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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 13, 2016 | 讝壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 13

Study Guide Bava Kamma 13. The gemara analyzes the meaning of 3 statements of the mishna that delineate the cases in which one is obligated in damages – items not responsible for meila, items of those part of the covenant, and items that are designated (to a specific owner).

诇讬砖谞讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

let Ravina answer Rava鈥檚 objection by saying: This baraita, which states that an offering of lesser sanctity is the property of its owner and may be sold even when the Temple stands, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and it is referring to a case where the animal is still alive. And that qualification of the mishna by Rav Na岣an, that the sale of an unblemished firstborn animal when the Temple is standing is invalid, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion.

(讗诪专 诇讬讛) 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讚讻讬 拽讗 讝讻讜 诪砖诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

The Gemara answers: He said to him that this is not difficult: Do you speak of gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, of which a firstborn animal is an example? Gifts of the priesthood are different from other offerings of lesser sanctity, as when the priests receive their portions, they receive them from the table of the Most High. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili claims that the act of consecration of an animal as an offering of lesser sanctity does not nullify one鈥檚 ownership of the animal. The sanctity of a firstborn offering takes effect with its birth, so it may be that it was never owned; rather, it is reasonable that the Torah provided the priest only with the right and the obligation to partake of it after it is sacrificed.

讙讜驻讗 讜诪注诇讛 诪注诇 讘讛壮 诇专讘讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讛诐 诪诪讜谞讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讻讜专 讘诇讘讚

搂 The Gemara considers the matter itself: The baraita teaches: Concerning one who steals another鈥檚 property and takes a false oath denying he has done so, incurring the obligation to bring a guilt-offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves to include a case in which one denies having in his possession offerings of lesser sanctity, which are the property of their owners, and are included in the phrase 鈥渁nd deals falsely with his neighbor.鈥 This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Ben Azzai says: This phrase serves to include peace-offerings. Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering.

讗诪专 诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Master said in the baraita: Ben Azzai says: This phrase serves to include peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: Ben Azzai鈥檚 interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to peace-offerings, is to exclude what?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讻讜专 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬诐 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗诪专转 诪诪讜谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 诪讘注讬讗

If we say it is to exclude a firstborn offering, because he holds that a firstborn is not the property of the priest, one could reject this, as the sanctity of a firstborn offering is a lesser sanctity than that of a peace-offering, as follows: Now, just as with regard to peace-offerings, which have a higher degree of sanctity such that they require placing hands on the head of the offering and are accompanied by libations and the waving of their breast and the right hind leg by the priest and owner together, you nevertheless say that it is the property of the owners, is it necessary to state that with regard to a firstborn offering, for which these halakhot do not apply, that the priest has ownership of it?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪注砖专

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Azzai mentioned peace-offerings in order to exclude an animal tithe offering, i.e., every tenth animal of one鈥檚 flock that is designated as tithe for those ten animals and is sacrificed as an offering of lesser sanctity. Animal tithes are excluded because ben Azzai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讻讜专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 转诐 讞讬 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬 讜砖讞讜讟 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the firstborn offering can be sold when it is unblemished and alive, or when it is blemished and alive, or blemished and slaughtered. With regard to animal tithe offerings, it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the animal tithe offering cannot be sold, not when it is alive and not when it is slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.

专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讻讜专 讘诇讘讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

Ravina taught the preceding discussion with regard to the last clause of the baraita: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says that ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering. The Gemara asks: Abba Yosei ben Dostai鈥檚 interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to a firstborn offering, is to exclude what?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讘讻讜专 砖拽讚讜砖 诪专讞诐 诪诪讜谞讜 讛讜讗 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讘注讬讗

If we say it is to exclude peace-offerings, because he holds that they are not the property of the one who consecrated them as offerings, one could reject this, as the sanctity of peace-offerings is a lesser sanctity than that of a firstborn offering, as follows: Now, just as with regard to a firstborn offering, which is already sanctified upon its emergence from the womb yet nevertheless is the property of the priest, is it necessary to state that peace-offerings are the property of those who consecrated them, where the animals were already the property of its owner before they were consecrated?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪注砖专

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Abba Yosei ben Dostai mentioned peace-offerings in order to exclude an animal tithe offering. Animal tithes are excluded because Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讻讜专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 转诐 讞讬 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬 讜砖讞讜讟 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the firstborn offering can be sold when it is unblemished and alive, or when it is blemished and alive, or blemished and slaughtered. With regard to animal tithe offerings, it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the animal tithe offering cannot be sold, not when it is alive and not when it is slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.

