Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 2:6 ירושלמי בבא קמא ב׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: Which one is tame and which one is notorious? Notorious if there was testimony against it for three days. Tame if it behaved during three [days], the words of Rebbi Jehudah⁸⁵In his opinion, a vicious animal can regain the status of tame.. Rebbi Meїr says, notorious if there was testimony against it three times⁸⁶In the Babli, this is read as including testimony about three different incidents in one day, or on three widely spaced occasions. The notorious animal regains a status of tame only if it regularly can be touched by children. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael(Neziqin 10), this interpretation is attributed to R. Yose.; tame if children touched it.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.⁸⁷Ex. 21:36; a notorious bull is one who was known to gore “yesterday and the day before.” Babli 23b.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings⁸⁸In the Rome fragment: כהפליג נגיחות, “if it spread out its gorings”., that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days⁸⁹In the Babli, 24a, R. Meïr is credited with the argument that if three different gorings on three different days make a bull notorious then three gorings on the same day certainly will have the same effect. The plural “bulls” in the next sentence negates this interpretation in the Yerushalmi which might follow the Mekhilta and attributes that argument to R. Yose (Note 86).
The Babli, 37a, notes that a bull can be declared notorious on alternate days if it was observed to gore on days 1,3,5 and was tame on days 2,4.. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days⁹⁰The question is not answered, probably because it never arose in practice.? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed⁹¹In the Babli, Niddah 68a, the opinion attributed here to R. Ada is Rav’s and that of Rav Huna is Levi’s. Since the Babli follows Rav but the opinion of Rav Ada is discredited in the Yerushalmi, the Talmudim come to opposite conclusions.: A menstruating woman⁹²The text here is incomprehensible; one has to insert two words from the parallel Babli text. Lev. 15:19 decrees that a menstruating woman is impure for seven days; then she may immerse herself in a miqweh and is pure. But if she has a disccharge “many days outside her period”, she is declared זָבָה “suffering from flux”, and Lev. 15:25–30 decrees that after she is healed she has to undergo a period of purification and a Temple ceremony to regain purity. Since “days” mean a minimum of two, “many days” mean a minimum of three (cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical problems in Jewish tradition, in: Ph. Longworth, ed., Confrontations with Judaism, London 1966, pp. 171–196.) Therefore it is clear that one deals here with a menstruating woman who checks herself on the seventh day and finds herself impure. She therefore cannot become pure at the end of the seventh day but falls under the severe rules of the sufferer from flux only if she has a discharge during three consecutive days. checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah⁹³Instead of niddah, “the menstruating woman”, this has to be read zavah, “the woman suffering from flux” instead; cf. the preceding Note.. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah^93,Instead of niddah, “the menstruating woman”, this has to be read zavah, “the woman suffering from flux” instead; cf. the preceding Note.⁹⁴She has to follow the rules of zavah but, if the Temple will be miraculously rebuilt overnight, she would not bring a sacrifice.. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame animal and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony⁹⁶Testimony before the court which declares a bull notorious. The Babli, 24a, agrees and declares this to be the opinion of the Tanna R. Yose., as we have stated⁹⁷Similar texts are in the mss. of Mekhilta dR. Ismael(Neziqin 10), ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 284.: “A bull which gored three times on the same day is not notorious. Why does the verse say ‘from yesterday and the day before’? For if it mended its ways for three days one after the other it is judged to be tame.” We were thinking to say that practice follows Rav Huna who said following both of them⁹⁸Practice partially follows both RR. Jehudah and Meïr.. This is confirmed by Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame [bull] and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony.