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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 15, 2016 | 讟壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Bava Kamma 15

Study Guide Bava Kamma 15. The gemara continues to explain the mishna – who can function as a beit din, who cannot testify, how we know that women are responsible for damages as men, in what way does the one whose property was damaged also have to “pay”? 聽In a case where an animal damages violently and is a shor tam聽(hasn’t done this yet 3 times), the owner needs to pay half damages. 聽there is a basic disagreement about the nature of the payment of half damages- is it a monetary obligation and we only make the owner pay half since it was unexpected or is the owner supposed to be entirely not responsible but in order to incentivize owners to watch their animals, the Torah instituted a fine that they pay half the damages? 聽There are attempts to bring sources to find the answer and in the end the gemara concludes that it is a fine/penalty. 聽Since by law, only in Israel can the courts rule on penalties, cases of shor tam cannot be ruled on in Babylonia. 聽However if the damages person were to seize payment from the damager, the courts leave it in his hands.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜讘谞讬 讘专讬转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘谞讬 讘专讬转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙讜讬诐

free men and members of the covenant. The mishna states: Free men, to exclude Canaanite slaves from being valid witnesses, and it states: Members of the covenant, to exclude gentiles.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讘讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讞住 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讚讬砖 诇讜 讬讞住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讱 讘诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 注讘讚 讚砖讬讬讱 讘诪爪讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to teach both exceptions, as had the Torah taught us only about a slave, I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness because he has no lineage, i.e., the child of a Canaanite slave is not legally considered to be his child in any sense; but a free gentile, who has lineage, I might say no, he is qualified. And similarly, had the Torah taught us only about a gentile, I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness because he has no connection to the mitzvot of the Torah; but with regard to a Canaanite slave, who does have a connection to the mitzvot, as he is obligated to keep the mitzvot that a woman is obligated to keep, I might say no, he is qualified. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both exceptions.

讜讛谞砖讬诐 讘讻诇诇 讛谞讝拽 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna continues: And women are included in the halakhot of damages in the same way as men. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara presents three sources for this halakha. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states with regard to the liability of one who takes a false oath that he had not stolen: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall commit any of the sins of a person鈥 (Numbers 5:6). The verse equates a woman with a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转谞讗 讜讗诇讛 讛诪砖驻讟讬诐 讗砖专 转砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讬谞讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

The school of Rabbi Elazar taught: The verse states with regard to the civil laws given following the revelation at Sinai: 鈥淎nd these are the civil laws that you shall set before them鈥 (Exodus 21:1). The reference to 鈥渢hem鈥 in the verse is referring to all those who stood at the revelation, both men and women. The verse thereby equates a woman with a man with regard to all civil laws in the Torah.

讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 转谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 诪讬转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

The school of 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: The verse states with regard to liability in a case where one鈥檚 ox kills a person: 鈥淎nd it killed a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:29). The verse thereby equates a woman with a man with regard to all killings in the Torah, i.e., the liability incurred is the same whether the person killed was a man or a woman.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讛讜讬 诇讛 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讬谞讬谉 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪砖讗 讜诪转谉 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And all three sources are necessary, as had the Torah taught us only the first source, one might have said that it is there that men and women are equated, as the Merciful One had pity upon a woman and made her liable in order that she should achieve atonement through paying restitution. But with regard to civil law, one might say that for a man, who is involved in business dealings, yes, the civil laws apply to him, but to a woman, who generally is not involved in business dealings, the laws do not apply.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讬谞讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讛 讞讬讜转讗 讗讘诇 讻驻专讛 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 诪爪讜讛 诇讗

And had the Torah taught us only that men and women are equated in civil law, one might have said that this is in order that she should be able to sustain herself by engaging in business dealings. If civil laws did not apply to a woman, one would be wary about conducting business with her. But with regard to obligating a woman to achieve atonement, one might have said that a man, who is obligated in mitzvot, yes, he is similarly obligated to achieve atonement; but a woman, who is not obligated in all the mitzvot to the same extent as a man, no, the obligation does not apply to her.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讬讜转讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 拽讟诇讗 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 诇砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 讗砖讛 诇讗

And had the Torah taught us only these first two sources, one might have limited the fact that a woman and man are equated to these two cases, here due to the fact that she also needs atonement, and there due to the fact that she needs to be able to sustain herself. But with regard to one鈥檚 liability for his ox killing a person, one might have said that only for killing a man, who is obligated in all mitzvot, yes, the owner of the ox is liable to pay a ransom; but for killing a woman, who is not obligated in all mitzvot, one might say he is not liable.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻讜驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Torah taught us only the equivalence of a man and woman with regard to a ransom, one might have thought that this is because it is a very serious matter as there is a loss of life, but in these first two sources, where there is not a loss of life, I would say no, a woman is not included. Accordingly, it is necessary to have all three sources.

讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉

搂 The mishna continues: And both the injured party and the one liable for the damage are involved in the payment.

讗转诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽谞住讗

An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage made when one鈥檚 innocuous ox gores another鈥檚 animal. Rav Pappa says: It is monetary restitution for the injured party鈥檚 loss. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is a fine.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪谉 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讞住 注诇讬讛 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬讬注讚 转讜专讬讛

The Gemara elucidates: Rav Pappa says: The payment is monetary restitution, as he holds that even ordinary oxen, which have not been forewarned with regard to Goring, are not presumed to be safeguarded, as their nature does not prevent them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is responsible to safeguard them, to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, by right it should have been that the owner needs to pay the full cost of the damage. Nevertheless, the Merciful One had pity upon him, as his ox had not yet been forewarned and he was not fully aware of the possibility that it might gore, and accordingly, the Torah reduced the extent of his liability.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽谞住讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇砖诇诐 讻诇诇 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇谞讟专讬讛 诇转讜专讬讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is a fine, as he holds that ordinary oxen are presumed to be safeguarded, as their nature prevents them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is not responsible for safeguarding them to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, by right it should have been that the owner does not pay at all. Nevertheless, the Merciful One penalized him in order that he will safeguard his ox, even before it is forewarned, and decreed that the fine should be given to the injured party even though he is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss.

转谞谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖讬讬讱 谞讬讝拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 砖拽讬诇 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗讬转讬讛

We learned in the mishna: Both the injured party and the one liable for the damage are involved in the payment. Granted, according to the one who says that the payment of half the cost of the damage is monetary restitution, this assumes that the injured party is theoretically entitled to receive the full value of his damaged animal but in practice receives only half. This is what the mishna means by saying that the injured party is also involved in the payment, because it is as though he is compelled to forgo half of the cost of the damage that by right he should be paid. But according to the one who says that the payment of half the cost of the damage is a fine, which assumes that the injured party is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss, now that even the money that he takes is not his by right, is it accurate to describe him as being involved in the payment?

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara explains: The mishna鈥檚 statement is necessary only with regard to the fact that the injured party is the one who absorbs the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass between the animal鈥檚 death and the time that the case is brought before the court. Since he must absorb this financial loss, it may be said that he is involved in the payment.

驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: How can one claim that the mishna is referring to the diminishing value of the carcass? Isn鈥檛 it already taught in the first clause of the mishna, which by using the term: Payments of restitution for damage, teaches that the owner of the injured animal attends to, i.e., retains ownership of, the animal carcass? And therefore it follows that he bears any depreciation in its value, as the Gemara (10b) explained above.

讞讚讗 讘转诐 讜讞讚讗 讘诪讜注讚

The Gemara explains why the mishna needs to teach this principle twice: One mention is made with regard to an innocuous ox and the other one is made with regard to a forewarned ox.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬讬注讚 讗讘诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And it is necessary to state both cases, because if it would teach us the principle only with regard to an innocuous ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the liability of the owner of the ox, because it has not yet been forewarned. But with regard to a forewarned ox, I would say the Torah does not limit the owner鈥檚 liability at all and the owner must also bear the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass. And similarly, if it would teach us the principle only with regard to a forewarned ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the owner鈥檚 liability because he is paying the full cost of the damage, so the Torah does not overly burden him. But with regard to an innocuous ox, where he is liable for only half of the damage, I would say the Torah does not limit his liability any further, so he must bear the loss of the diminishing value of the carcass. Therefore, it is necessary to state the principle in both cases.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讛 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 砖讛转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara attempts to prove whether the payment of half the cost of the damage is considered to be monetary restitution or a fine: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (16b): What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an innocuous ox and that caused by a forewarned ox? The difference is that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of its body, and the owner of a forewarned ox pays the full cost of the damage from his superior-quality property.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara explains the challenge posed by the mishna: And if it is so, that payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is considered a fine, let the mishna also teach this additional distinction: The owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission, in accordance with the halakha that one does not pay a fine based on one鈥檚 own admission, whereas the owner of a forewarned ox pays based on his own admission.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专

The Gemara answers: The tanna could have taught this distinction; however, he taught only certain distinctions and omitted others, including this one. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? A tanna would never omit just a single case, perforce there must be another halakha he omitted.

