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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 3, 2016 | 讻状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Kamma 33

Study Guide Bava Kamma 33. If one enters a store and gets injured by the store owner (e.g. a carpenter’s studio and gets injured as the carpenter is working, is the carpenter obligated in the 4聽damages and if he accidentally kills him, does he need to go to a refuge city? 聽Does it depend on whether he entered with permission or not? 聽Would it be the same if he went to his employer’s house to get paid and was attacked by an animal? What else may it depend upon? 聽How do we calculate damages in a case where 2 animals attacked each other or two people to a person and an animal? 聽If a shor ta attacks, since the owner needs to pay up to the value of his animal that damaged, does that mean that his ox is designated payment for the loan or not. 聽There is an argument about this between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and the ramifications of this argument are discussed and carious sources are brought to try to see whose opinion they fit in with.


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

讗讞专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讗 讚专讘讬讛 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Another person does not have awe of his mentor. Therefore, even if the welder urges another person to leave, he must ascertain that that person actually did so, and otherwise he is liable to be exiled. By contrast, this apprentice has awe of his mentor, and so the welder may assume that if he instructed him to leave, he certainly did. Therefore, if in reality the apprentice did not leave and is killed by the sparks, the welder is not liable to be exiled, as he is not held accountable.

专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪诪爪讬讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讬 砖讬爪转讛 讗讘谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讬讘诇讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

Rav Zevid taught in the name of Rava that this aforementioned statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina is in reference not to the above baraita but is in reference to this baraita: It is stated in the verse concerning one who kills unintentionally: 鈥淎nd the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5); this serves to exclude one who introduces himself into an area of danger, in which case the one who kills unintentionally is exempt from exile. From here Rabbi Eliezer Ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to one whom a stone departed from his hand, and another person stuck out his head and received a blow from it and died, the one who threw the stone is exempt from exile. It is in reference to this statement that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: He is exempt from exile for killing him. But if the victim was merely injured, he is liable to pay four types of indemnity.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讗讛讗 驻讟讜专 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara comments: The one who teaches this statement in reference to this baraita, all the more so he would teach it in reference to the first baraita, where one entered the workshop of the carpenter. But the one who teaches it with regard to the first baraita teaches it only in reference to that baraita. But in this baraita he is entirely exempt from liability for injury, as one could claim that he is completely blameless.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讜注诇讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诇转讘讜注 砖讻专谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讙讞谉 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞砖讻谉 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专砖讗讬谉 驻讜注诇讬谉 诇转讘讜注 砖讻专谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Sages taught: With regard to salaried laborers who came into their employer鈥檚 courtyard to claim their wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored them, or the homeowner鈥檚 dog bit them, and a laborer died, the homeowner is exempt. Others say that he is liable, as salaried laborers are allowed to enter their employer鈥檚 property to claim their wages from the homeowner.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 讘诪转讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讞专讬诐 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 讘讘讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the employer can be found in the city, what is the reason of the others, who hold him liable? The laborers could have met him in the city to claim their wages and did not need to enter his courtyard. If he can be found only at home, what is the reason of the first tanna, who exempts him? Clearly they are entitled to claim their wages.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讙讘专讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讜拽专讬 讗讘讘讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讜诇 转讗 诪砖诪注 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讜诐 讗讚讜讻转讱 诪砖诪注

The Gemara answers: No, these are not the circumstances under discussion. This halakha is necessary only with regard to a man who can sometimes be found in town and sometimes cannot be found in town, and the laborers called to him at the gate of his courtyard, and he said to them: Yes. One Sage, referred to as the others, holds that the term yes in this context indicates: Come in. Therefore, he is liable for their death. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the term yes in this context indicates: Stand in your place and I will come out to you. Since he did not give them permission to enter, he is exempt.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讜诐 讗讚讜讻转讱 诪砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 驻讜注诇 砖谞讻谞住 诇转讘讜注 砖讻专讜 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讙讞讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘讜 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讻谞住 讘专砖讜转 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚拽专讬 讗讘讘讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 拽讜诐 讗讚讜讻转讱 诪砖诪注

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that yes in this context indicates: Stand in your place. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a salaried laborer who entered his employer鈥檚 courtyard to claim his wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored him, or his dog bit him, the homeowner is exempt, although the laborer entered with permission. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt if the laborer entered with permission? Rather, is it not because it is a case where the laborer called him at the gate, and he said to him: Yes? Conclude from it that yes in this context indicates: Stand in your place.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 砖讜讜专讬谉 转诪讬谉 砖讞讘诇讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讘诪讜转专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

MISHNA: With regard to two innocuous oxen that injured each other, the respective damages are evaluated, and if one amount is more than the other, the owner pays half the damages with regard to the difference. In other words, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the other owner half the difference. If both oxen were forewarned, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference.

讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 诪讜注讚 讘转诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 转诐 讘诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

In a case where one of the oxen was innocuous and the other one was forewarned, if the forewarned ox caused greater damage to the innocuous ox than the reverse, the owner of the forewarned ox pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. If the innocuous ox caused greater damage to the forewarned ox, its owner pays half the damage with regard to the difference.

讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 砖讞讘诇讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

And similarly, with regard to two people who injured each other, the one who did greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference, since one is always considered forewarned with regard to damage he causes.

讗讚诐 讘诪讜注讚 讜诪讜注讚 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗讚诐 讘转诐 讜转诐 讘讗讚诐 讗讚诐 讘转诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 转诐 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

If a person caused damage to a forewarned ox and the forewarned ox caused damage to the person, whichever side caused the greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. In a case where a person caused damage to an innocuous ox and the innocuous ox caused damage to the person, if the person caused greater financial damage to the innocuous ox he pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. If the innocuous ox caused greater damage to the person, its owner pays only half the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of the innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injures a person.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪砖驻讟 讛讝讛 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讻诪砖驻讟 砖讜专 讘砖讜专 讻讱 诪砖驻讟 砖讜专 讘讗讚诐 诪讛 砖讜专 讘砖讜专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗祝 砖讜专 讘讗讚诐 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis about a case where an ox injures a person, the Sages taught: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淲hether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done to him鈥 (Exodus 21:31), that as is the judgment concerning an ox that causes damage to an ox, so is the judgment with regard to an ox that causes damage to a person. Just as with regard to an ox that causes damage to an ox, if it is innocuous its owner pays half the cost of the damage and if it is forewarned he pays the full cost of the damage, so too, with regard to an ox that causes damage to a person, if it is an innocuous ox its owner pays half the cost of the damage and if it is a forewarned ox the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诪砖驻讟 讛讝讛 讻转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讻注诇讬讜谉

Rabbi Akiva says: It is derived from the phrase 鈥渁ccording to this judgment鈥 that the halakha with regard to an ox that gores a person is judged like the case that appears in the lower verse, i.e., the case of a forewarned ox, which appears in Exodus 21:29, and not like the case that appears in the upper verse, i.e., the case of an innocuous ox, which appears in Exodus 21:28.

讬讻讜诇 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬注砖讛 诇讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

One might have thought that since the case of an ox that gored a person is compared to the case of a forewarned ox, the owner also pays from his superior-quality property. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall it be done to him [lo],鈥 indicating he pays restitution exclusively from the proceeds of the sale of the body of his belligerent ox and does not pay from his superior-quality property, as the word lo can also be understood as referring to the ox. In this manner the case of an innocuous ox that gores a person is compared to the halakha of an innocuous ox that gores another ox, whereas with regard to the amount of restitution, it is compared to the case of a forewarned ox.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not differentiate between an ox that gores a person and one that gores an animal, inasmuch as the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox applies in both cases, why do I need the seemingly superfluous word 鈥渢his鈥? The Gemara answers: The word is stated to exempt him from the four types of indemnity that one who injures another person is liable to pay, thereby emphasizing the comparison to the case of an ox that gores an ox.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬砖 讻讬 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘注诪讬转讜 讗讬砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘注诪讬转讜

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive the halakha exempting him from paying these four types of indemnity? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man maims his neighbor, as he has done, so shall be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19). Rabbi Akiva derives from here that only when a man injures his neighbor is he liable to pay these four types of indemnity, but not when an ox injures his neighbor.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 爪注专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗讘诇 专讬驻讜讬 讜砖讘转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis not derive this halakha from that verse? The Gemara answers: If it would have been derived from that verse, I would have said that he is exempt only from paying for pain, but for medical costs and loss of liveli-hood, I would say that he is liable to give him compensation. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁ccording to this judgment鈥 teaches us that he is not liable to pay compensation for anything other than the damage itself.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛谞讘讬诇讛 讬驻讛 讻诇讜诐 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛砖讜专

MISHNA: With regard to an innocuous ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass of the dead ox is not worth anything, its owner takes the entire ox that gored it, since it is worth half the value of the damage.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜砖诐 讛砖讜专 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜讞诇讟 讛砖讜专

GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna, which rules that the injured party takes the ox immediately? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: After it gores another ox, the belligerent ox shall be appraised in court before it is taken by the injured party, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The ox was already assigned to the owner of the dead ox as payment, and if the amount of damages is not contested by the owner of the goring ox, no further legal steps are required.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 砖讜转驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Yishmael holds that the owner of the dead ox is considered a creditor of the owner of the belligerent ox, and it is money that he is claiming from him, but he has no ownership of the body of the belligerent ox. And Rabbi Akiva holds that they are partners, i.e., from the time the innocuous ox killed the other ox, the owner of the dead ox has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜诪讻专讜 讗转 讛砖讜专 讛讞讬 讜讞爪讜 讗转 讻住驻讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽诪讝讛专 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诪讝讬拽 诪讝讛专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗

And they disagree with regard to the meaning of this verse: 鈥淭hen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value鈥 (Exodus 21:35). Rabbi Yishmael holds that the Merciful One is commanding the court to evaluate the damages in this manner, and Rabbi Akiva holds that the Merciful One is commanding the injured party and the one liable for damage to split ownership of the live ox, without the involvement of the court.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛拽讚讬砖讜 谞讬讝拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two opinions as to whether or not they are considered partners? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the injured party consecrated the ox to the Temple. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, until the court transfers the ox to the injured party, it still belongs to its owner, and therefore the injured party cannot consecrate it. According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the injured party owns the ox from the time the damage was inflicted, and he can therefore consecrate it.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻专讜 诪讝讬拽 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 诪讻讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: If the one liable for damage sold the ox, what is the halakha according to Rabbi Yishmael? Is it that since Rabbi Yishmael says that the injured party is considered a creditor, and it is merely money that he is claiming from him, it is sold? Or perhaps

讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇谞讬讝拽 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专

does he say that since the ox is liened to the debt to the injured party, who will collect it should the ox鈥檚 owner not have sufficient funds, it is not in his power to sell it? Rav Na岣an said to him: It is not sold.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 讞讜讝专 讜讙讜讘讛讜 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讞讜讝专 讜讙讜讘讛讜 诇诪讛 诪讻讜专 诇专讬讚讬讗

Rava asked him: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if he sold it, it is sold? Rav Na岣an replied: Nevertheless, the injured party then collects it from the purchaser. The Gemara asks: Since the injured party then collects it from the purchaser, with regard to what matter is it sold? His right to collect it negates the effectiveness of the sale. The Gemara answers: It is sold for the purpose of plowing [ridya]. The purchaser may use the ox for plowing until the injured party collects it from him, and the purchaser is not required to reimburse the injured party for the use of his ox.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讜讛 讜诪讜讻专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讙讜讘讬谉 诇讜 诪讛诐 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻诪讗谉 讚注砖讗讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude from this ruling that with regard to one who borrows money and then sells his movable property, the court can collect the debt from this property on behalf of the creditor, as according to Rabbi Yishmael the belligerent ox is only a lien for the debt owed to the injured party? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the belligerent ox, it is different, as the owner of the ox is considered like one who rendered it designated payment of the debt, since the Torah specifies that the injured party collects damages from the ox. In general, however, movable property that is sold by a debtor cannot be collected by the creditor.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 注讘讚讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜专讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that if one rendered his slave as designated repayment for a debt and subsequently sold him, the creditor collects payment from the purchaser, whereas if one rendered his ox as designated repayment and then sold it, the creditor cannot collect it from the purchaser? This contradicts the previous statement that the belligerent ox is considered designated repayment, and therefore even if it is sold the injured party can collect it from the purchaser.

注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讙讞 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚转讜专讗 谞讙讞谞讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The distinction made in Rava鈥檚 statement answers this question. What is the reason that a slave who was rendered as designated repayment can be collected from the purchaser? It is because rendering a slave as designated repayment is not common and generates publicity. The purchaser was therefore aware of this when he bought the slave. Similarly, with regard to this ox as well, since it gored an animal, it generates publicity, as it is publicly called a goring ox, and so the purchaser was aware of the lien attached to it. Therefore, the injured party can collect it from the purchaser.

转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖

Rav Ta岣lifa from the West, Eretz Yisrael, taught the following baraita with regard to the belligerent ox before Rabbi Abbahu: If he sold it, it is not sold, but if he consecrated it, it is consecrated.

诪讻专讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讝讬拽 诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 诪讻讜专 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛讜讞诇讟 讛砖讜专 讜讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讬讜砖诐 讛砖讜专 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: Who sold it? Is it the injured party or the liable party? If we say it is the one liable for the damage, whose opinion is it that if he sold it, it is not sold? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the ox was already assigned to the injured party. But in the following statement of the baraita, that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the ox shall be appraised in court.

讗诇讗 谞讬讝拽 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

If, rather, it is referring to the injured party selling it, whose opinion is it that if he sold it, it is not sold? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the injured party has no share of ownership in the ox until it is transferred to him by the court. But in the statement that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The baraita does not seem to accord with either opinion.

诇注讜诇诐 诪讝讬拽 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讛讗 诪砖注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 诇谞讬讝拽

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to the one liable for the damage, and everyone agrees with its ruling. The ruling that if he sold it, it is not sold is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as the ox is liened to the injured party, precluding the owner from selling it.

讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讗 驻讚讬讜谉

The statement that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated, is the halakha even according to Rabbi Akiva, since it is not actually consecrated but is considered so only due to the statement of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu says that if one consecrates liened property, although the consecration does not take effect, nevertheless he is required to redeem it, due to a rabbinic decree lest people say that consecrated property can be removed from the ownership of the Temple treasury without redemption. Therefore, the ineffectiveness of the ox鈥檚 consecration notwithstanding, he is still required to redeem it, by means of minimal payment, so as not to cause the denigration of Temple property.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 转诐 砖讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 诪砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an innocuous ox that caused damage, if, before its owner stood trial, he sold it, it is sold. If he consecrated it, it is consecrated. If he slaughtered it or gave it as a gift, what he did is done, i.e., takes effect. By contrast, once he stood trial and is now obligated to pay the injured party, if he sold it, it is not sold; if he consecrated it, it is not consecrated; if he slaughtered it or gave it is a gift, he has done nothing.

