Bava Kamma 37: Species-Specific and Religion-Specific

A little story before a new Mishna: Chanan the Wicked slapped someone and was ordered to pay one half-dinar.  He only had a full, damaged dinar, which noone would break for him.  Eventually he slapped the man again and gave him the full damaged dinar to be in compliance with his expected punishment and pay off his fine.

The new Mishna discusses how to deal with forewarning.  Do we forewarn an ox only about one species at a time if it gores only one species?  Are people and animals forewarned together if an ox gores only one, or the other, or both?  Similarly, can an ox be forewarned only for Shabbatot if that is when it gores?  If so, we would know that the ox is tam again after it goes for three consecutive days or three consecutive Shabbatot without goring (the species about which the ox is forewarned).

The Gemara debates the notion of species.  They wonder about large animals versus small animals of the same species.  Could forewarning be transferred from one animal to another?  Or from one species to another? They also wonder whether a switch from forewarning of a man to an animal or vice versa could be considered to be a "reversal".  

The Gemara also compares forewarning regarding an animal that gores on Shabbatot to a woman's menstrual cycle.  If a woman shows a consistent cycle over three (or possibly four) 'months', that is considered to be her cycle.  For example, If her first day of menstruation is on the 15th, then the 16th, and then the 17th of consecutive months, her cycle is established as one month plus one day.

We are introduced to a second Mishna.  It tells us that we treat different victims differently.  An animal has to have an owner for that owner to receive damages.  That means that an ox that is consecrated and then gored does not result in half-damages - or any damages - for its 'temporary owner'.  Similarly, if a Jew's ox damages a Gentile's ox, damages are very different that if a Gentile's ox damages a Jew's ox.  Namely, the Gentile has to pay full damages while the Jew is exempt from payment.

We learn in our notes that generations of scholars have found this disturbing.  It was posited that the Gentiles in question must have been antagonistic, proselytizing Gentiles who were only present to harm Jews.  Otherwise it makes no sense to penalize Gentiles differently from Jews in this type of case.