砖讬讬专 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

The Gemara answers: He omitted the halakha that if an innoc-uous ox kills someone, its owner does not pay even half of the ransom payment, whereas if the ox is forewarned, he pays the full ransom.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

The Gemara rejects this: If one claims that the mishna omits the halakha of one who admits his liability due to the fact that it also omits the halakha that the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay even half of the ransom, that is a flawed claim, as this is not an omission, because one could say: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that when an innocuous ox kills a person, one pays half the ransom, and therefore the distinction between an innocuous and forewarned ox is included in the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Ketubot 41a):

讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

If one admits: My ox killed so-and-so, or my ox killed so-and-so鈥檚 ox, then this person pays based on his own admission.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘转诐

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What, is the halakha of the mishna not stated with regard to an innocuous ox? If so, this mishna proves that one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage even based on one鈥檚 own admission, which demonstrates that the payment is monetary restitution and not a fine.

诇讗 讘诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 转诐 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 注讘讚讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to a forewarned ox. The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation, if it had been an innocuous ox that gored, what would be the halakha? Would one say that indeed, he does not pay based on his own admission? But if so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna in Ketubot: If one admits: My ox killed so-and-so鈥檚 Canaanite slave, he does not pay based on his own admission, let the mishna differentiate and teach the distinction with regard to the case raised in the first clause itself. The reason for the distinction between the cases when one鈥檚 ox kills a Jew or a Canaanite slave is that in the first one pays monetary restitution, while in the second one pays a fine. If the mishna wishes to demonstrate the difference between a fine and monetary restitution with regard to admission, then instead of introducing a new case, the mishna would have modified the case of the previous clause.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 讘转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The mishna would have continued: In what case is this statement in the first clause said? It is said with regard to a forewarned ox, but with regard to an admission that one鈥檚 innocuous ox gored, he does not pay based on his own admission. The fact that the mishna does not do so suggests that in fact one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage based on one鈥檚 own admission that his innocuous ox gored. Evidently, the payment is considered to be monetary restitution.

讻讜诇讛 讘诪讜注讚 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara rejects this: The reason the mishna did not raise the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox is not because that distinction is not a valid one, but because the entire mishna speaks only of cases of a forewarned ox. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬讜转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara suggests further: Come and hear a proof from the concluding clause of the mishna just cited: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara infers: What, is it not that were he liable to pay less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would pay based on his own admission? Since when an innocuous ox gores, its owner is liable to pay more than the cost of the damage, the payment is clearly not monetary restitution, and this is why it is not payable based on one鈥檚 own admission.

诇讗 讛讗 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara rejects the inference: No, one should infer only that were he liable to pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. If the sum to be paid is more or less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would not pay based on his own admission.

讗讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬讜转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讬转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讚诪砖诪注 驻讞讜转 讜诪砖诪注 讬讜转专 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks. But according to that opinion, where one is liable to pay less than the cost of the damage, what would be the halakha? Would one say that, indeed, he does not pay based on his own admission? If so, instead of teaching: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission, let the mishna teach instead: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. As that statement indicates cases where one is liable to pay more than the cost of that which he damaged and it also indicates cases where one is liable to pay less than the cost of that which he damaged. Evidently, the mishna holds that where one鈥檚 liability is for less than the cost of the damage, it is payable based on one鈥檚 own admission. This therefore provides a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.

讜讛诇讻转讗 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 拽谞住讗

The Gemara adds: And the halakha is that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.

转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛诇讻转讗

The Gemara notes the obvious inconsistency: How can it be that the Gemara offers a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine and then state that the halakha is in accordance with that opinion?

讗讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻诪讜 砖讛讝讬拽

The Gemara explains: Yes, the halakha may be in accordance with that opinion because of the following resolution of the refutation. What is the reason that the Gemara held that there is a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine? Because the mishna does not teach: Anyone who does not pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. This is not, in fact, a conclusive refutation, as even if one holds that the payment of half the cost of the damage for an innocuous ox is considered monetary restitution, one can still explain why the mishna doesn鈥檛 discuss cases where one is liable for less than the cost of the damage.

诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讗 诇讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

This is because the tanna cannot make an absolute statement about such cases, that one never pays based on one鈥檚 own admission. Since there is an obligation for one to pay for half the cost of the damage resulting from pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, which, through tradition it is learned that this payment is monetary restitution, and it is due to that reason that the mishna does not teach cases where one鈥檚 liability is valued at less than the cost of the damage.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛讗讬 讻诇讘讗 讚讗讻诇 讗讬诪专讬 讜砖讜谞专讗 讚讗讻诇讛 转专谞讙讜诇讗 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讘讘诇

The Gemara considers the ramifications of this halakha: And now that you have said that the halakha is that the payment of half the cost of the damage is a fine, with regard to this innocuous dog that ate lambs or this innocuous cat that ate a chicken, which is atypical behavior for dogs and cats, we do not collect the payment for these acts in the courts in Babylonia. Since it is not common for these animals to eat those animals, these acts are classified as Goring, irrespective of the fact that the animal gained pleasure from the damage, for which it would normally be classified in the category of Eating. Therefore, in cases where these animals had not performed this act of damaging before, and were therefore considered innocuous, the owner is liable for only half the cost of the damage, which is a fine. Since the collection of fines may be imposed only by judges who have been ordained, and ordination is given only in Eretz Yisrael, these payments are not collected in Babylonia.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讘专讘讬 讗讘诇 讘讝讜讟专讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara adds: And this matter applies only where they attacked large animals, as it is atypical behavior for them; but where they attacked small animals, since that is their typical manner of behavior, it is classified as Eating, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, which is certainly considered monetary restitution. Accordingly, the payment is collected by the courts in Babylonia.

讜讗讬 转驻住 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛

And even in a case where the payment is considered a fine, if the injured party seized the property of the owner of the belligerent animal in order to cover his loss, we do not reclaim it from him since he is entitled to it.

讜讗讬 讗诪专 拽讘注讜 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讝诇讬谞讗 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 拽讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

And also, if the injured party said to the court: Fix a time for me to go to Eretz Yisrael to present the case before ordained judges, we fix a time for him and require the owner of the belligerent animal to go to the court in Eretz Yisrael at that time. And if he does not go, we excommunicate him for disobeying the orders of the court.

讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪住诇拽 讛讝讬拽讗

And either way, we excommunicate the owner of the belligerent animal until he removes the danger, e.g., by killing the animal or otherwise neutralizing the danger.

诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讻诇讘 专注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗诇 讬注诪讬讚 住讜诇诐 专注讜注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讬诐 讚诪讬诐 讘讘讬转讱

The justification for this is from the ruling of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring blood into your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one鈥檚 house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 诪讜注讚讬谉

MISHNA: There are five damage-causing acts that an animal can perform twice and remain innocuous even when its owner was warned each time to prevent it from doing so. After the third time, the animal is rendered forewarned. In such cases, the owner is liable to pay only half of the damages. And there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned, at times even if it had never caused damage in that manner. In such cases the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.

讛讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讜注讚转 诇讗 诇讬讙讞 讜诇讗 诇讬讙讜祝 讜诇讗 诇砖讜讱 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜抓 讜诇讗 诇讘注讜讟

An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them, nor for kicking. In these cases the animal is considered to be innocuous and its owner is liable for only half of the damages.

讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 讛专讙诇 诪讜注讚转 诇砖讘讜专 讘讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 讜砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛讗讚诐

Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. Concerning acts of damage performed with the foot, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to breaking items while walking. And there is a forewarned ox, which gored three times and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. And there is an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party while on the property of the injured party. And there is the person, i.e., any damage done by a person. In all of these cases the one who caused the damage is considered to be forewarned, resulting in the obligation to pay the full cost of the damage.

讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讜讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜注讚讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 转专讘讜转 讗讬谞谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜讛谞讞砖 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐

The mishna presents the halakha for wild animals: The wolf; the lion; the bear; the leopard; the bardelas, the meaning of which the Gemara will discuss; and the snake. These are considered forewarned even if they had never previously caused damage. Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered forewarned. But the snake is always considered forewarned.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讜注讚转 诇砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪砖诇诪转

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches in its latter clause: Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat, we learn, by inference, that we are dealing throughout the mishna with cases of damage done in the courtyard of the injured party, as one is exempt from liability for acts of damage classified as Eating if they occur in the public domain. And yet the first clause teaches: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring. Stating that it is not forewarned indicates that the liability of its owner is limited only with regard to paying the full cost of the damage, but the owner pays half the cost of the damage.

诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: Who is it that holds that when damage classified as Goring is done within the property of the injured party the owner of the belligerent animal is liable for only half of the damages? It is the Rabbis, who say: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical behavior, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays half the cost of the damage.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛讗讚诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐

But then say, and try to explain accordingly, the next part of the latter clause of the mishna: And there is a forewarned ox that gored three times, and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. And there is an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party while on the property of the injured party. And there is the person. In these cases, the responsible party pays full damages. With this clause we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage even if the ox is innocuous.

专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: Could it be that the first part of the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the next part of the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon?