拽讚诪讜 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 诇讗 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诪讙讜驻讜

If creditors of the ox鈥檚 owner collected the ox first, whether he owed the creditors before his ox caused the damage or whether it caused the damage before he owed them, they have done nothing. Their collection is void, because compensation to the injured party is paid only from the body of the ox, as it was innocuous, and it is therefore designated exclusively for this compensation.

诪讜注讚 砖讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 拽讚诪讜 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The baraita continues: With regard to a forewarned ox that caused damage, whether its owner stood trial or whether he did not stand trial, if he sold it, it is sold; if he consecrated it, it is consecrated; if he slaughtered it or gave it as a gift, what he did is done. Likewise, if creditors collected the ox first, whether he owed them before it caused the damage, or whether it caused the damage before he owed them, what they did is done. This is because the restitution is paid only from his superior-quality property, not from the body of the ox. Therefore, what he or his creditors do with the ox takes effect.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 诇专讚讬讗

The Gemara explains the baraita: The Master said above, with regard to an innocuous ox, that if he sold it, it is sold. As explained above, the sale is valid only with regard to the purchaser using the ox for plowing in the interim, until the injured party collects it.

讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜

The statement that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated does not mean that it is actually consecrated, but rather that it must be redeemed through payment of a minimal sum, due to Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement mentioned above.

砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讘砖诇诪讗 谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 诇专讚讬讗 讗诇讗 砖讞讟讜 诇讬转讬 讜诇砖转诇诐 诪讘砖专讬讛

With regard to the statement that if he slaughtered it or gave it as a present, what he did is done, the Gemara asks: Granted, if he gave it as a present, what he did is done with regard to the recipient鈥檚 permission to use it for plowing. But if he slaughtered it, how does that affect the injured party鈥檚 rights? Let him come and receive payment from the slaughtered ox鈥檚 meat.

讚转谞讬讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讬 砖讞讟讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪讻专讜 讗转 讛砖讜专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated in the Torah: 鈥淭hen they shall sell the live ox鈥 (Exodus 21:35). I have derived only that the injured party receives a share of ownership if the belligerent ox is alive. From where do I derive that this applies even if the ox鈥檚 owner slaughtered it? The verse states: 鈥淭hen they shall sell the live ox,鈥 indicating that in any case, whatever the circumstances, the injured party is paid from proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讞转 砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Sheizevi said: This statement is necessary only with regard to the diminished value of the ox due to its slaughter. Although the value of the ox may no longer cover the damage, its owner is not liable to compensate the injured party beyond the ox鈥檚 current value.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讝讬拽 砖注讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: That is to say that one who causes damage to another鈥檚 liened property is exempt from paying compensation, since the property does not actually belong to the one who holds the lien.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讞住专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬拽讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚砖拽诇讬 诪讬谞讱 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this inference from the baraita obvious? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, states this halakha lest you say that it is specifically there, in the case where one slaughters a liened ox, that he is exempt, as he can say to him: I have not detracted anything from what is yours, as he can say to him: I took only spirit from what is yours. He detracted only the life of the ox, not its physical body, and one who causes damage to another鈥檚 liened property might be exempt from liability for this intangible damage. But generally one who causes damage to another鈥檚 lien should be liable. Therefore, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, teaches us that one is exempt from liability for all types of damage he causes to another鈥檚 liened property.

讛讗 谞诪讬 专讘讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛砖讜专祝 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara challenges this explanation: Rabba stated this principle, as well, and there would be no need for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, to state it. As Rabba says: One who burns another鈥檚 documents, in which other people鈥檚 debts to him are recorded, is exempt, although the owner of the documents can no longer collect payment from liened property.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬讬专讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽诇讗讬 诪讬谞讱 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讗 讛讻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬

The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, states this principle lest you say that it is specifically there that he is exempt, as the perpetrator of the damage can say to the owner of the documents: I burned your mere paper, for which I am prepared to pay. But in a case where one dug pits, ditches, or caves on liened land, causing substantial damage, he should be liable to compensate the one holding the lien. Therefore, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, teaches us that even in a case of substantial damage he is exempt, as the case here, where the ox was slaughtered, is like one who dug pits, ditches, or caves, as slaughter is considered substantial damage, and the tanna said that in this case what he did is done.

