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?

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this yeshiva: One said: They studied there for three days.