Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

November 13, 2023 | 讻状讟 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 11

This week’s learning is sponsored by Jason and Danielle Friedman in honor of Oliver Friedman’s upcoming bar mitzva.聽

Even without the verse “and the body will be his,” it would have been clear that the one whose animal was killed is left with the carcass of the animal and the one who damaged only pays the difference. If so, the verse must be teaching that if the carcass of the animal went down in value over time after the animal was killed, the one who damaged does not need to compensate for that, but pays according to the price at the time of the death. The Gemara suggests that whether the depreciation is a loss for the one damaged or the one who caused the damage is a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected as the debate may be regarding which side is responsible for bringing the carcass to court to assess its value. According to this understanding, all agree that the one who was damaged takes a loss if the carcass depreciates. This is true for damages but if one steals, the loss is on the thief. What about a borrower whose object she is borrowing breaks? Some compare it to one who stole and others to one who damaged. Ulla quotes Rabbi Elazar on this issue – only a thief assumes the depreciation, not a borrower. Five other rulings of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Elazar are brought. One is regarding when a woman counts days of impurity when one miscarries over two days without seeing a clear fetus. The second is that one is not obligated to redeem one’s firstborn son if the child was killed before thirty days passed from birth. The third is about acquiring large animals which is performed by pulling. The fourth – when brothers divide their father’s inheritance, if they had previously purchased clothing from the estate’s money, is that deducted from their share? One what does it depend on? The last regards a person watching another’s item – if they pass it on to someone else to watch without consulting with the original owner, and the item is damaged, who is responsible?

讬讘讬讗 注讚讬诐 砖谞讟专驻讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜驻讟讜专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 注讚讜讚讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉


This means that the bailee should bring witnesses that the animal was mauled through circumstances beyond his control, and based on their testimony he is exempt from liability. Abba Shaul says: The word ed should not be interpreted as witness, but as carcass. Accordingly, the bailee should immediately bring the carcass [aduda] to court in order to appraise its current value.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 讚谞讬讝拽 讛讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讚诪讝讬拽 讛讜讬


What, is it not so that they disagree about this matter: That one Sage, Abba Shaul, holds that the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the injured party, and so there is a need to appraise its value immediately in order to correctly assess how much the one liable for the damage must pay, and the other Sage, the first tanna, holds that the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the one liable for the damage because the Torah granted him ownership of it.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚谞讬讝拽 讜讛讻讗 讘讟讜专讞 谞讘讬诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the injured party, since he owns it, and here they disagree concerning who must go to the effort of retrieving the carcass and transporting it to the court to be appraised.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 砖注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 砖讜专 诪讘讜专讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻住祝 讬砖讬讘 诇讘注诇讬讜 讜讛诪转


And so it is taught in a baraita: Others say: From where is it derived that it is incumbent upon the owner of the pit to raise the ox from his pit after it was killed by falling into it? The verse states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay; he shall restore money to its owner, and the carcass shall be his鈥 (Exodus 21:34). They read the term 鈥渁nd the carcass鈥 as a second subject of the term 鈥渉e shall restore.鈥 It therefore indicates that the one liable for the damage must restore the carcass to the injured party by retrieving it. The fact that this opinion is introduced with the phrase: Others say, suggests that it stands in opposition to another opinion. That other opinion apparently holds that the owner of the injured animal is responsible for retrieving the carcass.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讟讜专讞 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬


Abaye said to Rava: What are the circumstances in which the one liable for the damage is required to go to this effort, to retrieve the carcass from the pit?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讘讬专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜讗讙讜讚讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注 讻讬 讟专讞 讘讚谞驻砖讬讛 讟专讞


If we say that while still inside the pit, the carcass is worth a dinar, and when it is at the edge of the pit, since it is more accessible, its market value increases and is worth four dinars, then when the one liable for the damage expends the effort to retrieve the carcass, he is expending the effort for his own sake, since by increasing the value of the carcass he reduces his own liability. Therefore, he will certainly retrieve it of his own accord, and it is not necessary for the Torah to require him to do so.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘讘讬专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜讗讙讜讚讗 谞诪讬 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗


Rava said to him: No, it is necessary to require him to retrieve the carcass in a case where, while still inside the pit the carcass is worth one dinar, and when it is at the edge of the pit, despite being more accessible, it is still worth one dinar. Since it is of no benefit to him to retrieve it, the Torah had to require him to do so.


讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讚讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻砖讜专讗 讘诪转讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讻砖讜专讗 讘讚讘专讗 讘讝讜讝讗


The Gemara asks: But is there ever a case like this, where despite being more accessible its market value does not change? The Gemara answers: Yes, as people say, a beam of wood in the city sells for a dinar, and a beam of wood in the field also sells for a dinar, despite the fact that it needs to be transported from there to the city.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇砖讜讗诇 讜讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬


Shmuel says: The practice of the court is that when an animal or other item is stolen and then is damaged or dies, the court does not appraise its current value and assign ownership of it to its owner, in order that the perpetrator should have to pay only the difference between its prior value and its current value, neither for the sake of a thief nor for the sake of a robber. Rather, the thief or robber acquires ownership of the carcass or damaged item and compensates the owner for its prior value. The court appraises the item or carcass only for damages, as the Gemara explained above. And I say that they appraise the item or animal even for a borrower who borrowed an item and while it was in his possession it became damaged, or who borrowed an animal and while it was in his possession it died, and Abba, i.e., Rav, concedes to me.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖讜讗诇 砖诪讬谉 讜讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇砖讜讗诇 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 讜讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬


A dilemma was raised before them: Is this what Shmuel is saying: The court appraises the value of an item or a carcass even for the sake of a borrower, and Abba concedes to me; or perhaps, this is what Shmuel is saying: And I say that the court does not appraise its value even for a borrower, and Abba concedes to me?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讗讬诇 谞专讙讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 转讘专讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 谞专讙讗 诪注诇讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉


Come and hear a resolution from the following incident: There was a certain man who borrowed an ax from another and he broke it. He came before Rav to rule if, and how much, he was liable to pay for it. Rav said to him: Go and pay him with a full-fledged ax, i.e., you must compensate the owner for the full value of the ax that you broke. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from it that the court does not appraise its value for the sake of a borrower.


讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讜砖转讬拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诪讬谉


The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, from the fact that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav on that occasion: Is this the halakha? And Rav remained silent, this suggests that he conceded to their opinion that the borrower should not have had to pay the full value of the ax. Accordingly, conclude from it that the court appraises an item鈥檚 value for the sake of a borrower.


讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诪讬谉 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讙讝诇谉 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗讘诇 诇砖讜讗诇 砖诪讬谉 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬


An amoraic dispute was stated: Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: The court appraises a stolen item鈥檚 value for a thief and for a robber. Rav Pappi says: It does not appraise its value for them. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the court does not appraise value either for a thief or for a robber; but it appraises value for a borrower, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪拽爪转讛 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉


搂 The Gemara cites additional halakhot taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: When a woman gives birth or miscarries a fetus she is thereby rendered ritually impure (see Leviticus 12:1鈥5). Even if she delivers only the afterbirth, with no discernible fetus, she is rendered ritually impure due to the possibility that the fetus was dissolved in the afterbirth, and it is therefore considered as though she delivered it (Nidda 24b). The length of the period of impurity depends on the sex of the child. In the case where it is unclear what the sex is, she must observe the longer period of fourteen days (Nidda 29a). At the end of that period she may purify herself by immersing in a ritual bath. And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: If part of the afterbirth [shilya] emerged on the first day of a woman鈥檚 miscarriage and part of it emerged on the second day, one counts the period of ritual impurity from the first day.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 讚注转讱 诇讞讜诪专讗


Rava said to him, to Ulla: What is the rationale for your opinion to begin counting from the first day? It would appear to be based on the following: Ritual impurity is engendered only once the woman has delivered the fetus. This is defined as the emergence of the majority of the fetus or its head. Since in this case the fetus is not discernible, one must consider the possibility that it had already emerged on the first day, and therefore one is required to act stringently and regard her as impure from the first day.


讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讟讛专转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉


Rava questions the propriety of acting stringently in this case, as it is a stringency that results in a leniency, because if she begins counting from the first day, you will also render her fit to immerse and become pure from fourteen days after the first day. This is a leniency because it is possible that the majority of the fetus emerged only on the second day and therefore her period of impurity began only then. She will therefore remain impure until the fifteenth day.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讞讜砖 讞讜砖砖转 诪讬诪谞讗 诇讗 诪诪谞讬讗 讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬


Rather, Rava said: With regard to being concerned for the possibility that she is impure from the first day, she should be concerned. But with regard to counting the period of impurity, one counts only from the second day.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 诪拽爪转 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 转谞讬谞讗 砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讗砖讛 住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛


The Gemara asks: What is Ulla teaching us through this halakha? Does he mean to teach us that part of the afterbirth does not emerge without part of the fetus inside? But we already learned that in a mishna (岣llin 77a): When an animal is ritually slaughtered, the animal and everything inside it becomes permitted for consumption. This applies to an unborn fetus as well. If prior to the slaughter the majority of the fetus emerged, it is considered to have been born, and therefore the entire fetus, even the part that is still within its mother, is not rendered permitted for consumption by the slaughter. Accordingly, if part of the afterbirth emerged prior to the slaughter, it is prohibited to eat it, because an afterbirth is a sign of a fetus in a woman and a sign of a fetus in an animal.


讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗


The Gemara explains: If I would know this only from the mishna, I would say


讚讬砖 诪拽爪转 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪拽爪转讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


that there is a possibility that part of the afterbirth will emerge without part of the fetus inside, and the reason that the Sages forbid eating the afterbirth is due to a rabbinic decree prohibiting a case where part of an afterbirth emerges from the womb and part of it remains inside, due to the possibility that one may confuse it with a case where all of the afterbirth emerges. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that, in fact, part of the afterbirth does not emerge without part of the fetus inside.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讻讜专 砖谞讟专祝 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to a male firstborn child who was mauled by an animal within thirty days of his birth and died, one is not required to redeem him, as the requirement to do so, by paying five sela to a priest, applies only once the child is thirty days old (see Numbers 18:15鈥16).


讜讻谉 转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟专祝 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽


And similarly, Rami bar 岣ma taught a baraita: Since it is stated: 鈥淵et you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:15), one might have thought that even if a male firstborn child was mauled by an animal within thirty days of his birth one should redeem him. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測et you shall redeem鈥; the addition of the word 鈥測et鈥 serves to differentiate and limit the requirement to redeem the firstborn male.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: A large animal, such as a cow or a horse, is acquired by the buyer pulling the animal.


讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讘诪住讬专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讜 讜讝讜 讘诪砖讬讻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讜讝讜 讘讛讙讘讛讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kiddushin 25b): A large animal is acquired by passing the reins of the animal to the buyer? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis say: This and that, i.e., both large and small animals, are acquired through the buyer pulling the animal. Rabbi Shimon says: This and that are acquired through the buyer lifting the animal.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讜诪讛 砖注诇 讘谞讬讛谉 讜讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to brothers who divide the estate they inherited, the court appraises whatever clothes are upon them if those clothes came from, or if they were purchased with money from, the deceased鈥檚 estate, and that sum is considered part of the portion they receive. But the court does not appraise whatever is upon their sons and daughters. In order to save the children from the humiliation of having to appear in court, the brothers waive their rights to the clothes the children are wearing.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻注诪讬诐 讗祝 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讞讬 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讚诇砖转诪注讜谉 诪讬诇讬讛


Rav Pappa said: Sometimes, it does not even appraise whatever is upon the brothers. You find such a case with the eldest brother where the other brothers waive their rights to the value of his clothes, as it is beneficial for them to have the eldest brother appear well dressed in order that when he represents their interests in dealings with others, his words will be listened to and respected.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚注诇讜讬讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讛砖转讗 讙专讜注讬 讙专注讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 诪住专 诇讘谉 讚注转


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: In the case of a bailee who conveyed a deposit that was entrusted to him to another bailee, the first bailee is exempt for any occurrence for which he would have been exempt had he kept the deposit with him. The Gemara adds: And it is not necessary to state this in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed a deposit to a paid bailee, thereby increasing the level of its safeguarding, since the paid bailee has a greater level of accountability than an unpaid bailee. Rather, this is the halakha even in a case of a paid bailee who conveyed a deposit to an unpaid bailee, thereby decreasing the level of its safeguarding. In this case, the first bailee is exempt for any occurrence for which he would have been exempt had he kept the deposit with him, because he conveyed it to a mentally competent person and thereby fulfilled his responsibility to ensure the deposit is safeguarded.


专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讞讬讬讘


Rava said: With regard to a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee, the first bailee becomes liable to pay for any loss to the item, even for mishaps for which he would not have been liable had he kept the deposit with him. The Gemara adds: And it is not necessary to state this in a case of a paid bailee who conveyed a deposit to an unpaid bailee, thereby decreasing the level of its safeguarding. Rather, this is the halakha even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed a deposit to a paid bailee, thereby increasing the level of its safeguarding; he is liable.


讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛


The reason he is liable is that the owner of the deposit can say to him: You are credible to me with regard to taking an oath, but this other bailee, to whom you conveyed my item, is not credible to me with regard to taking an oath. If an occurrence for which a bailee does not carry liability occurs, damaging the deposit, in order to release himself from an obligation to pay the bailee must take an oath to the item鈥檚 owner that none of the types of occurrences for which he bears liability occurred. Rava rules that the owner is required to accept an oath only from the bailee with whom he entrusted his item, but not from anyone else. Accordingly, since the first bailee was not present when the event occurred, he is unable to attest to what happened, and even if the second bailee takes an oath to that effect, the owner is not expected to accept his oath. Consequently, the first bailee bears full liability for any loss.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻转讗 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is that one can collect from the debtor the slaves that he owns as payment for a debt.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转诪讬 诇讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙诇讬诪讗 讚注诇 讻转驻讬讛


Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: Did Rabbi Elazar say that this halakha applies even when collecting from a debtor鈥檚 orphans? A creditor can collect the debt from orphans only by taking the land the debtor bequeathed to his children. Rav Na岣an asked whether this also extends to collecting any slaves the children inherited. Ulla replied: No, a creditor collects a debt by taking slaves only when he collects directly from the debtor himself. Rav Na岣an challenges this: But when the creditor collects from him, he can collect the debt even from the cloak that is upon his shoulders, and therefore he can certainly also collect the debt by taking his slaves, so what is the novelty of this ruling?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注砖讗讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 注讘讚讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜专讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜


Ulla explains: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case in which the debtor set aside his slave as designated repayment [appoteiki]. Consequently, if the slave was subsequently sold to a third party and the debtor was later unable to repay the debt, the creditor can seize the slave from the third party as payment of the debt. Even though generally only land can be seized from a buyer as payment for the seller鈥檚 debt, a slave is considered to have similar status to land in this regard. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava says: If a master set aside his slave as designated repayment of a debt and then sold him, the master鈥檚 creditor collects the debt by taking the slave; but if one set aside his ox as designated repayment and then sold it, the creditor does not collect the debt by taking the ox.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference? The Gemara explains: The designation of this slave generates publicity, since a slave is significant and identifiable, therefore any prospective buyer is assumed to have been aware of the status of the slave and accepted the consequences of purchasing him. But the designation of this ox does not generate publicity, since one ox is not easily distinguishable from another, and a buyer cannot be assumed to be aware that the ox was set aside as designated repayment. Therefore it is unfair that one who purchases such an ox should have it seized from him. Therefore, the Sages enacted that a creditor cannot do so.


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Copy of One week at a time (1)

Bava Kamma 7-13 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about different people who are owed money and what type of land they can collect...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 11: Ulla x 7

Are there categories of damagers who the course does help with the valuation of the damages? Where category is the...

Bava Kamma 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 11

讬讘讬讗 注讚讬诐 砖谞讟专驻讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜驻讟讜专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 注讚讜讚讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉


This means that the bailee should bring witnesses that the animal was mauled through circumstances beyond his control, and based on their testimony he is exempt from liability. Abba Shaul says: The word ed should not be interpreted as witness, but as carcass. Accordingly, the bailee should immediately bring the carcass [aduda] to court in order to appraise its current value.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 讚谞讬讝拽 讛讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讚诪讝讬拽 讛讜讬


What, is it not so that they disagree about this matter: That one Sage, Abba Shaul, holds that the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the injured party, and so there is a need to appraise its value immediately in order to correctly assess how much the one liable for the damage must pay, and the other Sage, the first tanna, holds that the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the one liable for the damage because the Torah granted him ownership of it.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚谞讬讝拽 讜讛讻讗 讘讟讜专讞 谞讘讬诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the injured party, since he owns it, and here they disagree concerning who must go to the effort of retrieving the carcass and transporting it to the court to be appraised.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 砖注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 砖讜专 诪讘讜专讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻住祝 讬砖讬讘 诇讘注诇讬讜 讜讛诪转


