do not require a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] by transferring the right of collection to the court. The reason that orphans do not require this document is because the court is legally considered to be their steward, and their debts are therefore transferred to the court automatically, even without a prosbol.

Similarly, Rami bar Ḥama taught: Orphans do not require a prosbol, as Rabban Gamliel and his court were tantamount to the fathers of orphans, as they were vigilant to collect all of the debts owed to orphans. Subsequently, the courts in every generation have this status.

The Gemara relates: Ḥanan the wicked slapped a certain man. He then came before Rav Huna for judgment. Rav Huna said to him: Go give him a half-dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an act. Ḥanan the wicked had a clipped dinar, and wanted to give him a half-dinar from it, but there was no one who wanted to take it from him to give him smaller coins for it. Ḥanan the wicked then gave him another slap, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of half a dinar, and gave him the clipped dinar as payment.

MISHNA: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species, as it already gored other oxen three times, but is not forewarned with regard to other species; or an ox that is forewarned with regard to people, but is not forewarned with regard to animals; or one that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species; in all these cases, if the ox gores the type of animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.

The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.

When is it rendered innocuous again after being forewarned with regard to Shabbat? It reverts to its innocuous status when its behavior reverts to normal, i.e., when it refrains from goring for three days of Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat in three successive weeks.

GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Zevid said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, referring to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species, if it gores another species, its owner pays only half the cost of the damage. Rav Pappa said: The version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species. Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that the fact that it is forewarned with regard to goring one species does not render it forewarned with regard to goring other species, until it is proven otherwise.

The Gemara explains: Rav Zevid said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that it is referring specifically to an ox that is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species. This implies that in an ordinary case, where there is no such proof, the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all species. Rav Pappa, by contrast, said that the version of the mishna that we learned states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species.

Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause of the mishna, whereas Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause.

Rav Zevid inferred his opinion from the latter clause, as it teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, but is not forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species. Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case the ox is considered forewarned with regard to all animals, this clause of the mishna teaches us that even from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species, in an ordinary case the ox is thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species, which is a more far-reaching statement, as an ox is less likely to gore large animals.

But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, meaning that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, there is a difficulty with the latter clause of the mishna.

The Gemara explains: Now that it can be said that from being forewarned with regard to small oxen, in an ordinary case, the ox is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to small animals in general, need it be said that from being forewarned with regard to small specimens of a species it is not thereby considered forewarned with regard to large specimens of that species? It must be that the mishna reads: But is not forewarned, indicating that only when the ox is proven to be innocuous with regard to other species and then it gores another species is its owner liable to pay only half the cost of the damage. Otherwise, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

And Rav Pappa could have said to you in response that even if the mishna reads: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, the latter clause is necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it breached the norm by attacking one of that species, it is considered to have breached the norm entirely with regard to that species, and there is no difference with regard to large members of the species and there is no difference with regard to small members of it, as the ox is now likely to gore any of them. Therefore, this clause of the mishna teaches us that it is not considered forewarned with regard to the large animals of that species.

As stated previously, Rav Pappa inferred his opinion from the former clause of the mishna. As the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is not forewarned with regard to animals. Granted, if you say that we learned that the mishna states: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, which would indicate that in an ordinary case, where there is no proof to the contrary, it is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then the mishna, in the next clause, teaches us this, that even from being forewarned with regard to people, in an ordinary case, the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals. The ox is considered innocuous with regard to animals, although it is more common for an ox to gore an animal than a person.

But if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, indicating that in an ordinary case it is considered forewarned with regard to other species, then there is a difficulty with the following clause of the mishna. Now that it can be said that even from being forewarned with regard to one species of animal, in an ordinary case, it is thereby considered forewarned with regard to other species of animals, need it be said that from its being forewarned with regard to people it is also considered forewarned with regard to animals?

And Rav Zevid could have said to you in response: The former clause in the mishna relates to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, i.e., a case where the ox was forewarned with regard to man and forewarned with regard to animals, and reverted to its innocuous status with regard to animals, as it stood in close proximity to an animal three times and did not gore. Lest you say that since it did not demonstratively revert to its innocuous behavior toward people, as it did not refrain from goring people, its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, the mishna teaches us that its reversal with regard to animals is nevertheless considered a reversal, and it no longer has the status of a forewarned ox with regard to goring animals.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Zevid’s opinion from a baraita: Sumakhos says: An ox that is forewarned with regard to people is considered forewarned with regard to animals, due to an a fortiori inference: If it is forewarned with regard to people, is it not clear all the more so that it is forewarned with regard to animals? The Gemara elaborates: By inference, the first tanna, i.e., the tanna of the mishna, is saying that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa.

The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid could have said to you that Sumakhos’s statement can be interpreted as relating to the ox reverting to its innocuous status, and this is what he is saying to the first tanna: Contrary to what you are saying, that the ox’s reversal with regard to animals is considered a reversal although it has not yet reversed its behavior toward people, I maintain that its reversal with regard to animals is not considered a reversal, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of an animal forewarned with regard to people: If the ox has not reverted to its innocuous behavior toward people, is it not clear all the more so that it has not truly reverted to its innocuous behavior toward animals?

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear a proof for Rav Zevid’s opinion from the mishna: The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.

Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches: But was not forewarned with regard to weekdays, they were asking him about the halakha in that case, and likewise, he was answering them with a ruling. But if you say that it teaches: This ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot is not forewarned with regard to weekdays, the mishna would be understood as saying that an ox that is forewarned with regard to Shabbat is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays. Is it possible that the Sages were teaching him this halakha? And furthermore, what was he responding to them? They had already stated themselves that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to weekdays.

Rav Yannai said: Rav Zevid’s opinion can be inferred from the former clause of the mishna as well, as it teaches: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage.

Granted, if you say that the mishna teaches in the first clause: With regard to an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species but is not forewarned with regard to other species, this clause is explaining the halakha in that case, i.e., if the ox is forewarned only with regard to its species, its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage only if it gores another ox.

But if you say that the mishna teaches: An ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not forewarned with regard to other species, and the halakha was already determined at the beginning of the mishna, namely, that the ox is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, then what need is there for the mishna to further state: If the ox gores an animal or person with regard to which it is forewarned, its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if it gores an animal or person with regard to which it is not forewarned, he pays half the cost of the damage? Has the mishna not taught us until now that for an innocuous ox its owner pays half the cost of the damage and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage?

The Gemara comments: And even if you say that Rav Pappa’s opinion, which says that an ox that is forewarned with regard to its own species is not considered forewarned with regard to other species, is accepted, nevertheless, if an ox gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, it is thereby rendered forewarned with regard to all of them. The ox is rendered forewarned with regard to all three species, regardless of the fact that it did not gore each individual species three times.

§ The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and subsequently saw another ox but did not gore it, again saw an ox and gored it and then saw an ox but did not gore it, and a third time saw an ox and gored it and saw an ox and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate oxen. The ox is considered forewarned with regard to goring every other ox that it sees and is considered innocuous with regard to the oxen in between. If it then gores two oxen in a row, the owner of the ox is liable for only half the cost of the damage for the second ox.

The Sages taught: If an ox saw an ox and gored it, and then saw a donkey but did not gore it, and saw a horse and gored it, then saw a camel and did not gore it, and saw a mule and gored it, and then saw a wild donkey [arod] and did not gore it, in this case it is rendered forewarned with regard to alternate animals of all species.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox gored