讛讗 讘讘讻讜专 讘诇讘讚 拽讗诪专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: How can one claim that Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that peace-offerings are also owned by those who consecrated them? Doesn鈥檛 Abba Yosei ben Dostai say: Ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讚讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讛讚讬讜讟

搂 The Gemara cites an alternative explanation of the mishna鈥檚 statement: Rava said: What does the mishna mean when it says: One is liable only for damage caused to property for which, were one to use it for a mundane purpose, one would not be liable for the misuse of consecrated property? It is referring to property that is not at all subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, and what is that? It is referring to any property of an ordinary person, which has no sanctity at all.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讚讛讚讬讜讟 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But then let the mishna teach explicitly: One is liable only for damage caused to property of an ordinary individual. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讛讝讬拽讜 讙讜讘讛 诪讘砖专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉

Rabbi Abba says: With regard to the case of an innocuous animal that was consecrated as a peaceoffering and that caused damage, the injured party collects damages from its meat, i.e., from the portion of the offering that would have been eaten by its owners. This is in accordance with the general halakha that the payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is collected exclusively from the proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox and not from any other property of its owner. But he does not collect the damages from the sacrificial portions.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讙讘讜讛 住诇拽讬

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that one collects exclusively from the meat portion and not from the sacrificial portions, as those are to be offered up to God?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讙讜讘讛 诪讘砖专谉 讻谞讙讚 讗讬诪讜专讬诐

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rabbi Abba to teach that there is no collection from the owner鈥檚 meat portions corresponding to the sacrificial portions. Payment for damage caused by an innocuous animal is half the amount of the damages, and can be no more than the value of the animal itself. Rabbi Abba is teaching that when assessing the damage to determine the amount to be paid, one deems the owner responsible only according to his share of the animal, i.e., the meat portions, in relation to the animal as a whole.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉

Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis engage in a dispute concerning the halakha in a case in which an ox pushed another animal into a pit (see 53a). If it were an innocuous ox, for which the Torah limits the owner鈥檚 liability to half the damages, the Rabbis rule that liability is incurred exclusively by the owner of the ox, i.e., he pays half the value of the damage, and the owner of the pit is entirely exempt. Rabbi Natan holds that since the damage was caused jointly by the ox and the pit, the owner of the ox need pay only half of what he would pay if his animal had been solely responsible, i.e., a quarter of the damages. Rabbi Natan further rules that the remaining sum can then be fully recovered from the owner of the pit, i.e., he pays the remaining three-quarters of the damages. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion, of those tanna鈥檌m, does Rabbi Abba state his ruling?

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讗讬 诇讗 诪砖转诇诪讗 诪讛讗讬

If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then it is obvious and there is no need to state it, as didn鈥檛 the Rabbis say: Whenever, for whatever reason, the full cost of the damage cannot be recovered from this party, it is not recovered from that party, i.e., even though the injured party suffered the loss of the full value of his animal and recovered only half its value from the owner of the ox, he may not demand the remaining sum from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, where the injured party cannot collect damages from the sacrificial portions, he cannot recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.

讜讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讗 讗诪专 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讗讬 诪砖转诇诐 诪讛讗讬

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, doesn鈥檛 he say: Whenever the full cost of the damage cannot be recovered from this one, it is recovered from that one, i.e., since the owner of the ox pays only a quarter of the damages, the remaining sum can be recovered from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, since the injured party cannot collect payment from the sacrificial portions, he should be able to recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering, in contrast to the ruling of Rabbi Abba.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Natan, and if you wish, say his ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转专讬 讙讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 讙讜驻讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪砖转诇诪谞讗

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis, as one might have thought that this matter, the ruling of the Rabbis, applies only where the damage is caused by two bodies, such as an ox and a pit. But where the damage is caused by one body, as in the case of damage caused by a an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, the injured party can say to the owner of the animal: From anywhere that I want to, I will recover my losses, and accordingly, the injured party could collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering. Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Abba to teach that this is not the halakha.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 砖讜专 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗谞讗 转讜专讗讬 讘讘讬专讱 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诪讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讬讗讱 诪砖转诇讬诪谞讗 诪讬谞讱

And if you wish, say Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Natan: It is only there that the owner of the damaged ox can say to the owner of the pit: Since I found my ox in your pit, ultimately you bear responsibility for any damage, and therefore whatever I cannot recover from the other one, i.e., the owner of the ox, I will recover from you.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讘砖专 讗讝讬拽 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讗 讗讝讬拽

But here, in the case of damage caused by an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, is the injured party actually able to say: Only the meat of the animal caused damage but the sacrificial portions did not cause damage? Since the entire animal caused the damage, he does not collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讜讚讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讘砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讞诪讛

Rava says: In the case of an innocuous animal consecrated as a thanks-offering that caused damage, the injured party collects damages from its meat, i.e., from the portion of the offerings that would have been eaten by the one who brought the offering, but he does not collect from its bread, i.e., from the offering of forty loaves of bread that accompanies the sacrifice of the animal.

