarned, i.e., the mishna is not referring to two different sets of damages, five acts for which the animal is considered innocuous and five for which it is considered forewarned. Rather, both statements in the initial clause of the mishna are referring to the same five acts of Goring, and they teach that although the animal is initially considered innocuous with regard to these five acts, it can become forewarned.
(16a:5)ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן והיכן העדתן בחצר הניזק
(16a:5)The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset. The next two items in the mishna: A forewarned ox and an ox that causes damage on the property of the injured party, should be understood as a question and an answer: And where does their forewarned status with regard to these acts apply? It applies in the courtyard of the injured party. According to Rav Kahana’s explanation, the statement: In the courtyard of the injured party, refers only to cases of Eating or Trampling, not to acts classified as Goring, and therefore it is true even according to the opinion of the Rabbis.
(16a:6)מתקיף לה רבינא הא קתני לקמן שור המזיק ברשות הניזק כיצד אי אמרת בשלמא איירי בה משום הכי קתני כיצד אלא אי אמרת לא איירי בה מאי כיצד
(16a:6)Ravina objects to this explanation: Doesn’t the mishna below (24b) teach: With regard to the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party on the property of the injured party, stated in the mishna here (15b), how so, i.e., what are the circumstances in which one is liable to pay the full cost of the damage? The mishna below (24b) proceeds to list acts of damage classified as Goring. Ravina states his objection: Granted, if you say that the mishna here (15b) discusses that case, i.e., that it is referring to Goring, it is due to that ruling that the mishna below teaches: How so, and proceeds to discuss one’s liability for Goring, as it is elucidating the case mentioned in the mishna here. But if you say, as Rav Zevid suggests, that the mishna here (15b) does not discuss Goring, what is the meaning of the mishna below when it asks: How so, and then proceeds to discuss one’s liability for Goring?
(16a:7)אלא אמר רבינא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין
(16a:7)Rather, Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned.
(16a:8)ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן וזהו שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת ר' טרפון ורבנן ויש מועדים אחרים כיוצא באלו הזאב והארי והדוב והברדלס והנמר והנחש
(16a:8)The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.
(16a:9)תניא נמי הכי חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן וזהו שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת רבי טרפון ורבנן ויש מועדין אחרים כיוצא באלו הזאב והארי הדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש
(16a:9)The Gemara notes: This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.
(16a:10)איכא דרמו לה מירמא תנן חמשה תמים וחמשה מועדים ותו ליכא והאיכא הזאב הארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש
(16a:10)There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction and through doing so arrived at the same conclusions, as follows: We learned in the opening clause of the mishna: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, and there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned. With regard to this, one can ask: But is there nothing else? But aren’t there the cases mentioned in the continuation of the mishna: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake? These are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before.
(16a:11)ומשני אמר רבינא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני חמשה תמים הן ואם הועדו חמשתן מועדין ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן וזהו שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת רבי טרפון ורבנן ויש מועדין אחרים כיוצא באלו הזאב והארי הדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש
(16a:11)And they resolve the contradiction through that which Ravina said: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: There are five damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain innocuous, but if they were warned for performing those acts three times with regard to the five acts, they are considered forewarned. The next part of the mishna then provides another halakha: But for damage of the categories of Eating and Trampling, an animal is considered forewarned from the outset, and this is a case in which all agree that the animal is classified as a forewarned ox. And there is the case of an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party, on the property of the injured party, which is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis. And there are other cases similar to these in which animals are considered forewarned from the outset, namely: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake.
(16a:12)ולא לרבוץ אמר רבי אלעזר לא שנו אלא פכין גדולים אבל פכין קטנים אורחיה הוא
(16a:12)§ The mishna teaches: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. Rabbi Elazar says: They taught this only with regard to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, and therefore the act is classified as a subcategory of Goring. But if the animal crouched upon small vessels, since that is its typical manner of behavior, it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, for which the animal is considered forewarned from the outset.
(16a:13)לימא מסייע ליה הבהמה מועדת להלך כדרכה ולשבר ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים
(16a:13)The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels. The baraita indicates that an animal’s typical manner is to crush vessels, presumably by crouching down upon them. This would seem to contradict the mishna that states that such behavior is atypical. It would appear the only resolution to this contradiction is if one accepts the distinction made by Rabbi Elazar that the mishna concerns large vessels and the baraita concerns small vessels.
(16a:14)דלמא מן הצד
(16a:14)The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the baraita concerns a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall, but it does not concern a case where it crouched upon them.
(16a:15)איכא דאמרי א"ר אלעזר לא תימא פכין גדולים הוא דלאו אורחיה אבל פכין קטנים אורחיה הוא אלא אפילו פכין קטנים נמי לאו אורחיה הוא
(16a:15)There are those who say a different version of this discussion, as follows: Rabbi Elazar says: Do not say that the mishna’s ruling refers only to large vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them, but if the animal crouched upon small vessels, that is its typical manner and for that type of damage the animal is considered forewarned. Rather, the mishna refers even to small vessels, as it is atypical for an animal to crouch upon them.
(16a:16)מיתיבי ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים
(16a:16)The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels.
(16a:17)אמר רבי אלעזר דלמא מן הצד
(16a:17)Rabbi Elazar said: Perhaps the baraita concerns only a case where the animal pushed against the utensils from the side and crushed them against a wall.
(16a:18)איכא דרמי לה מירמא תנן ולא לרבוץ והתניא ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים אמר רבי אלעזר לא קשיא כאן בפכין גדולים כאן בפכין קטנים
(16a:18)There are those who raise this issue as a contradiction: We learned in the mishna: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: An animal is considered forewarned, from the outset, to walk in its typical manner and to break or crush a person, or an animal, or vessels? In order to resolve this contradiction, Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult; here, in the mishna, the reference is to large vessels, while there, in the baraita, the reference is to small vessels.
(16a:19)הזאב והארי וכו' מאי ברדלס אמר רב יהודה נפרזא מאי נפרזא אמר רב יוסף אפא
(16a:19)§ The mishna teaches: The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardelas, and the snake; these are considered to be forewarned even if they had never caused damage before. The Gemara asks: What is a bardelas? Rav Yehuda said: It is a nafreza. The Gemara asks: What is a nafreza? Rav Yosef said: It is an appa.
(16a:20)מיתיבי רבי מאיר אומר אף הצבוע רבי אלעזר אומר אף הנחש ואמר רב יוסף צבוע זו אפא
(16a:20)The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena [tzavo’a]. Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. And Rav Yosef said in explanation of the baraita: The hyena mentioned by Rabbi Meir, this is the animal called an appa. If Rav Yosef understands a hyena to be an appa, how could he also claim, above, that it is a bardelas?
(16a:21)לא קשיא כאן בצבוע זכר כאן בצבוע נקיבה
(16a:21)The Gemara explains: It is not difficult: Here, in the baraita, Rabbi Meir is referring to a male hyena, and there, in the mishna, the reference is to a female hyena.
(16a:22)דתניא צבוע זכר לאחר שבע שנים נעשה עטלף עטלף לאחר שבע שנים נעשה ערפד ערפד לאחר ז' שנים נעשה קימוש קימוש לאחר שבע שנים נעשה חוח חוח לאחר שבע שנים נעשה שד שדרו של אדם לאחר שבע שנים נעשה נחש והני מילי דלא כרע במודים
(16a:22)And it is apparent that a male hyena is distinct from a female one, as it is taught in a baraita: A male hyena after seven years metamorphoses into an insectivorous bat [atalef ]; an insectivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a herbivorous bat [arpad]; a herbivorous bat after seven years metamorphoses into a thistle [kimosh]; a thistle after seven years metamorphoses into a briar [ḥo’aḥ]; and a briar after seven years metamorphoses into a demon. Similarly, a person’s spine, seven years after his death, metamorphoses into a snake. The Gemara qualifies the last statement: And this matter applies only to a case where that person did not bow during the blessing of thanksgiving, the eighteenth blessing of the Amida prayer.
