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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 4, 2016 | ื›ืดื— ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื•

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

Bava Kamma 34

Study Guide Bava Kamma 34. What rights does theย owner of a shor tam or a shor muad have to sell their animal after it caused damage or to designate it to the beit hamikdash or to slaughter it or give it as a gift? ย Does it matter if it is before they came to court or after? ย What if someone he owed money to came and collected the animal as payment? ย Does it matter if he had a lien on the animal before or after it damaged? ย Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree on how to explain the classic case of shor tam described in the Torah – it says that one halves the amount of the animal that damaged and halves the amount of the dead animal. ย They disagree about whether the owner of the shor tam has rights also to the animal he killed. ย There is a discussion regarding what is the practical difference between the 2 opinions (since both agree that in a typical case, the bottom line payment is the same). ย Also some ridiculous cases are raised in which if we take the verse at face value, the owner may either gain on the deal or on the other extreme pay more than the damage he caused. ย Therefore it is explained that in those cases, we do not take the verses at face value.

ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื–ื™ืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื—ื‘ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืงื“ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืžืื•ื—ืจ ืฉืงื“ื ื•ื’ื‘ื” ืžื” ืฉื’ื‘ื” ืœื ื’ื‘ื”

Moreover, even if the ox caused damage before he owed them, nevertheless the creditor came first and seized what he rightfully deserved. Should one conclude from the baraita that if a later creditor collected a debt before an earlier creditor, his collection is not valid and payment should instead be given to the earlier creditor?

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืžื” ืฉื’ื‘ื” ื’ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœื• ื’ื‘ืš ื”ื•ื” ืœื ืžื™ื ืš ื”ื•ื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ืชื•ืจื ื“ืื–ืงืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืฉืชืœืžื ื

The Gemara answers: No; actually, I could say to you that the collection of the later creditor is valid, and there, in the case where a creditor seized the belligerent ox, it is different, as the injured party can say to the creditor who seized the ox: If the ox was in your possession, would I not have collected it from you? The reason I would take it is that I am paid from this ox that caused me damage. Therefore, the creditor cannot collect the ox, even if the debt preceded the damage.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ื• ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ืฉื‘ื— ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ืฉืืœืžืœื ืœื ื”ื–ื™ืงื• ื”ื™ื” ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ืฉืžื ื” ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ื ื•ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง

ยง The Sages taught: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars and injured it, reducing its value by fifty dinars [zuz], and the injured ox subsequently appreciated in value, and its value stood at four hundred dinars, while if the belligerent ox had not injured it, its value would have now stood at eight hundred dinars, in this case the owner of the belligerent ox gives him only twenty-five dinars, which is half the value of the damage according to its value at the time the injury occurred.

ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ

If the injured ox depreciated in value and its worth is now less than at the time it was injured, the damage is evaluated according to the oxโ€™s worth at the time of standing trial. In other words, the owner of the belligerent ox must pay the difference between its value before it was injured and its current value.

ืฉื‘ื— ืžื–ื™ืง ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ

If the ox that caused the injury, from which the owner of the injured ox collects damages, appreciated in value, its owner gives the injured party a share of the ox according to its value at the time of the injury. If it depreciated in value, the owner gives him a share according to its value at the time of standing trial.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืฉื‘ื— ืžื–ื™ืง ื ื•ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื”ื•ื ื•ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืกื™ืง ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: The Master said in the first clause of the second half of the baraita that if the ox that caused the damage appreciated in value, its owner gives the injured party a share according to the oxโ€™s value at the time of the injury. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the injured party is considered a creditor, and it is money that he is claiming from him, as he has no share of ownership in the belligerent ox.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืืชืืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื•ืชืคื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The Gemara states a difficulty with this explanation: Say the latter clause of the second half of the baraita: If the belligerent ox depreciated in value, the owner gives the injured party a share according to its value at the time of standing trial. Here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the owners of the two oxen are partners, i.e., the injured party has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox. How can it be that the first clause is in accordance with Rabbi Yishmaelโ€™s opinion, and the latter clause follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva?