诇讞诐 驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he does not collect from the bread? The bread is not part of the animal that caused damage.

住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 谞讬讝拽 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜诪转讻驻专 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rava to state this because of the latter clause of his ruling, which states: The injured party eats the meat portions of the offering according to the value of the damages owed to him, but the one achieving atonement, i.e., the one bringing the offering, brings the bread.

讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讞诐 讛讻砖讬专讗 讚讝讘讞 讛讜讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转 讗讻诇转 讘砖专 讜讗谞讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讞诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讞诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讚讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this also obvious? Why should anyone else bring the bread? The Gemara explains: Lest you say, since the bread is a necessary qualifying factor for the thanks-offering, as without it one does not fulfill one鈥檚 obligation, let the owner of the offering say to the one eating it, why should you eat the meat and I bring the bread? If you wish to eat, you should bring the bread. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the offering of the loaves of bread is the obligation of the owners of the offering.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讛谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讘专讬转

搂 The mishna teaches: One is liable only for damage caused to property that belongs to members of the covenant.

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讙讜讬 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇拽诪谉 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? If it serves to exclude the property of a gentile, isn鈥檛 that already explicitly taught in the mishna below (37b): In the case of an ox of a Jew that gored an ox of a gentile, the Jew is exempt. The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches this as a principle in the mishna here and then explains it in greater detail in the mishna below.

谞讻住讬诐 讛诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽

The mishna continues: One is liable only for assigned property. The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? Rav Yehuda said: This clause serves to exclude a case in which an animal is injured but it is unclear which of two oxen, owned by different people, caused the damage. The owner of this ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. And the owner of that ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. Since it cannot be proven which ox actually caused the damage, neither owner is liable. The intention of the mishna is that one is liable only where the belligerent ox is assigned to, i.e., is known to be the property of, a specific individual.

讛讗 转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 专讜讚驻讬谉 讗讞专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that explicitly taught in the mishna below (35a): If two oxen were seen pursuing a single ox, and then the single ox is found to be injured, and the owner of this ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. And the owner of that ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. In such a case, both of them are exempt since it is uncertain which one is guilty. The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches this as a principle in the mishna here and then explains it in greater detail in the mishna below.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 驻专讟 诇谞讻住讬 讛驻拽专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞讙讞 转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 诇转讜专讗 讚讛驻拽专 诪讗谉 转讘注 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讚谞讙讞 转讜专讗 讚讛驻拽专 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉

It was taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna that the term assigned property serves to exclude ownerless property. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances in which the mishna teaches that one is exempt? If we say it is referring to a case where an ox belonging to us, i.e., to a Jew, gored an ownerless ox, it is obvious that the owner bears no liability, as who is claiming damages from him? Rather, it must be referring to a case where an ownerless ox gored an ox belonging to us, and it teaches that the injured party does not have a right to damages.

诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬转讬讛 讘砖拽讚诐 讜讝讻讛 讘讜 讗讞专

The Gemara asks: What is the point of this halakha? If the injured party wishes to recover his losses, let him go and take the belligerent ox for himself, since it is currently ownerless. The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches that the injured party does not have any right to the ox, in order to teach that in a case where another person preceded him and acquired it, the injured party has no claim to it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻拽讬专

Ravina said an alternative interpretation of the mishna: The term assigned property serves to exclude a case in which an ox gored and subsequently its owner consecrated it, or where it gored and subsequently its owner declared it ownerless. Since the owners did not own the ox at the time the case was brought before the court, they are exempt from paying. Ravina explains that this is the intention of the mishna: That one is liable only when the property that caused the damage was owned by a responsible party both when it caused the damage and when it was tried. In this case, at the time of the court hearing it was not owned by a responsible party, as it was either consecrated or ownerless.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻拽讬专 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘注诇讬讜 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

It is also taught in a baraita: The halakha is that an ox that kills a person is stoned to death. The mishna states (44b) that this does not apply to an ox consecrated to the Temple or an ownerless ox. Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if an ox gored and its owner subsequently consecrated it to the Temple, or if an ox gored and its owner subsequently declared it ownerless, the owner is exempt from liability, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and had been forewarned with its owner, and he had not guarded it in, and it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29). The repetition of the reference to the owner at the beginning and end of the verse indicates that the ox is not stoned unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial is the same, i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for both events.

讜讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讘讙诪专 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But do we not also require that the ox鈥檚 status be the same at the time of the verdict? Isn鈥檛 the phrase: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned鈥 written with regard to the time of the verdict?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜讙诪专 讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

Rather, say that the owner of the ox is exempt unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial and at the verdict is the same, i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for all three events.

讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜专讱 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬

搂 The mishna teaches: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage. The Gemara explains the reason for this: This is because the one liable for the damage can say to the injured party: What did your ox want in my domain? One does not have to guard his ox from causing damage within his own property, since another person鈥檚 animal has no right to be there.

讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽

The mishna continues: And one is liable for damage caused in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 注诇 讛砖谉 讜注诇 讛专讙诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽 讚驻讟讜专 讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽

The Gemara cites a dispute concerning this case that results in two different ways of interpreting the mishna: Rav 岣sda says that Avimi says: With regard to a courtyard designated for the joint use of two partners, either one of them is liable for damage caused by the ox of one partner to the property of the other partner while in it, both for the category of Eating and for the category of Trampling. And accordingly, this is what the mishna is saying: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage, as he is exempt there; but in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one responsible for the damage, when he causes damage, the one who is responsible for the damage is obligated to pay damages. The statement in the mishna concerning a domain designated for joint use is the beginning of the following clause and introduces a case in which one is liable for damage.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 注诇 讛砖谉 讜注诇 讛专讙诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽 讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 讜讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽专谉

And Rabbi Elazar says: In a courtyard designated for joint use, one is exempt for one鈥檚 ox causing damage to the property of his partner in the category of Eating, and for one鈥檚 ox causing damage to the property of his partner in the category of Trampling. And accordingly, this is what the mishna is saying: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage, and one is also exempt for damage done in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage. The statement in the mishna about a domain designated for joint use is a continuation of the previous clause and adds an additional case in which one is exempt. And the following clause: When one causes damage, the one liable for the damage is obligated to pay damages, serves to add the fact that one is liable for damage in the framework of the category of Goring, which was not previously mentioned in the mishna.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 转谞讗 砖讜专 讜讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚砖讜专 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

This interpretation of the concluding clause of the mishna, as a reference to Goring, works out well according to Shmuel, in his dispute with Rav (3b) concerning the meaning of Ox and Maveh in the first mishna of this chapter. According to Shmuel they mean Trampling and Eating, respectively, and Goring has yet to be addressed. But according to Rav, who says: The term ox in the mishna includes damage caused by the ox and all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox, including Goring, Eating, and Trampling, Goring is already addressed in the mishna. What is added by the clause: The one liable for the damage is obligated to pay damages?

诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讘讛诪讛 讘专砖讜转谉 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 谞驻专爪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讜 砖驻专爪讜讛 诇住讟讬谉 讜讬爪转讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which the Sages taught in a baraita that elucidates the mishna鈥檚 statement. The mishna states: When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves to include the cases of an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter, in which an animal, e.g., an ox, caused damage while in their possession. If the ox was innocuous, he pays half of the damages, and if it was forewarned, he pays the full damages. If the ox was safely enclosed and a wall broke open at night, or if bandits [listin] broke it open and the ox went out and caused damage, he is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 诪专 讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said that the mishna states: When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves to include the cases of an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇转讜专讗 讚砖讜讗诇 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讝讬拽 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬转 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗转 讛砖转讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚讱 讘注讬谞讗 诇砖诇讜诪讬

If we say that the lender鈥檚 ox, which was under the watch of the borrower, injured the borrower鈥檚 ox, and the baraita is teaching that the lender is liable to pay the borrower, why is this so? Let the lender say to the borrower: If my ox had injured an ox in the world at large, i.e., someone else鈥檚 ox, you, the borrower, would be required to pay, as you were entrusted with safeguarding it. Now that my ox has injured your ox, should I be required to pay?

讗诇讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚砖讜讗诇 诇转讜专讗 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬转讝拽 诪注诇诪讗 讘注讬转 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讻讜诇讬讛 转讜专讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诪转 诇讬

Rather, the case must be that the borrower鈥檚 ox injured the lender鈥檚 ox, and the baraita is teaching that the borrower is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, the baraita teaches that if the belligerent ox was innocuous, the borrower is liable to pay only half of the damages. But why? Let the lender say to the borrower: By borrowing my ox, you undertook full responsibility for it such that if my ox had been injured by an ox from the world at large, you would be required to pay me for the entire value of my ox, irrespective of whether the belligerent ox was considered innocuous or forewarned. Now that it is your ox that injured my ox, should you have to pay only half of the damages? This interpretation of the baraita is also difficult.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇转讜专讗 讚砖讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖诪讬专转 讙讜驻讜

The Gemara explains: Actually, the case is where the lender鈥檚 ox injured the borrower鈥檚 ox, and with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the borrower undertook the responsibility of safeguarding the body of the lender鈥檚 ox from being injured,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 13

诇讬砖谞讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

let Ravina answer Rava鈥檚 objection by saying: This baraita, which states that an offering of lesser sanctity is the property of its owner and may be sold even when the Temple stands, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and it is referring to a case where the animal is still alive. And that qualification of the mishna by Rav Na岣an, that the sale of an unblemished firstborn animal when the Temple is standing is invalid, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion.

(讗诪专 诇讬讛) 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讚讻讬 拽讗 讝讻讜 诪砖诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

The Gemara answers: He said to him that this is not difficult: Do you speak of gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, of which a firstborn animal is an example? Gifts of the priesthood are different from other offerings of lesser sanctity, as when the priests receive their portions, they receive them from the table of the Most High. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili claims that the act of consecration of an animal as an offering of lesser sanctity does not nullify one鈥檚 ownership of the animal. The sanctity of a firstborn offering takes effect with its birth, so it may be that it was never owned; rather, it is reasonable that the Torah provided the priest only with the right and the obligation to partake of it after it is sacrificed.

讙讜驻讗 讜诪注诇讛 诪注诇 讘讛壮 诇专讘讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讛诐 诪诪讜谞讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讻讜专 讘诇讘讚

搂 The Gemara considers the matter itself: The baraita teaches: Concerning one who steals another鈥檚 property and takes a false oath denying he has done so, incurring the obligation to bring a guilt-offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves to include a case in which one denies having in his possession offerings of lesser sanctity, which are the property of their owners, and are included in the phrase 鈥渁nd deals falsely with his neighbor.鈥 This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Ben Azzai says: This phrase serves to include peace-offerings. Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering.

讗诪专 诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Master said in the baraita: Ben Azzai says: This phrase serves to include peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: Ben Azzai鈥檚 interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to peace-offerings, is to exclude what?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讻讜专 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬诐 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗诪专转 诪诪讜谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 诪讘注讬讗

If we say it is to exclude a firstborn offering, because he holds that a firstborn is not the property of the priest, one could reject this, as the sanctity of a firstborn offering is a lesser sanctity than that of a peace-offering, as follows: Now, just as with regard to peace-offerings, which have a higher degree of sanctity such that they require placing hands on the head of the offering and are accompanied by libations and the waving of their breast and the right hind leg by the priest and owner together, you nevertheless say that it is the property of the owners, is it necessary to state that with regard to a firstborn offering, for which these halakhot do not apply, that the priest has ownership of it?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪注砖专

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Azzai mentioned peace-offerings in order to exclude an animal tithe offering, i.e., every tenth animal of one鈥檚 flock that is designated as tithe for those ten animals and is sacrificed as an offering of lesser sanctity. Animal tithes are excluded because ben Azzai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讻讜专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 转诐 讞讬 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬 讜砖讞讜讟 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the firstborn offering can be sold when it is unblemished and alive, or when it is blemished and alive, or blemished and slaughtered. With regard to animal tithe offerings, it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the animal tithe offering cannot be sold, not when it is alive and not when it is slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.

专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讻讜专 讘诇讘讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

Ravina taught the preceding discussion with regard to the last clause of the baraita: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says that ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering. The Gemara asks: Abba Yosei ben Dostai鈥檚 interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to a firstborn offering, is to exclude what?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讘讻讜专 砖拽讚讜砖 诪专讞诐 诪诪讜谞讜 讛讜讗 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讘注讬讗

If we say it is to exclude peace-offerings, because he holds that they are not the property of the one who consecrated them as offerings, one could reject this, as the sanctity of peace-offerings is a lesser sanctity than that of a firstborn offering, as follows: Now, just as with regard to a firstborn offering, which is already sanctified upon its emergence from the womb yet nevertheless is the property of the priest, is it necessary to state that peace-offerings are the property of those who consecrated them, where the animals were already the property of its owner before they were consecrated?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪注砖专

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Abba Yosei ben Dostai mentioned peace-offerings in order to exclude an animal tithe offering. Animal tithes are excluded because Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讻讜专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 转诐 讞讬 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬 讜砖讞讜讟 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the firstborn offering can be sold when it is unblemished and alive, or when it is blemished and alive, or blemished and slaughtered. With regard to animal tithe offerings, it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the animal tithe offering cannot be sold, not when it is alive and not when it is slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.