讗讬谉 讚讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 砖讘讜拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜转讗 讗讘转专讗讬 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara answers: Yes, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Large-toothed one, leave the mishna and follow after me and my interpretation that the first part of the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the next part of the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专

The Gemara presents a different interpretation of the mishna: Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav:

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 15

讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜讘谞讬 讘专讬转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘谞讬 讘专讬转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙讜讬诐

free men and members of the covenant. The mishna states: Free men, to exclude Canaanite slaves from being valid witnesses, and it states: Members of the covenant, to exclude gentiles.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讘讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讞住 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讚讬砖 诇讜 讬讞住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讱 讘诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 注讘讚 讚砖讬讬讱 讘诪爪讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to teach both exceptions, as had the Torah taught us only about a slave, I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness because he has no lineage, i.e., the child of a Canaanite slave is not legally considered to be his child in any sense; but a free gentile, who has lineage, I might say no, he is qualified. And similarly, had the Torah taught us only about a gentile, I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness because he has no connection to the mitzvot of the Torah; but with regard to a Canaanite slave, who does have a connection to the mitzvot, as he is obligated to keep the mitzvot that a woman is obligated to keep, I might say no, he is qualified. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both exceptions.

讜讛谞砖讬诐 讘讻诇诇 讛谞讝拽 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna continues: And women are included in the halakhot of damages in the same way as men. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara presents three sources for this halakha. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states with regard to the liability of one who takes a false oath that he had not stolen: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall commit any of the sins of a person鈥 (Numbers 5:6). The verse equates a woman with a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转谞讗 讜讗诇讛 讛诪砖驻讟讬诐 讗砖专 转砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讬谞讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

The school of Rabbi Elazar taught: The verse states with regard to the civil laws given following the revelation at Sinai: 鈥淎nd these are the civil laws that you shall set before them鈥 (Exodus 21:1). The reference to 鈥渢hem鈥 in the verse is referring to all those who stood at the revelation, both men and women. The verse thereby equates a woman with a man with regard to all civil laws in the Torah.

讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 转谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 诪讬转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

The school of 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: The verse states with regard to liability in a case where one鈥檚 ox kills a person: 鈥淎nd it killed a man or a woman鈥 (Exodus 21:29). The verse thereby equates a woman with a man with regard to all killings in the Torah, i.e., the liability incurred is the same whether the person killed was a man or a woman.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讛讜讬 诇讛 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讬谞讬谉 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪砖讗 讜诪转谉 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And all three sources are necessary, as had the Torah taught us only the first source, one might have said that it is there that men and women are equated, as the Merciful One had pity upon a woman and made her liable in order that she should achieve atonement through paying restitution. But with regard to civil law, one might say that for a man, who is involved in business dealings, yes, the civil laws apply to him, but to a woman, who generally is not involved in business dealings, the laws do not apply.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讬谞讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讛 讞讬讜转讗 讗讘诇 讻驻专讛 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 诪爪讜讛 诇讗

And had the Torah taught us only that men and women are equated in civil law, one might have said that this is in order that she should be able to sustain herself by engaging in business dealings. If civil laws did not apply to a woman, one would be wary about conducting business with her. But with regard to obligating a woman to achieve atonement, one might have said that a man, who is obligated in mitzvot, yes, he is similarly obligated to achieve atonement; but a woman, who is not obligated in all the mitzvot to the same extent as a man, no, the obligation does not apply to her.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讬讜转讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 拽讟诇讗 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 诇砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 讗砖讛 诇讗

And had the Torah taught us only these first two sources, one might have limited the fact that a woman and man are equated to these two cases, here due to the fact that she also needs atonement, and there due to the fact that she needs to be able to sustain herself. But with regard to one鈥檚 liability for his ox killing a person, one might have said that only for killing a man, who is obligated in all mitzvot, yes, the owner of the ox is liable to pay a ransom; but for killing a woman, who is not obligated in all mitzvot, one might say he is not liable.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻讜驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Torah taught us only the equivalence of a man and woman with regard to a ransom, one might have thought that this is because it is a very serious matter as there is a loss of life, but in these first two sources, where there is not a loss of life, I would say no, a woman is not included. Accordingly, it is necessary to have all three sources.

讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉

搂 The mishna continues: And both the injured party and the one liable for the damage are involved in the payment.