ืœื ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉืคื™ื˜ืžื•

The Gemara answers: No, it is all in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that they are partners, and here, in the case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, we are dealing with a case where the reason it appreciated is that its owner fattened it. Though the injured party has a share of ownership in the ox, he has no share in the appreciation in value, and his share is therefore calculated according to its value at the time of the injury.

ืื™ ื›ืฉืคื™ื˜ืžื• ืื™ืžื ืจื™ืฉื ืฉื‘ื— ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ืื™ ื›ืฉืคื™ื˜ืžื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the owner fattened it, say the first clause of the first half of the baraita, stated with regard to the injured ox: If it appreciated in value, and its value stood at four hundred dinars, the owner of the belligerent ox gives him compensation according to its value at the time of the injury. If this is referring to a case where its owner fattened it, need it be said that the owner of the belligerent ox is not exempt from compensation?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืจื™ืฉื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืคื˜ืžื” ืคื˜ื•ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืฉื‘ื—ื ืžืžื™ืœื ื•ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื‘ื—ื ืžืžื™ืœื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ืกื™ืคื ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ื›ืฉืคื˜ืžื•

Rav Pappa said: You find the halakha stated in the first clause of the first half of the baraita to be true whether he fattened it or whether it appreciated in value by itself. And the tanna found it necessary to mention this halakha to teach us that even in a case where the ox appreciated in value by itself, the owner of the belligerent ox gives him compensation according to its value at the time of the injury and not at the time of the trial. By contrast, you find the halakha stated in the latter clause of the second half of the baraita, with regard to a case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, only where its owner fattened it.

ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื—ืฉ ืžื—ืžืช ืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื›ื—ืฉื ืžื—ืžืช ืžืœืื›ื” ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืืช ืžื›ื—ืฉืช ื•ืื ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ื ื

It is stated in the latter clause of the first half of the baraita that if the injured ox depreciated in value, it is evaluated according to its worth at the time of standing trial. The Gemara asks: Due to what did it depreciate in value? If we say that the ox depreciated in value due to labor for which it was used, let the liable party say to him: You reduced its value and I should therefore give you extra compensation?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื“ื›ื—ืฉ ืžื—ืžืช ืžื›ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงืจื ื ื“ืชื•ืจืš ืงื‘ื™ืจื ื‘ื™ื”

Rav Ashi said: It is a case where it depreciated in value due to the continuous effect of the wound, as the injured party can say to him: The horn of your ox is buried in it, i.e., it is still losing value due to the wound.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื›ืœื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืขืœ ื–ื” ื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื•

MISHNA: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing, Rabbi Meir said: It is about this type of case that it is stated: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary valueโ€ (Exodus 21:35).

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื• ื•ืœื ืงื™ื™ืžืช ื•ื’ื ื”ืžืช ื™ื—ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ืฉื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And that is the halakha, yet your interpretation of the verse is incorrect. You have upheld the clause: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox and divide its monetary value,โ€ which fits your interpretation of the case. But you have not upheld the latter clause of the verse: โ€œAnd the dead they shall also divide,โ€ since in the case you mentioned the carcass is worthless. Rather, to which case is the verse referring? It is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars. In this case, this party takes half the value of the living ox, one hundred dinars, and half the value of the dead ox, twenty-five dinars; and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื”ื• ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars, this party takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox, and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox, and this is the case of the belligerent ox stated in the Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื”ื• ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื›ืœื•ื ืขืœ ื–ื” ื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื• ืืœื ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื•ื’ื ืืช ื”ืžืช ื™ื—ืฆื•ืŸ ืคื—ืช ืฉืคื—ืชื• ืžื™ืชื” ืžื—ืฆื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™