(16a:23)אמר מר ר"מ אומר אף הצבוע
(16a:23)The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says above: In addition to the list of animals that are considered forewarned, Rabbi Meir says: Also the hyena.
(16b:1)רבי אלעזר אומר אף הנחש והא אנן תנן ר' אלעזר אומר בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדים והנחש מועד לעולם
(16b:1)Rabbi Elazar says: Also the snake. By using the term also, Rabbi Elazar suggests he considers a snake to be forewarned to the same extent as the other animals in the mishna’s list, which, according to his opinion, are not considered to be forewarned if they are domesticated. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered to be forewarned, but the snake is always considered forewarned?
(16b:2)תני נחש
(16b:2)The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying that Rabbi Elazar says: A snake, instead of saying: Also a snake. Accordingly, the baraita is teaching that he holds that only a snake is considered to be forewarned under all circumstances because he holds that even if it is domesticated it is still prone to cause damage.
(16b:3)אמר שמואל ארי ברה"ר דרס ואכל פטור טרף ואכל חייב
(16b:3)§ The Gemara considers cases of damage caused by a lion: Shmuel says: With regard to a lion that kills an animal in the public domain, if it clawed its prey and ate it, the lion’s owner is exempt from liability. But if it first tore apart its prey with its teeth in order to kill it, and only then ate it, the owner is liable for the damage.
(16b:4)דרס ואכל פטור כיון דאורחיה למידרס הוה ליה כמו שאכלה פירות וירקות דהוה ליה שן ברשות הרבים ופטור טרף לאו אורחיה הוא
(16b:4)The Gemara elucidates: If it clawed its prey and ate it, the owner is exempt, since it is its typical manner to claw its prey and eat it, and it is therefore equivalent to the case of an animal that eats fruit and vegetables belonging to someone else. Therefore, it is classified as Eating done in a public domain, and the owner of the lion is exempt. But if the lion first tore apart its prey to kill it, since this is not its typical manner, the act is classified as Goring, for which an owner is liable even in a public thoroughfare.
(16b:5)למימרא דטריפה לאו אורחיה הוא והכתיב (נחום ב, יג) אריה טורף בדי גורותיו בשביל גורותיו ומחנק ללבאותיו בשביל לבאותיו וימלא טרף חוריו בשביל חוריו ומעונותיו טריפה בשביל מעונותיו
(16b:5)The Gemara asks: Is this to say that tearing apart its prey is not the typical manner of a lion? But isn’t it written: “The lion tears apart for its young, and it strangles for its lionesses, and it fills its caves with prey, and its den with that which was torn apart” (Nahum 2:13). The description in the verse clearly indicates that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart its prey. The Gemara answers that each phrase of this verse is referring not to a situation where the lion catches prey for its own immediate use, but to one where it provides food for its young, as it says: “The lion tears apart for its young”; to provide food for its lionesses: “And it strangles for its lionesses”; to provide food for the young cubs in its lair: “And it filled its lair with prey”; and to provide food for the young cubs in its den: “And its den with that which was torn apart.” Therefore, we cannot learn from this verse that it is the typical manner of a lion to tear apart prey for its own immediate use.
(16b:6)והתניא וכן חיה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק טרפה בהמה ואכלה בשר משלם נזק שלם
(16b:6)The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning acts classified as Eating: And similarly, in the case of a wild animal, including a lion, that entered the courtyard of the injured party and tore apart the courtyard owner’s animal and ate its meat, the owner of the wild animal pays the full cost of the damage.
(16b:7)הכא במאי עסקינן שטרפה להניח הא אכלה קתני בשנמלכה ואכלה
(16b:7)The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where it tore apart the animal in order to leave it for later consumption. Since this is typical behavior for a lion, the lion is considered forewarned with regard to it. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the baraita teach: And ate its meat? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the lion initially killed the animal to leave it for later consumption but then reconsidered and ate it.
(16b:8)מנא ידעינן ועוד דשמואל נמי דלמא הכי הוא
(16b:8)The Gemara questions this understanding: How can we know what the animal’s initial intentions were? And furthermore, if one accepts this claim, then the ruling of Shmuel is also called into question, as perhaps the case he ruled on is a case like this, where the lion initially intended to leave the prey he killed for later consumption, and therefore the owner should be exempt. The Gemara therefore rejects this understanding.
(16b:9)אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לצדדין קתני שטרפה להניח או דרסה ואכלה משלמת נזק שלם
(16b:9)Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The baraita teaches two cases disjunctively and should be understood as teaching two halakhot: With regard to a lion that tore apart an animal in order to leave it for later consumption, or a lion that clawed its prey and ate it, since each acted in the typical manner of a lion, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
(16b:10)רבינא אמר כי קאמר שמואל בארי תרבות ואליבא דרבי אלעזר דאמר לאו אורחיה
(16b:10)Ravina said: It is the typical manner of a wild lion to kill its prey and then eat it, and therefore such damage is classified as Eating. Accordingly, if the damage was done in the public domain, the lion’s owner is exempt from any liability. When Shmuel says that an owner is liable if his lion does so, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack. Accordingly, the act is classified as being of the category of Goring, for which one is liable even in a public thoroughfare.
(16b:11)אי הכי אפי' דרסה נמי ליחייב
(16b:11)The Gemara asks: If so, then even when the lion clawed its prey and ate it, the owner should be liable for any damage it causes in a public domain, since according to Rabbi Elazar such behavior is atypical for a domesticated lion. Why then does Shmuel rule that in such a case the owner is exempt?
(16b:12)אלא דרבינא לאו אשמואל אתמר אלא אמתניתא כי תני מתניתא בארי תרבות ואליבא דר' אלעזר דאמר לאו אורחיה
(16b:12)The Gemara concedes that its presentation of Ravina’s opinion is untenable: Rather, Ravina’s explanation was not stated in reference to Shmuel’s ruling, but rather in reference to the baraita, cited above, that discusses a case where a lion causes damage in the courtyard of the injured party. Accordingly, Ravina’s statement should be understood as follows: When the baraita teaches that one is liable if one’s lion tore apart an animal and ate it, that was with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says it is not the typical manner of a domesticated wild animal to attack.
(16b:13)א"ה ח"נ בעי לשלומי דאייעד
(16b:13)The Gemara asks: If that is so, since the act is atypical behavior for a lion, it should be classified as Goring, and the owner should be required to pay for only half the cost of the damage. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the lion was forewarned.
(16b:14)א"ה מאי האי דקתני לה גבי תולדה דשן גבי תולדה דקרן בעי למיתנייה קשיא
(16b:14)The Gemara questions further: If that is so, what is the reason that the baraita teaches this among the subcategories of Eating? It should have taught it among the subcategories of Goring. The Gemara concedes: This is a difficulty with this explanation.
(16b:15)מתני׳ מה בין תם למועד
(16b:15)MISHNA: What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is considered innocuous and the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is forewarned?
(16b:16)אלא שהתם משלם חצי נזק מגופו ומועד משלם נזק שלם מן העלייה
(16b:16)The only differences are that for damage caused by an innocuous ox, the owner pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox, and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage from his higher property.
(16b:17)גמ׳ מאי עלייה אמר רבי אלעזר במעולה שבנכסיו
(16b:17)GEMARA: What does the mishna mean by saying he pays from his higher [aliyya] property? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that he pays with the superior-quality [bame’ulla] items of his property.
(16b:18)וכן הוא אומר (דברי הימים ב לב, לג) וישכב חזקיהו עם אבותיו ויקברוהו במעלה קברי בני דוד ואמר ר' אלעזר במעלה אצל מעולים שבמשפחה ומאן נינהו דוד ושלמה
(16b:18)And similarly, the fact that the word aliyya is referring to superior-quality property is indicated by the verse that states: “And Hezekiah lay with his ancestors, and they buried him in the best [bema’ale] of the sepulchers of the descendants of David” (II Chronicles 32:33), and Rabbi Elazar says: The term bema’ale means beside the best of the family. And who are they? David and Solomon.
