7 (2) Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, male and female: and of beasts that are not clean by twos, male and female.

(3) Of birds of the air, also by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

(4) For in another seven days, I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

(5) And Noaĥ did according to all that the Lord commanded him.

(6) And Noaĥ was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

(7) And Noaĥ went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

54 (1) Sing, O barren one, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, says the Lord.

(2) Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations: spare not: lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

(3) for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall possess nations, and make desolate cities to be inhabited.

(4) Fear not; for thou shall not be ashamed: neither be confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: but thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

(5) For thy Maker is thy husband: the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy redeemer is the Holy One of Yisra᾽el; The God of the whole earth is he called.

(6) For the Lord has called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit; but a wife of youth, can she be cast off? says thy God.

2 (9) Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and justice and equity, every good path:

(10) for wisdom shall enter thy heart, and knowledge be pleasant to thy soul;

(11) discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:

(12) to deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man who speaks perverse things;

(13) who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness;

(14) who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the perverseness of the wicked;

1. 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. By contrast, if the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it transpired that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, cases of that kind do not fit precisely into the primary category of Trampling. In both of these cases the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel, as the damage caused by the shard is tantamount to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal. Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects, and therefore, the owner of a chicken pays the full restitution for the damage done to any objects broken by his chicken. If there was a string [delil] tied to a chicken’s leg as an indication of ownership and it wrapped around a vessel and broke it, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage.

2. Within the context of the primary category of Eating, for what damage caused with the tooth is an animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption. The domesticated animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. If the animal ate garments or vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. As these are not items fit for its consumption, the animal is not deemed forewarned in this case. In what case is this statement applied, that one pays the full value of the food eaten by the animal? It is a case where the animal ate the food on the property of the injured party; but if the animal ate food in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability. And even if the animal ate food in the public domain, if the animal derives benefit from eating another’s produce in the public domain, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives, just not for the full cost of the food. Under what circumstances does the owner of the animal pay for the benefit that it derives? If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that it derives. If the animal ate from food placed at the side of the public square, which is not a public thoroughfare, the owner of the animal pays for what it damaged, as the legal status of that area is like that of the property of the injured party. If the animal ate produce from the entrance of the store, its owner pays for the benefit that it derives, as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. If the animal ate produce from inside the store, its owner pays for what it damaged.

3. With regard to a dog or a goat that jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels while doing so, their owners must pay the full cost of the damage to the vessels because these animals are deemed forewarned concerning to jumping. With regard to a dog that took a cake that had been baked directly on hot coals, and went to a stack of grain to eat it, and it ate the cake and at the same time ignited the stack of grain with a coal that it had taken along with the cake, the owner of the dog must pay the full cost of the damage for the cake, and he must pay for half the cost of the damage to the stack of grain.

4. Which type of ox is deemed innocuous and which is deemed forewarned? An ox is deemed forewarned in any case where witnesses testified about it that it gored on three different days. And it reverts back to its previous innocuous status from when it reverses its behavior and refrains from goring for three consecutive days; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: It is deemed forewarned in any case where witnesses testified that it gored three times, regardless of the number of days on which this behavior occurred. And it reverts back to its previous innocuous status in any case where children pet it and play with it and it does not gore them.

5. And what is the case of the ox that causes damage while on the property of the injured party, mentioned in an earlier mishna (15b) that listed animals that are forewarned? If the animal gored, pushed, bit, squatted upon, or kicked another animal in the public domain, the owner is liable to pay half the cost of the damage if the ox was innocuous, but if it acted while on the property of the injured party, Rabbi Tarfon says: He must pay the full cost of the damage, and the Rabbis say: He must pay half the cost of the damage, as in any other case classified as Goring. Rabbi Tarfon said to the Rabbis: If in a place where the Torah was lenient with regard to damage classified as Eating and with regard to Trampling, specifically in the public domain, as the owner is exempt from liability, nevertheless the Torah was strict with regard to these forms of damage if they occurred on the property of the injured party, requiring him to pay the full cost of the damage, then in a place where the Torah was strict with regard to cases of damage classified as Goring, specifically in the public domain, requiring the owner liable to pay for half the cost of the damage, is it not right that we should be strict with regard to this form of damage if it occurs on the property of the injured party to likewise require the owner of the animal to pay the full cost of the damage? The Rabbis said to him: Although there is an a fortiori inference being applied here, still it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, meaning that the halakha cannot be stricter with the inference than it is with the case that serves as the source of the inference. Therefore, just as one is liable to pay half the cost of the damage classified as Goring in the public domain, so too, for damage classified as Goring on the property of the injured party he is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: If that is your opinion, then I as well will not derive an inference with regard to Goring from a different case of Goring. I will instead derive an inference with regard to Goring from Trampling: And if in a place where the Torah was lenient with regard to damage classified as Eating and Trampling, specifically in the public domain, as the owner is exempt from liability, nevertheless the Torah was strict with regard to damage classified as Goring, requiring him to pay half the cost of the damage, then in a place where the Torah was strict with regard to damage classified as Eating and Trampling, specifically on the property of the injured party as the animal’s owner is obligated to pay the full cost of the damage, is it not right that we should be equally strict with regard to damage classified as Goring and require payment of the full cost of the damage in this case as well? The Rabbis said to him: Here as well, it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, and therefore, just as one is liable to pay half the cost of the damage classified as Goring in the public domain, so too, for damage classified as Goring on the property of the injured party he will be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage, as ultimately your inference still depends on the fact that for Goring in the public domain one pays half the cost of the damage.

6. The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned. Therefore, whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether he was awake while he caused the damage or asleep, whether he blinded another’s eye or broke vessels, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:1): If chickens were flying from place to place and broke vessels with their wings, their owner pays the full cost of the damage as this is a subcategory of Trampling. By contrast, if the damage was caused by the wind generated by their wings, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, in accordance with the halakha in the case of pebbles. Sumakhos says: The owner pays the full cost of the damage. It is taught in another baraita: If chickens were hopping upon dough or upon produce and they sullied it with their feet, or if they pecked at it and caused damage, their owner pays the full cost of the damage. If in the course of their hopping they stirred up dust or propelled pebbles, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: He pays the full cost of the damage.

It is taught in another baraita: If a chicken was flying from place to place and wind emerged from beneath its wings and the wind caused vessels to break, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. The Gemara notes: This unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that the owner pays half the cost of the damage in these cases, just as he does in the case of pebbles propelled by the feet of an animal.

Rava analyzed the baraita and said: Granted, the opinion of Sumakhos is understood, as he holds that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and therefore the owner pays the full cost of the damage in both cases. But the opinion of the Rabbis is difficult, as if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is not like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and is not attributed to the animal, then the owner should not be required to pay even half the cost of the damage.

Then Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and in principle the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And the liability to pay for half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is because the Rabbis learned this halakha through tradition, and it does not correspond to the standard halakhot of damages.

§ Rava says: With regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he renders it ritually impure, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. Conversely, with regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he leaves it ritually pure, e.g., where the contact is indirect, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

The Gemara asks: And Rava, did he come to teach us the halakha of pebbles? The substance of Rava’s statement is that for damage caused by the indirect action of an animal, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. That is identical to the halakha of pebbles articulated in the baraitot cited earlier. The Gemara answers: No, Rava teaches us the halakha in the case of a calf pulling a cart [karon]. Just as with regard to a zav, the status of a vessel that a zav moves is like that of a vessel with which he came into contact, so too, the status of damage caused by the cart pulled by the animal is like that of damage caused by the animal’s body, and it is not considered indirect damage like in the case of pebbles.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party, and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag that is on it; or with the halter that is in its mouth; or with the bell that is around its neck; or if a donkey caused damage with its burden; or if a calf caused damage while pulling a cart; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

to he who caused the Shechinah to reside among Yisrael and led them through the depths on dry land when the waters were cleft, as if frozen. And all this happened because he was willing to offer his life to save Yisrael. Rabbi Yehuda said that even though Noah was righteous, it was still not worthwhile for the holy One, blessed be He, to protect the world because of him.

Come and behold: Moses did not ask anything on the basis of his own merit. He depended on the merit of the Patriarchs. But Noah, unlike Moses, had no other person on whose merit he could depend. Rabbi Yitzchak said that even though this was the case, when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him "But with will I establish My covenant," he should have asked for mercy for them as well. And he should have sacrificed the offering he gave (after the flood) before it happened. Maybe that would have calmed the Judgment of wrath that hung over the world.

Rabbi Yehuda asked: What should (Noah) have done? For the wicked of the world provoked the Holy One, blessed be He! Should he have offered a sacrifice on their behalf? He was certainly afraid for himself, that death might reach him among the wicked. He had seen their wicked deeds and how they had provoked the Holy One, blessed be He, day in and day out.

Rabbi (Eleazar opened) Yitzchak said: As long as the wicked multiply in the world, when a righteous person is found among them, he is punished first. As it is written, "And begin at My sanctuary" (Ezekiel 9:6), and we have learned to read this not as mimikdashi ('at My sanctuary'), but rather as mimkudashai ('from My holy ones'). How did the Holy One, blessed be He, save Noah who was righteous among the wicked? He was saved so that he could bring further generations into the world. For he was truly righteous (and therefore fit to beget children).

Not only that, but he warned them every day, but they did not pay heed. And the verse, "yet if you warn the wicked...but you have saved your soul" (Ezekiel 3:19), is applied to him. From this we learn that whoever warns the wicked - even if the wicked do not heed him - that person saves himself, while the wicked are punished according to their sins. How far should he go in warning them? To the point of hitting them. This issue has already been explained by the friends.

11. There are five corners of the beard, and there are many opinions on them, therefore a God-fearing man should fulfill all of them and not pass a razor over any of his beard at all. (And even under the throat (Beit Yosef in the name of the Iggeret R"Y and the Smag)