讛讗 讘讘讻讜专 讘诇讘讚 拽讗诪专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: How can one claim that Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that peace-offerings are also owned by those who consecrated them? Doesn鈥檛 Abba Yosei ben Dostai say: Ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讚讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讛讚讬讜讟

搂 The Gemara cites an alternative explanation of the mishna鈥檚 statement: Rava said: What does the mishna mean when it says: One is liable only for damage caused to property for which, were one to use it for a mundane purpose, one would not be liable for the misuse of consecrated property? It is referring to property that is not at all subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, and what is that? It is referring to any property of an ordinary person, which has no sanctity at all.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讚讛讚讬讜讟 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But then let the mishna teach explicitly: One is liable only for damage caused to property of an ordinary individual. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讛讝讬拽讜 讙讜讘讛 诪讘砖专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉

Rabbi Abba says: With regard to the case of an innocuous animal that was consecrated as a peaceoffering and that caused damage, the injured party collects damages from its meat, i.e., from the portion of the offering that would have been eaten by its owners. This is in accordance with the general halakha that the payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is collected exclusively from the proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox and not from any other property of its owner. But he does not collect the damages from the sacrificial portions.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讙讘讜讛 住诇拽讬

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that one collects exclusively from the meat portion and not from the sacrificial portions, as those are to be offered up to God?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讙讜讘讛 诪讘砖专谉 讻谞讙讚 讗讬诪讜专讬诐

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rabbi Abba to teach that there is no collection from the owner鈥檚 meat portions corresponding to the sacrificial portions. Payment for damage caused by an innocuous animal is half the amount of the damages, and can be no more than the value of the animal itself. Rabbi Abba is teaching that when assessing the damage to determine the amount to be paid, one deems the owner responsible only according to his share of the animal, i.e., the meat portions, in relation to the animal as a whole.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉

Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis engage in a dispute concerning the halakha in a case in which an ox pushed another animal into a pit (see 53a). If it were an innocuous ox, for which the Torah limits the owner鈥檚 liability to half the damages, the Rabbis rule that liability is incurred exclusively by the owner of the ox, i.e., he pays half the value of the damage, and the owner of the pit is entirely exempt. Rabbi Natan holds that since the damage was caused jointly by the ox and the pit, the owner of the ox need pay only half of what he would pay if his animal had been solely responsible, i.e., a quarter of the damages. Rabbi Natan further rules that the remaining sum can then be fully recovered from the owner of the pit, i.e., he pays the remaining three-quarters of the damages. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion, of those tanna鈥檌m, does Rabbi Abba state his ruling?

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讗讬 诇讗 诪砖转诇诪讗 诪讛讗讬

If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then it is obvious and there is no need to state it, as didn鈥檛 the Rabbis say: Whenever, for whatever reason, the full cost of the damage cannot be recovered from this party, it is not recovered from that party, i.e., even though the injured party suffered the loss of the full value of his animal and recovered only half its value from the owner of the ox, he may not demand the remaining sum from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, where the injured party cannot collect damages from the sacrificial portions, he cannot recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.

讜讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讗 讗诪专 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讗讬 诪砖转诇诐 诪讛讗讬

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, doesn鈥檛 he say: Whenever the full cost of the damage cannot be recovered from this one, it is recovered from that one, i.e., since the owner of the ox pays only a quarter of the damages, the remaining sum can be recovered from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, since the injured party cannot collect payment from the sacrificial portions, he should be able to recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering, in contrast to the ruling of Rabbi Abba.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Natan, and if you wish, say his ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转专讬 讙讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 讙讜驻讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪砖转诇诪谞讗

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis, as one might have thought that this matter, the ruling of the Rabbis, applies only where the damage is caused by two bodies, such as an ox and a pit. But where the damage is caused by one body, as in the case of damage caused by a an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, the injured party can say to the owner of the animal: From anywhere that I want to, I will recover my losses, and accordingly, the injured party could collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering. Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Abba to teach that this is not the halakha.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 砖讜专 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗谞讗 转讜专讗讬 讘讘讬专讱 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诪讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讬讗讱 诪砖转诇讬诪谞讗 诪讬谞讱

And if you wish, say Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Natan: It is only there that the owner of the damaged ox can say to the owner of the pit: Since I found my ox in your pit, ultimately you bear responsibility for any damage, and therefore whatever I cannot recover from the other one, i.e., the owner of the ox, I will recover from you.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讘砖专 讗讝讬拽 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讗 讗讝讬拽

But here, in the case of damage caused by an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, is the injured party actually able to say: Only the meat of the animal caused damage but the sacrificial portions did not cause damage? Since the entire animal caused the damage, he does not collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讜讚讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讘砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讞诪讛

Rava says: In the case of an innocuous animal consecrated as a thanks-offering that caused damage, the injured party collects damages from its meat, i.e., from the portion of the offerings that would have been eaten by the one who brought the offering, but he does not collect from its bread, i.e., from the offering of forty loaves of bread that accompanies the sacrifice of the animal.