And so it is taught in a baraita: Others say: From where is it derived that it is incumbent upon the owner of the pit to raise the ox from his pit after it was killed by falling into it? The verse states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay; he shall restore money to its owner, and the carcass shall be his鈥 (Exodus 21:34). They read the term 鈥渁nd the carcass鈥 as a second subject of the term 鈥渉e shall restore.鈥 It therefore indicates that the one liable for the damage must restore the carcass to the injured party by retrieving it. The fact that this opinion is introduced with the phrase: Others say, suggests that it stands in opposition to another opinion. That other opinion apparently holds that the owner of the injured animal is responsible for retrieving the carcass.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讟讜专讞 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬


Abaye said to Rava: What are the circumstances in which the one liable for the damage is required to go to this effort, to retrieve the carcass from the pit?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讘讬专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜讗讙讜讚讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注 讻讬 讟专讞 讘讚谞驻砖讬讛 讟专讞


If we say that while still inside the pit, the carcass is worth a dinar, and when it is at the edge of the pit, since it is more accessible, its market value increases and is worth four dinars, then when the one liable for the damage expends the effort to retrieve the carcass, he is expending the effort for his own sake, since by increasing the value of the carcass he reduces his own liability. Therefore, he will certainly retrieve it of his own accord, and it is not necessary for the Torah to require him to do so.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘讘讬专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜讗讙讜讚讗 谞诪讬 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗


Rava said to him: No, it is necessary to require him to retrieve the carcass in a case where, while still inside the pit the carcass is worth one dinar, and when it is at the edge of the pit, despite being more accessible, it is still worth one dinar. Since it is of no benefit to him to retrieve it, the Torah had to require him to do so.


讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讚讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻砖讜专讗 讘诪转讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讻砖讜专讗 讘讚讘专讗 讘讝讜讝讗


The Gemara asks: But is there ever a case like this, where despite being more accessible its market value does not change? The Gemara answers: Yes, as people say, a beam of wood in the city sells for a dinar, and a beam of wood in the field also sells for a dinar, despite the fact that it needs to be transported from there to the city.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇砖讜讗诇 讜讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬


Shmuel says: The practice of the court is that when an animal or other item is stolen and then is damaged or dies, the court does not appraise its current value and assign ownership of it to its owner, in order that the perpetrator should have to pay only the difference between its prior value and its current value, neither for the sake of a thief nor for the sake of a robber. Rather, the thief or robber acquires ownership of the carcass or damaged item and compensates the owner for its prior value. The court appraises the item or carcass only for damages, as the Gemara explained above. And I say that they appraise the item or animal even for a borrower who borrowed an item and while it was in his possession it became damaged, or who borrowed an animal and while it was in his possession it died, and Abba, i.e., Rav, concedes to me.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖讜讗诇 砖诪讬谉 讜讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇砖讜讗诇 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 讜讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬


A dilemma was raised before them: Is this what Shmuel is saying: The court appraises the value of an item or a carcass even for the sake of a borrower, and Abba concedes to me; or perhaps, this is what Shmuel is saying: And I say that the court does not appraise its value even for a borrower, and Abba concedes to me?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讗讬诇 谞专讙讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 转讘专讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 谞专讙讗 诪注诇讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉


Come and hear a resolution from the following incident: There was a certain man who borrowed an ax from another and he broke it. He came before Rav to rule if, and how much, he was liable to pay for it. Rav said to him: Go and pay him with a full-fledged ax, i.e., you must compensate the owner for the full value of the ax that you broke. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from it that the court does not appraise its value for the sake of a borrower.


讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讜砖转讬拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诪讬谉


The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, from the fact that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav on that occasion: Is this the halakha? And Rav remained silent, this suggests that he conceded to their opinion that the borrower should not have had to pay the full value of the ax. Accordingly, conclude from it that the court appraises an item鈥檚 value for the sake of a borrower.


讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诪讬谉 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讙讝诇谉 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗讘诇 诇砖讜讗诇 砖诪讬谉 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬


An amoraic dispute was stated: Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: The court appraises a stolen item鈥檚 value for a thief and for a robber. Rav Pappi says: It does not appraise its value for them. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the court does not appraise value either for a thief or for a robber; but it appraises value for a borrower, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪拽爪转讛 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉


搂 The Gemara cites additional halakhot taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: When a woman gives birth or miscarries a fetus she is thereby rendered ritually impure (see Leviticus 12:1鈥5). Even if she delivers only the afterbirth, with no discernible fetus, she is rendered ritually impure due to the possibility that the fetus was dissolved in the afterbirth, and it is therefore considered as though she delivered it (Nidda 24b). The length of the period of impurity depends on the sex of the child. In the case where it is unclear what the sex is, she must observe the longer period of fourteen days (Nidda 29a). At the end of that period she may purify herself by immersing in a ritual bath. And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: If part of the afterbirth [shilya] emerged on the first day of a woman鈥檚 miscarriage and part of it emerged on the second day, one counts the period of ritual impurity from the first day.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 讚注转讱 诇讞讜诪专讗


Rava said to him, to Ulla: What is the rationale for your opinion to begin counting from the first day? It would appear to be based on the following: Ritual impurity is engendered only once the woman has delivered the fetus. This is defined as the emergence of the majority of the fetus or its head. Since in this case the fetus is not discernible, one must consider the possibility that it had already emerged on the first day, and therefore one is required to act stringently and regard her as impure from the first day.


讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讟讛专转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉


Rava questions the propriety of acting stringently in this case, as it is a stringency that results in a leniency, because if she begins counting from the first day, you will also render her fit to immerse and become pure from fourteen days after the first day. This is a leniency because it is possible that the majority of the fetus emerged only on the second day and therefore her period of impurity began only then. She will therefore remain impure until the fifteenth day.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讞讜砖 讞讜砖砖转 诪讬诪谞讗 诇讗 诪诪谞讬讗 讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬


Rather, Rava said: With regard to being concerned for the possibility that she is impure from the first day, she should be concerned. But with regard to counting the period of impurity, one counts only from the second day.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 诪拽爪转 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 转谞讬谞讗 砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讗砖讛 住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛


The Gemara asks: What is Ulla teaching us through this halakha? Does he mean to teach us that part of the afterbirth does not emerge without part of the fetus inside? But we already learned that in a mishna (岣llin 77a): When an animal is ritually slaughtered, the animal and everything inside it becomes permitted for consumption. This applies to an unborn fetus as well. If prior to the slaughter the majority of the fetus emerged, it is considered to have been born, and therefore the entire fetus, even the part that is still within its mother, is not rendered permitted for consumption by the slaughter. Accordingly, if part of the afterbirth emerged prior to the slaughter, it is prohibited to eat it, because an afterbirth is a sign of a fetus in a woman and a sign of a fetus in an animal.


讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗


The Gemara explains: If I would know this only from the mishna, I would say


讚讬砖 诪拽爪转 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪拽爪转讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


that there is a possibility that part of the afterbirth will emerge without part of the fetus inside, and the reason that the Sages forbid eating the afterbirth is due to a rabbinic decree prohibiting a case where part of an afterbirth emerges from the womb and part of it remains inside, due to the possibility that one may confuse it with a case where all of the afterbirth emerges. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that, in fact, part of the afterbirth does not emerge without part of the fetus inside.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讻讜专 砖谞讟专祝 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to a male firstborn child who was mauled by an animal within thirty days of his birth and died, one is not required to redeem him, as the requirement to do so, by paying five sela to a priest, applies only once the child is thirty days old (see Numbers 18:15鈥16).


讜讻谉 转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟专祝 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽


And similarly, Rami bar 岣ma taught a baraita: Since it is stated: 鈥淵et you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:15), one might have thought that even if a male firstborn child was mauled by an animal within thirty days of his birth one should redeem him. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測et you shall redeem鈥; the addition of the word 鈥測et鈥 serves to differentiate and limit the requirement to redeem the firstborn male.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: A large animal, such as a cow or a horse, is acquired by the buyer pulling the animal.


讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讘诪住讬专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讜 讜讝讜 讘诪砖讬讻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讜讝讜 讘讛讙讘讛讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kiddushin 25b): A large animal is acquired by passing the reins of the animal to the buyer? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis say: This and that, i.e., both large and small animals, are acquired through the buyer pulling the animal. Rabbi Shimon says: This and that are acquired through the buyer lifting the animal.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讜诪讛 砖注诇 讘谞讬讛谉 讜讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to brothers who divide the estate they inherited, the court appraises whatever clothes are upon them if those clothes came from, or if they were purchased with money from, the deceased鈥檚 estate, and that sum is considered part of the portion they receive. But the court does not appraise whatever is upon their sons and daughters. In order to save the children from the humiliation of having to appear in court, the brothers waive their rights to the clothes the children are wearing.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻注诪讬诐 讗祝 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讞讬 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讚诇砖转诪注讜谉 诪讬诇讬讛