(16b:19)(דברי הימים ב טז, יד) ויקברוהו בקברותיו אשר כרה לו בעיר דוד וישכיבוהו במשכב אשר מלא בשמים וזנים מאי בשמים וזנים רבי אלעזר אמר זיני זיני ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר בשמים שכל המריח בהן בא לידי זימה
(16b:19)The Gemara offers an interpretation of another verse about the burial of a king of Judea, King Asa: “And they buried him in his own sepulchers, which he had hewn out for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the resting place, which was filled with perfumes and spices [zenim] prepared by the perfumers’ art” (II Chronicles 16:14). What is meant by “perfumes and spices”? Rabbi Elazar says: It means many different types [zinei] of perfumes. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The word zenim sounds similar to the word zenut, licentiousness, and should therefore be understood about types of perfumes that anyone who smells them is led to licentiousness.
(16b:20)(ירמיהו יח, כב) כי כרו שוחה ללכדני ופחים טמנו לרגלי רבי אלעזר אמר שחשדוהו מזונה ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר שחשדוהו מאשת איש
(16b:20)The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: Jeremiah requested of God to punish those who hounded him: “For they have dug a pit to trap me and they have set snares for my feet” (Jeremiah 18:22). In what way did they dig a pit to trap him? Rabbi Elazar says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a woman who had engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona]. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: They cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman.
(16b:21)בשלמא למ"ד שחשדוהו מזונה היינו דכתיב (משלי כג, כז) כי שוחה עמוקה זונה אלא למ"ד שחשדוהו מאשת איש מאי שוחה אטו אשת איש מי נפקא מכלל זונה
(16b:21)The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, this is because the word “pit” is used as a metaphor for a zona, as it is written: “For a zona is a deep pit” (Proverbs 23:27). But according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, for what reason did Jeremiah use the word “pit”? The Gemara answers: Due to the fact that she is a married woman, should she be excluded from the category of a zona? If she commits adultery she is also termed a zona, and the term “pit” can justifiably be applied to her.
(16b:22)בשלמא למ"ד שחשדוהו מאשת איש היינו דכתיב (ירמיהו יח, כג) ואתה ה' ידעת את כל עצתם עלי למות אלא למאן דאמר שחשדוהו מזונה מאי למות שהשליכוהו לבאר טיט
(16b:22)The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they cast suspicion upon him of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, this is consistent with that which is written: “You, Lord, know all their plans to kill me” (Jeremiah 18:23). By claiming he engaged in intercourse with a married woman, they implicated him in a prohibition punishable by the death penalty. But according to the one who says that they suspected him of engaging in intercourse with a zona, what did he mean by saying “to kill me” when there is no court-imposed capital punishment for doing so? The Gemara answers: Jeremiah was referring to the fact that they cast him into a pit of mire.
(16b:23)דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו יח, כג) יהיו מוכשלים לפניך בעת אפך עשה בהם אמר ירמיה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם אפילו בשעה שעושין צדקה הכשילם בבני אדם שאינן מהוגנים כדי שלא יקבלו עליהן שכר
(16b:23)Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let them be made to stumble before You; deal with them in the time of Your anger” (Jeremiah 18:23)? It means that Jeremiah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even at a time when they try to perform acts of charity, make them stumble by ensuring that they do so with people who are unworthy of charity in order that they should not receive the reward for helping them.
(16b:24)(דברי הימים ב לב, לג) וכבוד עשו לו במותו מלמד שהושיבו ישיבה על קברו
(16b:24)The Gemara, above, cited a verse concerning King Hezekiah’s burial. The Gemara cites the continuation of that verse: “And they afforded him honor in his death” (II Chronicles 32:33). This teaches that they established a yeshiva at his grave to study Torah there.
(16b:25)פליגי בה ר' נתן ורבנן חד אמר שלשה
(16b:25)Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this yeshiva: One said: They studied there for three days.