Rabbi Meir says: This is not the case of the ox stated in the Torah. Rather, it is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth nothing. It is about this case that it is stated in the verse: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value.โ€ Rather, how do I realize the meaning of โ€œAnd the dead they shall also divideโ€? This clause means that the diminished value of the dead ox that was diminished by its death is compensated for by dividing the value of the live ox between the two parties, while its owner does not receive a share in the carcass of the dead ox.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืื™ ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืงื™ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืงื™ืœ ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: Now, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that in the case described by Rabbi Yehuda, where the carcass is worth fifty, this party takes one hundred and twenty-five, and that party takes one hundred and twenty-five. Rabbi Meir holds that the injured party keeps the carcass, worth fifty, and receives another seventy-five dinars, half the value of the damage, from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox. Its owner is thereby left with one hundred and twenty-five dinars out of the two hundred that it is worth. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the value of both oxen is split between the two parties, leaving each with one hundred and twenty-five. If so, what is the difference between the two tannaโ€™im? Why does it matter in which manner the compensation is calculated?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ื”ื•ื™ ืคืœื’ื

Rava said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the diminishing value of the carcass. If the carcass depreciates in value between the oxโ€™s death and the time it is sold, Rabbi Meir holds that the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the injured party. The one liable for the damage is not responsible for any depreciation in value that occurs after the loss caused by the attack has been evaluated. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that half of the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the one liable for damage, since he receives half of the dead ox.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

Abaye said to Rava: If so, we have found, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

ืชื ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžืžื•ืขื“

a case where the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox that causes damage is more stringent than with regard to a forewarned ox, since according to all opinions, in a case where a forewarned ox kills another ox, the carcass belongs exclusively to the injured party, and he sustains any subsequent decrease in its value.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืชื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ืžืจ ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงืจืื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื”

And if you would say that indeed, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox is more stringent than with regard to a forewarned ox, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If a bailee did not safeguard an ox properly, and it escaped and caused damage, if it was an innocuous ox he is liable, and if it was a forewarned ox he is exempt (45b), that mishna cannot serve as proof for the issue under discussion. Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda express this opinion, that the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox is more stringent, with regard to the halakhot of safeguarding, as verses are written in the Torah from which this halakha is derived. But with regard to compensation, did you ever hear him express this opinion?

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ืกืœืข ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

On the contrary; but isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that in the case of an ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth five sela, i.e., twenty dinars, and the carcass is worth one sela, i.e., four dinars, the halakha is that this party takes half the living ox and half the dead ox, and that party takes half the living ox and half the dead ox. Accordingly, the injured party receives fifty-two dinars in value, which is much more than his ox was worth before it was killed.

ืืžืจืช ื•ื›ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืžื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ืื• ืœื”ืงืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืชื ื”ืงืœ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

Instead, continues Rabbi Yehuda, you should say: For what purpose is the case of a forewarned ox singled out by the halakha? Is it to render it more stringent than the case of an innocuous ox, or to render it more lenient? Clearly, you must say that it is to render it more stringent. And therefore, if in the case of a forewarned ox, its owner pays only the value of what he damaged and no more, in the case of an innocuous ox, which is more lenient, all the more so is it not clear that the owner is not liable to pay more than the value of the damage? Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda does not allow for liability in the case of an innocuous ox to be more stringent than in the case of a forewarned ox.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ื— ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืคืœื’ื

Rather, Ravaโ€™s explanation, that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to a case where the carcass depreciated in value, should be rejected. Instead, their dispute should be explained according to what Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, i.e., that the practical difference between them is with regard to the appreciation of the carcass in value after the oxโ€™s death; as one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the entire increased value of the carcass belongs to the injured party, since the owner of the belligerent ox has no share in the carcass, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that half of the increased value belongs to the injured party and half goes to the one liable for the damage.

ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ื—ืก ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื™ืœื•ื™ื” ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ื“ืฉืงื™ืœ ื‘ืฉื‘ื—ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

And this explains what was difficult for Rabbi Yehuda in another baraita. Now that you say that the Merciful One has mercy on the one liable for damage, as he takes a share of the increased value of the carcass, can it be that in the case of an ox worth five sela, i.e., twenty dinars, that gored an ox worth one hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars, this party takes half the live ox and half the dead ox, and that party takes half the live ox and half the dead ox? Accordingly, the owner of the belligerent ox receives thirty-five dinars in value, which is more than his ox was worth.

ืืžืจืช ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืžื–ื™ืง ื ืฉื›ืจ ืฉื–ื” ื ืฉื›ืจ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ

Rather, you should say: Where do we find a case where the one liable for damage gains from the damage, comparable to this case, where this owner of the belligerent ox gains, receiving more than the value of his ox? Clearly there is no such case, as one who is liable for damage does not gain from it. And in addition, it says: โ€œHe shall payโ€ (Exodus 21:36), indicating that the owner of the belligerent ox pays, and the owner does not take more than the amount his animal was worth at the time of the damage.

ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืœื ื™ื–ืง ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืœื ื™ื–ืง ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ืฉืงื™ืœ ื ืžื™ ืžื–ื™ืง ื‘ืฉื‘ื—ื

The Gemara asks: For what reason was it necessary to add the claim: And it says: โ€œHe shall payโ€? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this matter, that the one liable for damage does not gain, applies specifically where there is a loss sustained by the injured party, as in this case, where the decrease in the oxโ€™s value is fifty dinars, and if the carcass is shared by the liable party, the injured party receives only thirty-five dinars, thereby sustaining a loss. But in a case where there is no loss sustained by the injured party, for example, the case of an ox worth five sela, i.e., twenty dinars, that gored another ox worth five sela, and the carcass appreciated in value and is now worth thirty dinars, more than the ox was worth when it was alive, in this case the one liable for damage also takes a share of the increased value, since the injured party ends up not having sustained any financial loss, as he receives a share of ten dinars in the belligerent ox and another fifteen in the carcass, gaining five dinars over the value of his ox.

ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ

It is to counter this claim that Rabbi Yehuda adds: And it says: โ€œHe shall pay,โ€ indicating that the owner of the belligerent ox pays, and the owner does not take more than the amount his animal was worth at the time of the damage.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืœืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื•

ยง With regard to Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s opinion that the two owners split the value of both the belligerent ox and the dead ox between them, Rav Aแธฅa bar Taแธฅalifa said to Rava: If so, we find that according to Rabbi Yehuda, when an innocuous ox gores an ox that is worth less than it, its owner pays more than half the damage. But the Torah stated: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary valueโ€ (Exodus 21:35).

ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืคื—ืช ืฉืคื—ืชื” ืžื™ืชื” ืžื—ืฆื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™

Rava answered him: Rabbi Yehuda also holds that only the diminished value of the dead ox that was diminished by its death is compensated for by dividing the live ox between the two parties. The liable party never pays more than half the damage.

ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืžื•ื’ื ืืช ื”ืžืช ื™ื—ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืืคืงื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive this halakha? Is it from the verse: โ€œAnd the carcass they shall also divideโ€ (Exodus 21:35), from which Rabbi Meir derived it? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehuda already derive from this verse that this party takes the value of half the live ox and half the dead ox, and that party takes the value of half the live ox and half the dead ox?

ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื•ืืช ื”ืžืช ืžืื™ ื•ื’ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara answers: If so, if that is the only halakha indicated by this clause, let the verse simply write: And the carcass they shall divide. What is the reason that the word โ€œalsoโ€ is added? It is added so that one may conclude two conclusions from the clause: That the carcass is also divided between the two parties, and that the liable party is never required to pay more than half the damage.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจื• ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืขืฆืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืขืฆืžื•

MISHNA: There are cases where one is liable for an act of damage caused by his ox, but exempt from liability for the same action if he performed it himself. Conversely, there are also cases where one is exempt from liability for the action of his ox, but liable for his own action.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคื™ืœ ืืช ืฉื™ื ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคื™ืœ ืืช ืฉื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘

How so? If his ox caused a person humilation, he is exempt from paying compensation, but if he himself humiliated another, he is liable. Similarly, if his ox blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his slaveโ€™s tooth, he is exempt from having to emancipate the slave for this mutilation. But if he himself blinded his slaveโ€™s eye or knocked out his tooth, he is liable to emancipate him, as stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:26โ€“27).

ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื‘ืืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื ืคืฉื•

By contrast, if his ox injured the ownerโ€™s father or his mother, he is liable to pay damages, but if he himself injured his father or his mother, he is exempt from paying compensation. Similarly, if his ox set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is liable to pay damages. But if he himself set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is exempt from paying damages. He is exempt from payment in these cases due to the fact that he is liable to receive the death penalty for injuring his father or mother or for desecrating Shabbat.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืงืœืงืœื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคื•ืง ืชื ื™ ืœื‘ืจื ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉื ื” ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื ื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื›ืœื‘ื• ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืืคืจื•

GEMARA: Rabbi Abbahu taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Anyone who performs labor destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who injures another or kindles a fire. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: Go out and teach it outside; this baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that deems one liable for injuring another or kindling a fire on Shabbat is not a mishna and should be ignored. And if you say that it is a mishna, one who injures another would be liable only in a case where he requires the blood to give to his dog, and one who kindles a fire would be liable only in a case where he requires its ashes. In these cases, the act is not purely destructive but has some constructive purpose.

ืชื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉื•ืจื• ืžื” ืฉื•ืจื• ื“ืœื ืงื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

We learned in the mishna: If his ox set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is liable. But if he himself set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is exempt. And the mishna is presumably teaching a case where he set the fire in a scenario that is similar to the case where his ox did so. Just as in the case where his ox set the fire it clearly does not need the ashes, as an ox does not act with such intentions,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Kamma 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 34

ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื–ื™ืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื—ื‘ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืงื“ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืžืื•ื—ืจ ืฉืงื“ื ื•ื’ื‘ื” ืžื” ืฉื’ื‘ื” ืœื ื’ื‘ื”

Moreover, even if the ox caused damage before he owed them, nevertheless the creditor came first and seized what he rightfully deserved. Should one conclude from the baraita that if a later creditor collected a debt before an earlier creditor, his collection is not valid and payment should instead be given to the earlier creditor?

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืžื” ืฉื’ื‘ื” ื’ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœื• ื’ื‘ืš ื”ื•ื” ืœื ืžื™ื ืš ื”ื•ื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ืชื•ืจื ื“ืื–ืงืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืฉืชืœืžื ื

The Gemara answers: No; actually, I could say to you that the collection of the later creditor is valid, and there, in the case where a creditor seized the belligerent ox, it is different, as the injured party can say to the creditor who seized the ox: If the ox was in your possession, would I not have collected it from you? The reason I would take it is that I am paid from this ox that caused me damage. Therefore, the creditor cannot collect the ox, even if the debt preceded the damage.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ื• ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ืฉื‘ื— ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ืฉืืœืžืœื ืœื ื”ื–ื™ืงื• ื”ื™ื” ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ืฉืžื ื” ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ื ื•ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง

ยง The Sages taught: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars and injured it, reducing its value by fifty dinars [zuz], and the injured ox subsequently appreciated in value, and its value stood at four hundred dinars, while if the belligerent ox had not injured it, its value would have now stood at eight hundred dinars, in this case the owner of the belligerent ox gives him only twenty-five dinars, which is half the value of the damage according to its value at the time the injury occurred.

ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ

If the injured ox depreciated in value and its worth is now less than at the time it was injured, the damage is evaluated according to the oxโ€™s worth at the time of standing trial. In other words, the owner of the belligerent ox must pay the difference between its value before it was injured and its current value.

ืฉื‘ื— ืžื–ื™ืง ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ

If the ox that caused the injury, from which the owner of the injured ox collects damages, appreciated in value, its owner gives the injured party a share of the ox according to its value at the time of the injury. If it depreciated in value, the owner gives him a share according to its value at the time of standing trial.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืฉื‘ื— ืžื–ื™ืง ื ื•ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื”ื•ื ื•ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืกื™ืง ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: The Master said in the first clause of the second half of the baraita that if the ox that caused the damage appreciated in value, its owner gives the injured party a share according to the oxโ€™s value at the time of the injury. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the injured party is considered a creditor, and it is money that he is claiming from him, as he has no share of ownership in the belligerent ox.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืืชืืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื•ืชืคื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The Gemara states a difficulty with this explanation: Say the latter clause of the second half of the baraita: If the belligerent ox depreciated in value, the owner gives the injured party a share according to its value at the time of standing trial. Here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the owners of the two oxen are partners, i.e., the injured party has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox. How can it be that the first clause is in accordance with Rabbi Yishmaelโ€™s opinion, and the latter clause follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva?

ืœื ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉืคื™ื˜ืžื•

The Gemara answers: No, it is all in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that they are partners, and here, in the case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, we are dealing with a case where the reason it appreciated is that its owner fattened it. Though the injured party has a share of ownership in the ox, he has no share in the appreciation in value, and his share is therefore calculated according to its value at the time of the injury.

ืื™ ื›ืฉืคื™ื˜ืžื• ืื™ืžื ืจื™ืฉื ืฉื‘ื— ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ืื™ ื›ืฉืคื™ื˜ืžื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the owner fattened it, say the first clause of the first half of the baraita, stated with regard to the injured ox: If it appreciated in value, and its value stood at four hundred dinars, the owner of the belligerent ox gives him compensation according to its value at the time of the injury. If this is referring to a case where its owner fattened it, need it be said that the owner of the belligerent ox is not exempt from compensation?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืจื™ืฉื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืคื˜ืžื” ืคื˜ื•ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืฉื‘ื—ื ืžืžื™ืœื ื•ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื‘ื—ื ืžืžื™ืœื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื ื–ืง ืกื™ืคื ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ื›ืฉืคื˜ืžื•

Rav Pappa said: You find the halakha stated in the first clause of the first half of the baraita to be true whether he fattened it or whether it appreciated in value by itself. And the tanna found it necessary to mention this halakha to teach us that even in a case where the ox appreciated in value by itself, the owner of the belligerent ox gives him compensation according to its value at the time of the injury and not at the time of the trial. By contrast, you find the halakha stated in the latter clause of the second half of the baraita, with regard to a case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, only where its owner fattened it.

ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื—ืฉ ืžื—ืžืช ืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื›ื—ืฉื ืžื—ืžืช ืžืœืื›ื” ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืืช ืžื›ื—ืฉืช ื•ืื ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ื ื

It is stated in the latter clause of the first half of the baraita that if the injured ox depreciated in value, it is evaluated according to its worth at the time of standing trial. The Gemara asks: Due to what did it depreciate in value? If we say that the ox depreciated in value due to labor for which it was used, let the liable party say to him: You reduced its value and I should therefore give you extra compensation?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื“ื›ื—ืฉ ืžื—ืžืช ืžื›ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงืจื ื ื“ืชื•ืจืš ืงื‘ื™ืจื ื‘ื™ื”

Rav Ashi said: It is a case where it depreciated in value due to the continuous effect of the wound, as the injured party can say to him: The horn of your ox is buried in it, i.e., it is still losing value due to the wound.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื›ืœื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืขืœ ื–ื” ื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื•

MISHNA: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing, Rabbi Meir said: It is about this type of case that it is stated: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary valueโ€ (Exodus 21:35).