Rav Pappa said: Sometimes, it does not even appraise whatever is upon the brothers. You find such a case with the eldest brother where the other brothers waive their rights to the value of his clothes, as it is beneficial for them to have the eldest brother appear well dressed in order that when he represents their interests in dealings with others, his words will be listened to and respected.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚注诇讜讬讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讛砖转讗 讙专讜注讬 讙专注讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 诪住专 诇讘谉 讚注转


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: In the case of a bailee who conveyed a deposit that was entrusted to him to another bailee, the first bailee is exempt for any occurrence for which he would have been exempt had he kept the deposit with him. The Gemara adds: And it is not necessary to state this in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed a deposit to a paid bailee, thereby increasing the level of its safeguarding, since the paid bailee has a greater level of accountability than an unpaid bailee. Rather, this is the halakha even in a case of a paid bailee who conveyed a deposit to an unpaid bailee, thereby decreasing the level of its safeguarding. In this case, the first bailee is exempt for any occurrence for which he would have been exempt had he kept the deposit with him, because he conveyed it to a mentally competent person and thereby fulfilled his responsibility to ensure the deposit is safeguarded.


专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讞讬讬讘


Rava said: With regard to a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee, the first bailee becomes liable to pay for any loss to the item, even for mishaps for which he would not have been liable had he kept the deposit with him. The Gemara adds: And it is not necessary to state this in a case of a paid bailee who conveyed a deposit to an unpaid bailee, thereby decreasing the level of its safeguarding. Rather, this is the halakha even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed a deposit to a paid bailee, thereby increasing the level of its safeguarding; he is liable.


讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛


The reason he is liable is that the owner of the deposit can say to him: You are credible to me with regard to taking an oath, but this other bailee, to whom you conveyed my item, is not credible to me with regard to taking an oath. If an occurrence for which a bailee does not carry liability occurs, damaging the deposit, in order to release himself from an obligation to pay the bailee must take an oath to the item鈥檚 owner that none of the types of occurrences for which he bears liability occurred. Rava rules that the owner is required to accept an oath only from the bailee with whom he entrusted his item, but not from anyone else. Accordingly, since the first bailee was not present when the event occurred, he is unable to attest to what happened, and even if the second bailee takes an oath to that effect, the owner is not expected to accept his oath. Consequently, the first bailee bears full liability for any loss.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻转讗 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐


The Gemara cites another halakha taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is that one can collect from the debtor the slaves that he owns as payment for a debt.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转诪讬 诇讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙诇讬诪讗 讚注诇 讻转驻讬讛


Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: Did Rabbi Elazar say that this halakha applies even when collecting from a debtor鈥檚 orphans? A creditor can collect the debt from orphans only by taking the land the debtor bequeathed to his children. Rav Na岣an asked whether this also extends to collecting any slaves the children inherited. Ulla replied: No, a creditor collects a debt by taking slaves only when he collects directly from the debtor himself. Rav Na岣an challenges this: But when the creditor collects from him, he can collect the debt even from the cloak that is upon his shoulders, and therefore he can certainly also collect the debt by taking his slaves, so what is the novelty of this ruling?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注砖讗讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 注讘讚讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜专讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜


Ulla explains: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case in which the debtor set aside his slave as designated repayment [appoteiki]. Consequently, if the slave was subsequently sold to a third party and the debtor was later unable to repay the debt, the creditor can seize the slave from the third party as payment of the debt. Even though generally only land can be seized from a buyer as payment for the seller鈥檚 debt, a slave is considered to have similar status to land in this regard. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava says: If a master set aside his slave as designated repayment of a debt and then sold him, the master鈥檚 creditor collects the debt by taking the slave; but if one set aside his ox as designated repayment and then sold it, the creditor does not collect the debt by taking the ox.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference? The Gemara explains: The designation of this slave generates publicity, since a slave is significant and identifiable, therefore any prospective buyer is assumed to have been aware of the status of the slave and accepted the consequences of purchasing him. But the designation of this ox does not generate publicity, since one ox is not easily distinguishable from another, and a buyer cannot be assumed to be aware that the ox was set aside as designated repayment. Therefore it is unfair that one who purchases such an ox should have it seized from him. Therefore, the Sages enacted that a creditor cannot do so.


Scroll To Top