讗转诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽谞住讗

An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage made when one鈥檚 innocuous ox gores another鈥檚 animal. Rav Pappa says: It is monetary restitution for the injured party鈥檚 loss. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is a fine.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪谉 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讞住 注诇讬讛 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬讬注讚 转讜专讬讛

The Gemara elucidates: Rav Pappa says: The payment is monetary restitution, as he holds that even ordinary oxen, which have not been forewarned with regard to Goring, are not presumed to be safeguarded, as their nature does not prevent them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is responsible to safeguard them, to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, by right it should have been that the owner needs to pay the full cost of the damage. Nevertheless, the Merciful One had pity upon him, as his ox had not yet been forewarned and he was not fully aware of the possibility that it might gore, and accordingly, the Torah reduced the extent of his liability.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽谞住讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇砖诇诐 讻诇诇 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇谞讟专讬讛 诇转讜专讬讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is a fine, as he holds that ordinary oxen are presumed to be safeguarded, as their nature prevents them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is not responsible for safeguarding them to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, by right it should have been that the owner does not pay at all. Nevertheless, the Merciful One penalized him in order that he will safeguard his ox, even before it is forewarned, and decreed that the fine should be given to the injured party even though he is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss.

转谞谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖讬讬讱 谞讬讝拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 砖拽讬诇 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗讬转讬讛

We learned in the mishna: Both the injured party and the one liable for the damage are involved in the payment. Granted, according to the one who says that the payment of half the cost of the damage is monetary restitution, this assumes that the injured party is theoretically entitled to receive the full value of his damaged animal but in practice receives only half. This is what the mishna means by saying that the injured party is also involved in the payment, because it is as though he is compelled to forgo half of the cost of the damage that by right he should be paid. But according to the one who says that the payment of half the cost of the damage is a fine, which assumes that the injured party is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss, now that even the money that he takes is not his by right, is it accurate to describe him as being involved in the payment?

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara explains: The mishna鈥檚 statement is necessary only with regard to the fact that the injured party is the one who absorbs the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass between the animal鈥檚 death and the time that the case is brought before the court. Since he must absorb this financial loss, it may be said that he is involved in the payment.

驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: How can one claim that the mishna is referring to the diminishing value of the carcass? Isn鈥檛 it already taught in the first clause of the mishna, which by using the term: Payments of restitution for damage, teaches that the owner of the injured animal attends to, i.e., retains ownership of, the animal carcass? And therefore it follows that he bears any depreciation in its value, as the Gemara (10b) explained above.

讞讚讗 讘转诐 讜讞讚讗 讘诪讜注讚

The Gemara explains why the mishna needs to teach this principle twice: One mention is made with regard to an innocuous ox and the other one is made with regard to a forewarned ox.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬讬注讚 讗讘诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And it is necessary to state both cases, because if it would teach us the principle only with regard to an innocuous ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the liability of the owner of the ox, because it has not yet been forewarned. But with regard to a forewarned ox, I would say the Torah does not limit the owner鈥檚 liability at all and the owner must also bear the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass. And similarly, if it would teach us the principle only with regard to a forewarned ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the owner鈥檚 liability because he is paying the full cost of the damage, so the Torah does not overly burden him. But with regard to an innocuous ox, where he is liable for only half of the damage, I would say the Torah does not limit his liability any further, so he must bear the loss of the diminishing value of the carcass. Therefore, it is necessary to state the principle in both cases.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讛 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 砖讛转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara attempts to prove whether the payment of half the cost of the damage is considered to be monetary restitution or a fine: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (16b): What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an innocuous ox and that caused by a forewarned ox? The difference is that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of its body, and the owner of a forewarned ox pays the full cost of the damage from his superior-quality property.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara explains the challenge posed by the mishna: And if it is so, that payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is considered a fine, let the mishna also teach this additional distinction: The owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission, in accordance with the halakha that one does not pay a fine based on one鈥檚 own admission, whereas the owner of a forewarned ox pays based on his own admission.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专

The Gemara answers: The tanna could have taught this distinction; however, he taught only certain distinctions and omitted others, including this one. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? A tanna would never omit just a single case, perforce there must be another halakha he omitted.

砖讬讬专 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

The Gemara answers: He omitted the halakha that if an innoc-uous ox kills someone, its owner does not pay even half of the ransom payment, whereas if the ox is forewarned, he pays the full ransom.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

The Gemara rejects this: If one claims that the mishna omits the halakha of one who admits his liability due to the fact that it also omits the halakha that the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay even half of the ransom, that is a flawed claim, as this is not an omission, because one could say: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that when an innocuous ox kills a person, one pays half the ransom, and therefore the distinction between an innocuous and forewarned ox is included in the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Ketubot 41a):

讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

If one admits: My ox killed so-and-so, or my ox killed so-and-so鈥檚 ox, then this person pays based on his own admission.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘转诐

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What, is the halakha of the mishna not stated with regard to an innocuous ox? If so, this mishna proves that one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage even based on one鈥檚 own admission, which demonstrates that the payment is monetary restitution and not a fine.

诇讗 讘诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 转诐 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 注讘讚讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to a forewarned ox. The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation, if it had been an innocuous ox that gored, what would be the halakha? Would one say that indeed, he does not pay based on his own admission? But if so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna in Ketubot: If one admits: My ox killed so-and-so鈥檚 Canaanite slave, he does not pay based on his own admission, let the mishna differentiate and teach the distinction with regard to the case raised in the first clause itself. The reason for the distinction between the cases when one鈥檚 ox kills a Jew or a Canaanite slave is that in the first one pays monetary restitution, while in the second one pays a fine. If the mishna wishes to demonstrate the difference between a fine and monetary restitution with regard to admission, then instead of introducing a new case, the mishna would have modified the case of the previous clause.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 讘转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The mishna would have continued: In what case is this statement in the first clause said? It is said with regard to a forewarned ox, but with regard to an admission that one鈥檚 innocuous ox gored, he does not pay based on his own admission. The fact that the mishna does not do so suggests that in fact one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage based on one鈥檚 own admission that his innocuous ox gored. Evidently, the payment is considered to be monetary restitution.

讻讜诇讛 讘诪讜注讚 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara rejects this: The reason the mishna did not raise the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox is not because that distinction is not a valid one, but because the entire mishna speaks only of cases of a forewarned ox. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬讜转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara suggests further: Come and hear a proof from the concluding clause of the mishna just cited: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara infers: What, is it not that were he liable to pay less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would pay based on his own admission? Since when an innocuous ox gores, its owner is liable to pay more than the cost of the damage, the payment is clearly not monetary restitution, and this is why it is not payable based on one鈥檚 own admission.

诇讗 讛讗 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara rejects the inference: No, one should infer only that were he liable to pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. If the sum to be paid is more or less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would not pay based on his own admission.

讗讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬讜转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讬转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讚诪砖诪注 驻讞讜转 讜诪砖诪注 讬讜转专 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks. But according to that opinion, where one is liable to pay less than the cost of the damage, what would be the halakha? Would one say that, indeed, he does not pay based on his own admission? If so, instead of teaching: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission, let the mishna teach instead: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. As that statement indicates cases where one is liable to pay more than the cost of that which he damaged and it also indicates cases where one is liable to pay less than the cost of that which he damaged. Evidently, the mishna holds that where one鈥檚 liability is for less than the cost of the damage, it is payable based on one鈥檚 own admission. This therefore provides a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.

讜讛诇讻转讗 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 拽谞住讗

The Gemara adds: And the halakha is that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.

转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛诇讻转讗

The Gemara notes the obvious inconsistency: How can it be that the Gemara offers a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine and then state that the halakha is in accordance with that opinion?

讗讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻诪讜 砖讛讝讬拽

The Gemara explains: Yes, the halakha may be in accordance with that opinion because of the following resolution of the refutation. What is the reason that the Gemara held that there is a conclusive refutation of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine? Because the mishna does not teach: Anyone who does not pay as much as the cost of that which he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. This is not, in fact, a conclusive refutation, as even if one holds that the payment of half the cost of the damage for an innocuous ox is considered monetary restitution, one can still explain why the mishna doesn鈥檛 discuss cases where one is liable for less than the cost of the damage.

诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讗 诇讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

This is because the tanna cannot make an absolute statement about such cases, that one never pays based on one鈥檚 own admission. Since there is an obligation for one to pay for half the cost of the damage resulting from pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, which, through tradition it is learned that this payment is monetary restitution, and it is due to that reason that the mishna does not teach cases where one鈥檚 liability is valued at less than the cost of the damage.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛讗讬 讻诇讘讗 讚讗讻诇 讗讬诪专讬 讜砖讜谞专讗 讚讗讻诇讛 转专谞讙讜诇讗 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讘讘诇

The Gemara considers the ramifications of this halakha: And now that you have said that the halakha is that the payment of half the cost of the damage is a fine, with regard to this innocuous dog that ate lambs or this innocuous cat that ate a chicken, which is atypical behavior for dogs and cats, we do not collect the payment for these acts in the courts in Babylonia. Since it is not common for these animals to eat those animals, these acts are classified as Goring, irrespective of the fact that the animal gained pleasure from the damage, for which it would normally be classified in the category of Eating. Therefore, in cases where these animals had not performed this act of damaging before, and were therefore considered innocuous, the owner is liable for only half the cost of the damage, which is a fine. Since the collection of fines may be imposed only by judges who have been ordained, and ordination is given only in Eretz Yisrael, these payments are not collected in Babylonia.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讘专讘讬 讗讘诇 讘讝讜讟专讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara adds: And this matter applies only where they attacked large animals, as it is atypical behavior for them; but where they attacked small animals, since that is their typical manner of behavior, it is classified as Eating, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, which is certainly considered monetary restitution. Accordingly, the payment is collected by the courts in Babylonia.