诇讞诐 驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he does not collect from the bread? The bread is not part of the animal that caused damage.

住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 谞讬讝拽 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜诪转讻驻专 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rava to state this because of the latter clause of his ruling, which states: The injured party eats the meat portions of the offering according to the value of the damages owed to him, but the one achieving atonement, i.e., the one bringing the offering, brings the bread.

讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讞诐 讛讻砖讬专讗 讚讝讘讞 讛讜讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转 讗讻诇转 讘砖专 讜讗谞讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讞诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讞诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讚讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this also obvious? Why should anyone else bring the bread? The Gemara explains: Lest you say, since the bread is a necessary qualifying factor for the thanks-offering, as without it one does not fulfill one鈥檚 obligation, let the owner of the offering say to the one eating it, why should you eat the meat and I bring the bread? If you wish to eat, you should bring the bread. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the offering of the loaves of bread is the obligation of the owners of the offering.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讛谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讘专讬转

搂 The mishna teaches: One is liable only for damage caused to property that belongs to members of the covenant.

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讙讜讬 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇拽诪谉 砖讜专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? If it serves to exclude the property of a gentile, isn鈥檛 that already explicitly taught in the mishna below (37b): In the case of an ox of a Jew that gored an ox of a gentile, the Jew is exempt. The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches this as a principle in the mishna here and then explains it in greater detail in the mishna below.

谞讻住讬诐 讛诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽

The mishna continues: One is liable only for assigned property. The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? Rav Yehuda said: This clause serves to exclude a case in which an animal is injured but it is unclear which of two oxen, owned by different people, caused the damage. The owner of this ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. And the owner of that ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. Since it cannot be proven which ox actually caused the damage, neither owner is liable. The intention of the mishna is that one is liable only where the belligerent ox is assigned to, i.e., is known to be the property of, a specific individual.

讛讗 转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 专讜讚驻讬谉 讗讞专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专讱 讛讝讬拽 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that explicitly taught in the mishna below (35a): If two oxen were seen pursuing a single ox, and then the single ox is found to be injured, and the owner of this ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. And the owner of that ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. In such a case, both of them are exempt since it is uncertain which one is guilty. The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches this as a principle in the mishna here and then explains it in greater detail in the mishna below.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 驻专讟 诇谞讻住讬 讛驻拽专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞讙讞 转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 诇转讜专讗 讚讛驻拽专 诪讗谉 转讘注 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讚谞讙讞 转讜专讗 讚讛驻拽专 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉

It was taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna that the term assigned property serves to exclude ownerless property. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances in which the mishna teaches that one is exempt? If we say it is referring to a case where an ox belonging to us, i.e., to a Jew, gored an ownerless ox, it is obvious that the owner bears no liability, as who is claiming damages from him? Rather, it must be referring to a case where an ownerless ox gored an ox belonging to us, and it teaches that the injured party does not have a right to damages.

诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬转讬讛 讘砖拽讚诐 讜讝讻讛 讘讜 讗讞专

The Gemara asks: What is the point of this halakha? If the injured party wishes to recover his losses, let him go and take the belligerent ox for himself, since it is currently ownerless. The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches that the injured party does not have any right to the ox, in order to teach that in a case where another person preceded him and acquired it, the injured party has no claim to it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻拽讬专

Ravina said an alternative interpretation of the mishna: The term assigned property serves to exclude a case in which an ox gored and subsequently its owner consecrated it, or where it gored and subsequently its owner declared it ownerless. Since the owners did not own the ox at the time the case was brought before the court, they are exempt from paying. Ravina explains that this is the intention of the mishna: That one is liable only when the property that caused the damage was owned by a responsible party both when it caused the damage and when it was tried. In this case, at the time of the court hearing it was not owned by a responsible party, as it was either consecrated or ownerless.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻拽讬专 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘注诇讬讜 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

It is also taught in a baraita: The halakha is that an ox that kills a person is stoned to death. The mishna states (44b) that this does not apply to an ox consecrated to the Temple or an ownerless ox. Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if an ox gored and its owner subsequently consecrated it to the Temple, or if an ox gored and its owner subsequently declared it ownerless, the owner is exempt from liability, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and had been forewarned with its owner, and he had not guarded it in, and it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29). The repetition of the reference to the owner at the beginning and end of the verse indicates that the ox is not stoned unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial is the same, i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for both events.

讜讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讘讙诪专 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But do we not also require that the ox鈥檚 status be the same at the time of the verdict? Isn鈥檛 the phrase: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned鈥 written with regard to the time of the verdict?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜讙诪专 讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

Rather, say that the owner of the ox is exempt unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial and at the verdict is the same, i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for all three events.

讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜专讱 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬

搂 The mishna teaches: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage. The Gemara explains the reason for this: This is because the one liable for the damage can say to the injured party: What did your ox want in my domain? One does not have to guard his ox from causing damage within his own property, since another person鈥檚 animal has no right to be there.

讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽

The mishna continues: And one is liable for damage caused in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 注诇 讛砖谉 讜注诇 讛专讙诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽 讚驻讟讜专 讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽

The Gemara cites a dispute concerning this case that results in two different ways of interpreting the mishna: Rav 岣sda says that Avimi says: With regard to a courtyard designated for the joint use of two partners, either one of them is liable for damage caused by the ox of one partner to the property of the other partner while in it, both for the category of Eating and for the category of Trampling. And accordingly, this is what the mishna is saying: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage, as he is exempt there; but in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one responsible for the damage, when he causes damage, the one who is responsible for the damage is obligated to pay damages. The statement in the mishna concerning a domain designated for joint use is the beginning of the following clause and introduces a case in which one is liable for damage.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 注诇 讛砖谉 讜注诇 讛专讙诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽 讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 讜讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽专谉

And Rabbi Elazar says: In a courtyard designated for joint use, one is exempt for one鈥檚 ox causing damage to the property of his partner in the category of Eating, and for one鈥檚 ox causing damage to the property of his partner in the category of Trampling. And accordingly, this is what the mishna is saying: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage, and one is also exempt for damage done in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage. The statement in the mishna about a domain designated for joint use is a continuation of the previous clause and adds an additional case in which one is exempt. And the following clause: When one causes damage, the one liable for the damage is obligated to pay damages, serves to add the fact that one is liable for damage in the framework of the category of Goring, which was not previously mentioned in the mishna.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 转谞讗 砖讜专 讜讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚砖讜专 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

This interpretation of the concluding clause of the mishna, as a reference to Goring, works out well according to Shmuel, in his dispute with Rav (3b) concerning the meaning of Ox and Maveh in the first mishna of this chapter. According to Shmuel they mean Trampling and Eating, respectively, and Goring has yet to be addressed. But according to Rav, who says: The term ox in the mishna includes damage caused by the ox and all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox, including Goring, Eating, and Trampling, Goring is already addressed in the mishna. What is added by the clause: The one liable for the damage is obligated to pay damages?

诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讘讛诪讛 讘专砖讜转谉 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 谞驻专爪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讜 砖驻专爪讜讛 诇住讟讬谉 讜讬爪转讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which the Sages taught in a baraita that elucidates the mishna鈥檚 statement. The mishna states: When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves to include the cases of an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter, in which an animal, e.g., an ox, caused damage while in their possession. If the ox was innocuous, he pays half of the damages, and if it was forewarned, he pays the full damages. If the ox was safely enclosed and a wall broke open at night, or if bandits [listin] broke it open and the ox went out and caused damage, he is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 诪专 讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said that the mishna states: When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves to include the cases of an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇转讜专讗 讚砖讜讗诇 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讝讬拽 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬转 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗转 讛砖转讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚讱 讘注讬谞讗 诇砖诇讜诪讬

If we say that the lender鈥檚 ox, which was under the watch of the borrower, injured the borrower鈥檚 ox, and the baraita is teaching that the lender is liable to pay the borrower, why is this so? Let the lender say to the borrower: If my ox had injured an ox in the world at large, i.e., someone else鈥檚 ox, you, the borrower, would be required to pay, as you were entrusted with safeguarding it. Now that my ox has injured your ox, should I be required to pay?

讗诇讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚砖讜讗诇 诇转讜专讗 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬转讝拽 诪注诇诪讗 讘注讬转 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讻讜诇讬讛 转讜专讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诪转 诇讬

Rather, the case must be that the borrower鈥檚 ox injured the lender鈥檚 ox, and the baraita is teaching that the borrower is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, the baraita teaches that if the belligerent ox was innocuous, the borrower is liable to pay only half of the damages. But why? Let the lender say to the borrower: By borrowing my ox, you undertook full responsibility for it such that if my ox had been injured by an ox from the world at large, you would be required to pay me for the entire value of my ox, irrespective of whether the belligerent ox was considered innocuous or forewarned. Now that it is your ox that injured my ox, should you have to pay only half of the damages? This interpretation of the baraita is also difficult.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讝拽讬讛 转讜专讗 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇转讜专讗 讚砖讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖诪讬专转 讙讜驻讜

The Gemara explains: Actually, the case is where the lender鈥檚 ox injured the borrower鈥檚 ox, and with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the borrower undertook the responsibility of safeguarding the body of the lender鈥檚 ox from being injured,

Scroll To Top