拽讚诪讜 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 诪讙讜驻讜

The Gemara continues to explain the baraita, which states: If creditors collected the innocuous ox first, whether its owner owed them before his ox caused damage or whether it caused damage before he owed them, they have done nothing, because restitution is paid only from the body of the ox.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 谞讬讝拽讬谉 拽讚诪讜 讗讘诇 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case where it caused damage before he owed them, the injured parties came first, and the ox is liened to the debt. But in the case where he owed them before it caused damage, the creditor collected it first, so why does he not have the preemptive right to the ox?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 33

讗讞专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讗 讚专讘讬讛 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Another person does not have awe of his mentor. Therefore, even if the welder urges another person to leave, he must ascertain that that person actually did so, and otherwise he is liable to be exiled. By contrast, this apprentice has awe of his mentor, and so the welder may assume that if he instructed him to leave, he certainly did. Therefore, if in reality the apprentice did not leave and is killed by the sparks, the welder is not liable to be exiled, as he is not held accountable.

专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪诪爪讬讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讬 砖讬爪转讛 讗讘谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讬讘诇讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

Rav Zevid taught in the name of Rava that this aforementioned statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina is in reference not to the above baraita but is in reference to this baraita: It is stated in the verse concerning one who kills unintentionally: 鈥淎nd the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5); this serves to exclude one who introduces himself into an area of danger, in which case the one who kills unintentionally is exempt from exile. From here Rabbi Eliezer Ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to one whom a stone departed from his hand, and another person stuck out his head and received a blow from it and died, the one who threw the stone is exempt from exile. It is in reference to this statement that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: He is exempt from exile for killing him. But if the victim was merely injured, he is liable to pay four types of indemnity.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讗讛讗 驻讟讜专 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara comments: The one who teaches this statement in reference to this baraita, all the more so he would teach it in reference to the first baraita, where one entered the workshop of the carpenter. But the one who teaches it with regard to the first baraita teaches it only in reference to that baraita. But in this baraita he is entirely exempt from liability for injury, as one could claim that he is completely blameless.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讜注诇讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诇转讘讜注 砖讻专谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讙讞谉 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞砖讻谉 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专砖讗讬谉 驻讜注诇讬谉 诇转讘讜注 砖讻专谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Sages taught: With regard to salaried laborers who came into their employer鈥檚 courtyard to claim their wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored them, or the homeowner鈥檚 dog bit them, and a laborer died, the homeowner is exempt. Others say that he is liable, as salaried laborers are allowed to enter their employer鈥檚 property to claim their wages from the homeowner.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 讘诪转讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讞专讬诐 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 讘讘讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the employer can be found in the city, what is the reason of the others, who hold him liable? The laborers could have met him in the city to claim their wages and did not need to enter his courtyard. If he can be found only at home, what is the reason of the first tanna, who exempts him? Clearly they are entitled to claim their wages.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讙讘专讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讜拽专讬 讗讘讘讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讜诇 转讗 诪砖诪注 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讜诐 讗讚讜讻转讱 诪砖诪注

The Gemara answers: No, these are not the circumstances under discussion. This halakha is necessary only with regard to a man who can sometimes be found in town and sometimes cannot be found in town, and the laborers called to him at the gate of his courtyard, and he said to them: Yes. One Sage, referred to as the others, holds that the term yes in this context indicates: Come in. Therefore, he is liable for their death. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the term yes in this context indicates: Stand in your place and I will come out to you. Since he did not give them permission to enter, he is exempt.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讜诐 讗讚讜讻转讱 诪砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 驻讜注诇 砖谞讻谞住 诇转讘讜注 砖讻专讜 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讙讞讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘讜 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讻谞住 讘专砖讜转 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚拽专讬 讗讘讘讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 拽讜诐 讗讚讜讻转讱 诪砖诪注

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that yes in this context indicates: Stand in your place. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a salaried laborer who entered his employer鈥檚 courtyard to claim his wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored him, or his dog bit him, the homeowner is exempt, although the laborer entered with permission. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt if the laborer entered with permission? Rather, is it not because it is a case where the laborer called him at the gate, and he said to him: Yes? Conclude from it that yes in this context indicates: Stand in your place.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 砖讜讜专讬谉 转诪讬谉 砖讞讘诇讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讘诪讜转专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

MISHNA: With regard to two innocuous oxen that injured each other, the respective damages are evaluated, and if one amount is more than the other, the owner pays half the damages with regard to the difference. In other words, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the other owner half the difference. If both oxen were forewarned, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference.

讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 诪讜注讚 讘转诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 转诐 讘诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

In a case where one of the oxen was innocuous and the other one was forewarned, if the forewarned ox caused greater damage to the innocuous ox than the reverse, the owner of the forewarned ox pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. If the innocuous ox caused greater damage to the forewarned ox, its owner pays half the damage with regard to the difference.

讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 砖讞讘诇讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

And similarly, with regard to two people who injured each other, the one who did greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference, since one is always considered forewarned with regard to damage he causes.