讜讗讬 转驻住 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛

And even in a case where the payment is considered a fine, if the injured party seized the property of the owner of the belligerent animal in order to cover his loss, we do not reclaim it from him since he is entitled to it.

讜讗讬 讗诪专 拽讘注讜 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讝诇讬谞讗 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 拽讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

And also, if the injured party said to the court: Fix a time for me to go to Eretz Yisrael to present the case before ordained judges, we fix a time for him and require the owner of the belligerent animal to go to the court in Eretz Yisrael at that time. And if he does not go, we excommunicate him for disobeying the orders of the court.

讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪住诇拽 讛讝讬拽讗

And either way, we excommunicate the owner of the belligerent animal until he removes the danger, e.g., by killing the animal or otherwise neutralizing the danger.

诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讻诇讘 专注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗诇 讬注诪讬讚 住讜诇诐 专注讜注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讬诐 讚诪讬诐 讘讘讬转讱

The justification for this is from the ruling of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring blood into your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one鈥檚 house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 转诪讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 诪讜注讚讬谉

MISHNA: There are five damage-causing acts that an animal can perform twice and remain innocuous even when its owner was warned each time to prevent it from doing so. After the third time, the animal is rendered forewarned. In such cases, the owner is liable to pay only half of the damages. And there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned, at times even if it had never caused damage in that manner. In such cases the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.

讛讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讜注讚转 诇讗 诇讬讙讞 讜诇讗 诇讬讙讜祝 讜诇讗 诇砖讜讱 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜抓 讜诇讗 诇讘注讜讟

An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them, nor for kicking. In these cases the animal is considered to be innocuous and its owner is liable for only half of the damages.

讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 讛专讙诇 诪讜注讚转 诇砖讘讜专 讘讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 讜砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛讗讚诐

Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. Concerning acts of damage performed with the foot, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to breaking items while walking. And there is a forewarned ox, which gored three times and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. And there is an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party while on the property of the injured party. And there is the person, i.e., any damage done by a person. In all of these cases the one who caused the damage is considered to be forewarned, resulting in the obligation to pay the full cost of the damage.

讛讝讗讘 讜讛讗专讬 讜讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜注讚讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 转专讘讜转 讗讬谞谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜讛谞讞砖 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐

The mishna presents the halakha for wild animals: The wolf; the lion; the bear; the leopard; the bardelas, the meaning of which the Gemara will discuss; and the snake. These are considered forewarned even if they had never previously caused damage. Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered forewarned. But the snake is always considered forewarned.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讜注讚转 诇砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪砖诇诪转

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches in its latter clause: Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat, we learn, by inference, that we are dealing throughout the mishna with cases of damage done in the courtyard of the injured party, as one is exempt from liability for acts of damage classified as Eating if they occur in the public domain. And yet the first clause teaches: An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring. Stating that it is not forewarned indicates that the liability of its owner is limited only with regard to paying the full cost of the damage, but the owner pays half the cost of the damage.

诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: Who is it that holds that when damage classified as Goring is done within the property of the injured party the owner of the belligerent animal is liable for only half of the damages? It is the Rabbis, who say: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical behavior, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays half the cost of the damage.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讜专 讛诪讜注讚 讜砖讜专 讛诪讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛讗讚诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐

But then say, and try to explain accordingly, the next part of the latter clause of the mishna: And there is a forewarned ox that gored three times, and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. And there is an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party while on the property of the injured party. And there is the person. In these cases, the responsible party pays full damages. With this clause we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: The halakha of cases of Goring performed by an innocuous animal, which is atypical, done in the courtyard of the injured party, is that the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage even if the ox is innocuous.

专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: Could it be that the first part of the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the next part of the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon?

讗讬谉 讚讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 砖讘讜拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜转讗 讗讘转专讗讬 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara answers: Yes, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Large-toothed one, leave the mishna and follow after me and my interpretation that the first part of the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the next part of the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专

The Gemara presents a different interpretation of the mishna: Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav:

Scroll To Top