Placing the ? Mark

We begin the second perek of Bava Kamma today. The Mishnah, according to Ktav Yad Kaufmann, reads:

Note the vav on the word vehabeheima. Meanwhile, all our Talmudic printings and manuscripts (on Hachi Garsinan) omit the vav.

This ties in to a somewhat important point, raised by Tosafot. Thus, the Mishnah begins:

מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד הָרֶגֶל מוּעֶדֶת? לִשְׁבֹּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּלְשַׁבֵּר.

MISHNA: The mishna in the previous chapter (15b) teaches that the owner of an animal is always forewarned with regard to the category of Trampling. The mishna elaborates: For what damage caused with the hoof is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking. An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, by doing so, breaking objects as it proceeds.

and Tosafot write:

הבהמה מועדת - אית דגרס והבהמה בוי"ו וה"פ כיצד העדאה דרגל לשבר דרך הלוכה פי' דרך הלוכה היא העדאתה וכן בסיפא גבי שן אבל קשה לר"י מה חידש כאן שלא שנאה בפרק קמא ונראה לר"י דל"ג בוי"ו וה"פ כיצד הרגל מועדת לשבר דרך הלוכה שאמר בפרק קמא (דף טו:) הבהמה מועדת כו' ומ"מ דייק בגמרא שפיר היינו רגל היינו בהמה דהרגל מועדת והבהמה מועדת הכל אחד:

That is, some have the vav in habeheima and some don’t. With the vav, the preceding is a stand-alone question and answer. As in the English translation above. “What with the hood is forewarned? To breaking in the course of its walking.” And so too for the seifa (the third Mishnah), about Tooth.

However, this is difficult to Rabbeinu Yitzchak, for what does this standalone question and answer add to what was already stated in the first perek? Therefore, he thinks that we don’t have the vav. Then, it is a single question, moving the question mark to the end: “How so the Hoof to break as it walks (as we mentioned in the first perek?” “The animal is muad to walk in its way. However, if it kicked…” And yet, gemara (still) does well to ask that Regel is the same as Beheima, for “The Hoof is Muad” and “The Animal is Muad”, they are both the same.

Here is Vatican 116, without the vav:

This seems to me (Josh) to be the correct text, and the correct peshat interpretation of the Mishnah. And so we should move the question mark a few words over.

However, unlike Tosafot’s conclusion, this wreaks havoc with the gemara’s question. Regel is not the same as Beheimah, because Beheimah also appears in the third Mishnah, elaborating on Tooth. And it is there to contrast to other means of foot oriented damage, such as kicking or tzrorot, and to contrast to damages by chickens. Further, here is Ravina I’s question to Rava:

גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: הַיְינוּ רֶגֶל הַיְינוּ בְּהֵמָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנָא אָבוֹת, וְקָתָנֵי תּוֹלָדוֹת.

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Ravina said to Rava: In the context of the category of Trampling, damage caused by an animal trampling an object with its foot is the same as damage caused by an animal breaking an object with its body. Why does the mishna repeat the same halakha twice? Rava said to him: First, the tanna teaches the primary categories of damage, namely the category of Trampling with an animal’s foot, which is mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and then he teaches the subcategories of those primary categories, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to causing damage with other parts of its body in the course of its walking.

The distinction between Av and Tolada, or in the third toothy Mishnah, between Beheimah and Chaya (domesticated and wild animal) is off. The answer for these is that it is not teaching two separate laws, after the initial question. Rather, that portion you are calling a duplicate teaching is part of the framing question!