讗讚诐 讘诪讜注讚 讜诪讜注讚 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗讚诐 讘转诐 讜转诐 讘讗讚诐 讗讚诐 讘转诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 转诐 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

If a person caused damage to a forewarned ox and the forewarned ox caused damage to the person, whichever side caused the greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. In a case where a person caused damage to an innocuous ox and the innocuous ox caused damage to the person, if the person caused greater financial damage to the innocuous ox he pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. If the innocuous ox caused greater damage to the person, its owner pays only half the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of the innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injures a person.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪砖驻讟 讛讝讛 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讻诪砖驻讟 砖讜专 讘砖讜专 讻讱 诪砖驻讟 砖讜专 讘讗讚诐 诪讛 砖讜专 讘砖讜专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗祝 砖讜专 讘讗讚诐 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis about a case where an ox injures a person, the Sages taught: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淲hether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done to him鈥 (Exodus 21:31), that as is the judgment concerning an ox that causes damage to an ox, so is the judgment with regard to an ox that causes damage to a person. Just as with regard to an ox that causes damage to an ox, if it is innocuous its owner pays half the cost of the damage and if it is forewarned he pays the full cost of the damage, so too, with regard to an ox that causes damage to a person, if it is an innocuous ox its owner pays half the cost of the damage and if it is a forewarned ox the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诪砖驻讟 讛讝讛 讻转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讻注诇讬讜谉

Rabbi Akiva says: It is derived from the phrase 鈥渁ccording to this judgment鈥 that the halakha with regard to an ox that gores a person is judged like the case that appears in the lower verse, i.e., the case of a forewarned ox, which appears in Exodus 21:29, and not like the case that appears in the upper verse, i.e., the case of an innocuous ox, which appears in Exodus 21:28.

讬讻讜诇 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬注砖讛 诇讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

One might have thought that since the case of an ox that gored a person is compared to the case of a forewarned ox, the owner also pays from his superior-quality property. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall it be done to him [lo],鈥 indicating he pays restitution exclusively from the proceeds of the sale of the body of his belligerent ox and does not pay from his superior-quality property, as the word lo can also be understood as referring to the ox. In this manner the case of an innocuous ox that gores a person is compared to the halakha of an innocuous ox that gores another ox, whereas with regard to the amount of restitution, it is compared to the case of a forewarned ox.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not differentiate between an ox that gores a person and one that gores an animal, inasmuch as the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox applies in both cases, why do I need the seemingly superfluous word 鈥渢his鈥? The Gemara answers: The word is stated to exempt him from the four types of indemnity that one who injures another person is liable to pay, thereby emphasizing the comparison to the case of an ox that gores an ox.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬砖 讻讬 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘注诪讬转讜 讗讬砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘注诪讬转讜

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive the halakha exempting him from paying these four types of indemnity? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man maims his neighbor, as he has done, so shall be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19). Rabbi Akiva derives from here that only when a man injures his neighbor is he liable to pay these four types of indemnity, but not when an ox injures his neighbor.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 爪注专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗讘诇 专讬驻讜讬 讜砖讘转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis not derive this halakha from that verse? The Gemara answers: If it would have been derived from that verse, I would have said that he is exempt only from paying for pain, but for medical costs and loss of liveli-hood, I would say that he is liable to give him compensation. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁ccording to this judgment鈥 teaches us that he is not liable to pay compensation for anything other than the damage itself.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛谞讘讬诇讛 讬驻讛 讻诇讜诐 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛砖讜专

MISHNA: With regard to an innocuous ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass of the dead ox is not worth anything, its owner takes the entire ox that gored it, since it is worth half the value of the damage.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜砖诐 讛砖讜专 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜讞诇讟 讛砖讜专

GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna, which rules that the injured party takes the ox immediately? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: After it gores another ox, the belligerent ox shall be appraised in court before it is taken by the injured party, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The ox was already assigned to the owner of the dead ox as payment, and if the amount of damages is not contested by the owner of the goring ox, no further legal steps are required.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 砖讜转驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Yishmael holds that the owner of the dead ox is considered a creditor of the owner of the belligerent ox, and it is money that he is claiming from him, but he has no ownership of the body of the belligerent ox. And Rabbi Akiva holds that they are partners, i.e., from the time the innocuous ox killed the other ox, the owner of the dead ox has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜诪讻专讜 讗转 讛砖讜专 讛讞讬 讜讞爪讜 讗转 讻住驻讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽诪讝讛专 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诪讝讬拽 诪讝讛专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗

And they disagree with regard to the meaning of this verse: 鈥淭hen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value鈥 (Exodus 21:35). Rabbi Yishmael holds that the Merciful One is commanding the court to evaluate the damages in this manner, and Rabbi Akiva holds that the Merciful One is commanding the injured party and the one liable for damage to split ownership of the live ox, without the involvement of the court.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛拽讚讬砖讜 谞讬讝拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two opinions as to whether or not they are considered partners? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the injured party consecrated the ox to the Temple. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, until the court transfers the ox to the injured party, it still belongs to its owner, and therefore the injured party cannot consecrate it. According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the injured party owns the ox from the time the damage was inflicted, and he can therefore consecrate it.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻专讜 诪讝讬拽 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 诪讻讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: If the one liable for damage sold the ox, what is the halakha according to Rabbi Yishmael? Is it that since Rabbi Yishmael says that the injured party is considered a creditor, and it is merely money that he is claiming from him, it is sold? Or perhaps

讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇谞讬讝拽 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专

does he say that since the ox is liened to the debt to the injured party, who will collect it should the ox鈥檚 owner not have sufficient funds, it is not in his power to sell it? Rav Na岣an said to him: It is not sold.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 讞讜讝专 讜讙讜讘讛讜 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讞讜讝专 讜讙讜讘讛讜 诇诪讛 诪讻讜专 诇专讬讚讬讗

Rava asked him: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if he sold it, it is sold? Rav Na岣an replied: Nevertheless, the injured party then collects it from the purchaser. The Gemara asks: Since the injured party then collects it from the purchaser, with regard to what matter is it sold? His right to collect it negates the effectiveness of the sale. The Gemara answers: It is sold for the purpose of plowing [ridya]. The purchaser may use the ox for plowing until the injured party collects it from him, and the purchaser is not required to reimburse the injured party for the use of his ox.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讜讛 讜诪讜讻专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讙讜讘讬谉 诇讜 诪讛诐 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻诪讗谉 讚注砖讗讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude from this ruling that with regard to one who borrows money and then sells his movable property, the court can collect the debt from this property on behalf of the creditor, as according to Rabbi Yishmael the belligerent ox is only a lien for the debt owed to the injured party? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the belligerent ox, it is different, as the owner of the ox is considered like one who rendered it designated payment of the debt, since the Torah specifies that the injured party collects damages from the ox. In general, however, movable property that is sold by a debtor cannot be collected by the creditor.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 注讘讚讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜专讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that if one rendered his slave as designated repayment for a debt and subsequently sold him, the creditor collects payment from the purchaser, whereas if one rendered his ox as designated repayment and then sold it, the creditor cannot collect it from the purchaser? This contradicts the previous statement that the belligerent ox is considered designated repayment, and therefore even if it is sold the injured party can collect it from the purchaser.

注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讙讞 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚转讜专讗 谞讙讞谞讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The distinction made in Rava鈥檚 statement answers this question. What is the reason that a slave who was rendered as designated repayment can be collected from the purchaser? It is because rendering a slave as designated repayment is not common and generates publicity. The purchaser was therefore aware of this when he bought the slave. Similarly, with regard to this ox as well, since it gored an animal, it generates publicity, as it is publicly called a goring ox, and so the purchaser was aware of the lien attached to it. Therefore, the injured party can collect it from the purchaser.

转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖

Rav Ta岣lifa from the West, Eretz Yisrael, taught the following baraita with regard to the belligerent ox before Rabbi Abbahu: If he sold it, it is not sold, but if he consecrated it, it is consecrated.

诪讻专讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讝讬拽 诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 诪讻讜专 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛讜讞诇讟 讛砖讜专 讜讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讬讜砖诐 讛砖讜专 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: Who sold it? Is it the injured party or the liable party? If we say it is the one liable for the damage, whose opinion is it that if he sold it, it is not sold? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the ox was already assigned to the injured party. But in the following statement of the baraita, that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the ox shall be appraised in court.

讗诇讗 谞讬讝拽 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

If, rather, it is referring to the injured party selling it, whose opinion is it that if he sold it, it is not sold? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the injured party has no share of ownership in the ox until it is transferred to him by the court. But in the statement that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The baraita does not seem to accord with either opinion.

诇注讜诇诐 诪讝讬拽 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讛讗 诪砖注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 诇谞讬讝拽

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to the one liable for the damage, and everyone agrees with its ruling. The ruling that if he sold it, it is not sold is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as the ox is liened to the injured party, precluding the owner from selling it.

讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讗 驻讚讬讜谉

The statement that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated, is the halakha even according to Rabbi Akiva, since it is not actually consecrated but is considered so only due to the statement of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu says that if one consecrates liened property, although the consecration does not take effect, nevertheless he is required to redeem it, due to a rabbinic decree lest people say that consecrated property can be removed from the ownership of the Temple treasury without redemption. Therefore, the ineffectiveness of the ox鈥檚 consecration notwithstanding, he is still required to redeem it, by means of minimal payment, so as not to cause the denigration of Temple property.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 转诐 砖讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 诪砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an innocuous ox that caused damage, if, before its owner stood trial, he sold it, it is sold. If he consecrated it, it is consecrated. If he slaughtered it or gave it as a gift, what he did is done, i.e., takes effect. By contrast, once he stood trial and is now obligated to pay the injured party, if he sold it, it is not sold; if he consecrated it, it is not consecrated; if he slaughtered it or gave it is a gift, he has done nothing.

拽讚诪讜 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 诇讗 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诪讙讜驻讜

If creditors of the ox鈥檚 owner collected the ox first, whether he owed the creditors before his ox caused the damage or whether it caused the damage before he owed them, they have done nothing. Their collection is void, because compensation to the injured party is paid only from the body of the ox, as it was innocuous, and it is therefore designated exclusively for this compensation.

诪讜注讚 砖讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 拽讚诪讜 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The baraita continues: With regard to a forewarned ox that caused damage, whether its owner stood trial or whether he did not stand trial, if he sold it, it is sold; if he consecrated it, it is consecrated; if he slaughtered it or gave it as a gift, what he did is done. Likewise, if creditors collected the ox first, whether he owed them before it caused the damage, or whether it caused the damage before he owed them, what they did is done. This is because the restitution is paid only from his superior-quality property, not from the body of the ox. Therefore, what he or his creditors do with the ox takes effect.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讻专讜 诪讻讜专 诇专讚讬讗

The Gemara explains the baraita: The Master said above, with regard to an innocuous ox, that if he sold it, it is sold. As explained above, the sale is valid only with regard to the purchaser using the ox for plowing in the interim, until the injured party collects it.

讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜

The statement that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated does not mean that it is actually consecrated, but rather that it must be redeemed through payment of a minimal sum, due to Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement mentioned above.

砖讞讟讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讘砖诇诪讗 谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 诇专讚讬讗 讗诇讗 砖讞讟讜 诇讬转讬 讜诇砖转诇诐 诪讘砖专讬讛

With regard to the statement that if he slaughtered it or gave it as a present, what he did is done, the Gemara asks: Granted, if he gave it as a present, what he did is done with regard to the recipient鈥檚 permission to use it for plowing. But if he slaughtered it, how does that affect the injured party鈥檚 rights? Let him come and receive payment from the slaughtered ox鈥檚 meat.

讚转谞讬讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讬 砖讞讟讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪讻专讜 讗转 讛砖讜专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated in the Torah: 鈥淭hen they shall sell the live ox鈥 (Exodus 21:35). I have derived only that the injured party receives a share of ownership if the belligerent ox is alive. From where do I derive that this applies even if the ox鈥檚 owner slaughtered it? The verse states: 鈥淭hen they shall sell the live ox,鈥 indicating that in any case, whatever the circumstances, the injured party is paid from proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讞转 砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Sheizevi said: This statement is necessary only with regard to the diminished value of the ox due to its slaughter. Although the value of the ox may no longer cover the damage, its owner is not liable to compensate the injured party beyond the ox鈥檚 current value.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讝讬拽 砖注讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: That is to say that one who causes damage to another鈥檚 liened property is exempt from paying compensation, since the property does not actually belong to the one who holds the lien.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讞住专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬拽讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚砖拽诇讬 诪讬谞讱 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this inference from the baraita obvious? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, states this halakha lest you say that it is specifically there, in the case where one slaughters a liened ox, that he is exempt, as he can say to him: I have not detracted anything from what is yours, as he can say to him: I took only spirit from what is yours. He detracted only the life of the ox, not its physical body, and one who causes damage to another鈥檚 liened property might be exempt from liability for this intangible damage. But generally one who causes damage to another鈥檚 lien should be liable. Therefore, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, teaches us that one is exempt from liability for all types of damage he causes to another鈥檚 liened property.

讛讗 谞诪讬 专讘讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛砖讜专祝 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara challenges this explanation: Rabba stated this principle, as well, and there would be no need for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, to state it. As Rabba says: One who burns another鈥檚 documents, in which other people鈥檚 debts to him are recorded, is exempt, although the owner of the documents can no longer collect payment from liened property.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬讬专讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽诇讗讬 诪讬谞讱 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讗 讛讻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬

The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, states this principle lest you say that it is specifically there that he is exempt, as the perpetrator of the damage can say to the owner of the documents: I burned your mere paper, for which I am prepared to pay. But in a case where one dug pits, ditches, or caves on liened land, causing substantial damage, he should be liable to compensate the one holding the lien. Therefore, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, teaches us that even in a case of substantial damage he is exempt, as the case here, where the ox was slaughtered, is like one who dug pits, ditches, or caves, as slaughter is considered substantial damage, and the tanna said that in this case what he did is done.

拽讚诪讜 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘讬谉 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 诪讙讜驻讜

The Gemara continues to explain the baraita, which states: If creditors collected the innocuous ox first, whether its owner owed them before his ox caused damage or whether it caused damage before he owed them, they have done nothing, because restitution is paid only from the body of the ox.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛讝讬拽 注讚 砖诇讗 讞讘 谞讬讝拽讬谉 拽讚诪讜 讗讘诇 讞讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讬拽 讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case where it caused damage before he owed them, the injured parties came first, and the ox is liened to the debt. But in the case where he owed them before it caused damage, the creditor collected it first, so why does he not have the preemptive right to the ox?

Scroll To Top