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื• ื•ืœื ืงื™ื™ืžืช ื•ื’ื ื”ืžืช ื™ื—ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ืฉื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And that is the halakha, yet your interpretation of the verse is incorrect. You have upheld the clause: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox and divide its monetary value,โ€ which fits your interpretation of the case. But you have not upheld the latter clause of the verse: โ€œAnd the dead they shall also divide,โ€ since in the case you mentioned the carcass is worthless. Rather, to which case is the verse referring? It is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars. In this case, this party takes half the value of the living ox, one hundred dinars, and half the value of the dead ox, twenty-five dinars; and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื”ื• ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars, this party takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox, and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox, and this is the case of the belligerent ox stated in the Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื”ื• ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื›ืœื•ื ืขืœ ื–ื” ื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื• ืืœื ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื•ื’ื ืืช ื”ืžืช ื™ื—ืฆื•ืŸ ืคื—ืช ืฉืคื—ืชื• ืžื™ืชื” ืžื—ืฆื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™

Rabbi Meir says: This is not the case of the ox stated in the Torah. Rather, it is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth nothing. It is about this case that it is stated in the verse: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value.โ€ Rather, how do I realize the meaning of โ€œAnd the dead they shall also divideโ€? This clause means that the diminished value of the dead ox that was diminished by its death is compensated for by dividing the value of the live ox between the two parties, while its owner does not receive a share in the carcass of the dead ox.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืื™ ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืงื™ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืงื™ืœ ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: Now, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that in the case described by Rabbi Yehuda, where the carcass is worth fifty, this party takes one hundred and twenty-five, and that party takes one hundred and twenty-five. Rabbi Meir holds that the injured party keeps the carcass, worth fifty, and receives another seventy-five dinars, half the value of the damage, from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox. Its owner is thereby left with one hundred and twenty-five dinars out of the two hundred that it is worth. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the value of both oxen is split between the two parties, leaving each with one hundred and twenty-five. If so, what is the difference between the two tannaโ€™im? Why does it matter in which manner the compensation is calculated?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ื”ื•ื™ ืคืœื’ื

Rava said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the diminishing value of the carcass. If the carcass depreciates in value between the oxโ€™s death and the time it is sold, Rabbi Meir holds that the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the injured party. The one liable for the damage is not responsible for any depreciation in value that occurs after the loss caused by the attack has been evaluated. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that half of the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the one liable for damage, since he receives half of the dead ox.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

Abaye said to Rava: If so, we have found, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

ืชื ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžืžื•ืขื“

a case where the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox that causes damage is more stringent than with regard to a forewarned ox, since according to all opinions, in a case where a forewarned ox kills another ox, the carcass belongs exclusively to the injured party, and he sustains any subsequent decrease in its value.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืชื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ืžืจ ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงืจืื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื”

And if you would say that indeed, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox is more stringent than with regard to a forewarned ox, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If a bailee did not safeguard an ox properly, and it escaped and caused damage, if it was an innocuous ox he is liable, and if it was a forewarned ox he is exempt (45b), that mishna cannot serve as proof for the issue under discussion. Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda express this opinion, that the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox is more stringent, with regard to the halakhot of safeguarding, as verses are written in the Torah from which this halakha is derived. But with regard to compensation, did you ever hear him express this opinion?

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ืกืœืข ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

On the contrary; but isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that in the case of an ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth five sela, i.e., twenty dinars, and the carcass is worth one sela, i.e., four dinars, the halakha is that this party takes half the living ox and half the dead ox, and that party takes half the living ox and half the dead ox. Accordingly, the injured party receives fifty-two dinars in value, which is much more than his ox was worth before it was killed.

ืืžืจืช ื•ื›ื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืžื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ืื• ืœื”ืงืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืชื ื”ืงืœ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

Instead, continues Rabbi Yehuda, you should say: For what purpose is the case of a forewarned ox singled out by the halakha? Is it to render it more stringent than the case of an innocuous ox, or to render it more lenient? Clearly, you must say that it is to render it more stringent. And therefore, if in the case of a forewarned ox, its owner pays only the value of what he damaged and no more, in the case of an innocuous ox, which is more lenient, all the more so is it not clear that the owner is not liable to pay more than the value of the damage? Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda does not allow for liability in the case of an innocuous ox to be more stringent than in the case of a forewarned ox.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ื— ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืคืœื’ื

Rather, Ravaโ€™s explanation, that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to a case where the carcass depreciated in value, should be rejected. Instead, their dispute should be explained according to what Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, i.e., that the practical difference between them is with regard to the appreciation of the carcass in value after the oxโ€™s death; as one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the entire increased value of the carcass belongs to the injured party, since the owner of the belligerent ox has no share in the carcass, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that half of the increased value belongs to the injured party and half goes to the one liable for the damage.

ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ื—ืก ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื™ืœื•ื™ื” ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ื“ืฉืงื™ืœ ื‘ืฉื‘ื—ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

And this explains what was difficult for Rabbi Yehuda in another baraita. Now that you say that the Merciful One has mercy on the one liable for damage, as he takes a share of the increased value of the carcass, can it be that in the case of an ox worth five sela, i.e., twenty dinars, that gored an ox worth one hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars, this party takes half the live ox and half the dead ox, and that party takes half the live ox and half the dead ox? Accordingly, the owner of the belligerent ox receives thirty-five dinars in value, which is more than his ox was worth.

ืืžืจืช ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืžื–ื™ืง ื ืฉื›ืจ ืฉื–ื” ื ืฉื›ืจ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ

Rather, you should say: Where do we find a case where the one liable for damage gains from the damage, comparable to this case, where this owner of the belligerent ox gains, receiving more than the value of his ox? Clearly there is no such case, as one who is liable for damage does not gain from it. And in addition, it says: โ€œHe shall payโ€ (Exodus 21:36), indicating that the owner of the belligerent ox pays, and the owner does not take more than the amount his animal was worth at the time of the damage.

ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืœื ื™ื–ืง ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืœื ื™ื–ืง ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื™ืคื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ืฉืงื™ืœ ื ืžื™ ืžื–ื™ืง ื‘ืฉื‘ื—ื

The Gemara asks: For what reason was it necessary to add the claim: And it says: โ€œHe shall payโ€? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this matter, that the one liable for damage does not gain, applies specifically where there is a loss sustained by the injured party, as in this case, where the decrease in the oxโ€™s value is fifty dinars, and if the carcass is shared by the liable party, the injured party receives only thirty-five dinars, thereby sustaining a loss. But in a case where there is no loss sustained by the injured party, for example, the case of an ox worth five sela, i.e., twenty dinars, that gored another ox worth five sela, and the carcass appreciated in value and is now worth thirty dinars, more than the ox was worth when it was alive, in this case the one liable for damage also takes a share of the increased value, since the injured party ends up not having sustained any financial loss, as he receives a share of ten dinars in the belligerent ox and another fifteen in the carcass, gaining five dinars over the value of his ox.

ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ

It is to counter this claim that Rabbi Yehuda adds: And it says: โ€œHe shall pay,โ€ indicating that the owner of the belligerent ox pays, and the owner does not take more than the amount his animal was worth at the time of the damage.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืœืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ื•ืžื›ืจื• ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื• ืืช ื›ืกืคื•

ยง With regard to Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s opinion that the two owners split the value of both the belligerent ox and the dead ox between them, Rav Aแธฅa bar Taแธฅalifa said to Rava: If so, we find that according to Rabbi Yehuda, when an innocuous ox gores an ox that is worth less than it, its owner pays more than half the damage. But the Torah stated: โ€œThen they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary valueโ€ (Exodus 21:35).

ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืคื—ืช ืฉืคื—ืชื” ืžื™ืชื” ืžื—ืฆื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™

Rava answered him: Rabbi Yehuda also holds that only the diminished value of the dead ox that was diminished by its death is compensated for by dividing the live ox between the two parties. The liable party never pays more than half the damage.

ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืžื•ื’ื ืืช ื”ืžืช ื™ื—ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืืคืงื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื—ืฆื™ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืžืช

The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive this halakha? Is it from the verse: โ€œAnd the carcass they shall also divideโ€ (Exodus 21:35), from which Rabbi Meir derived it? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehuda already derive from this verse that this party takes the value of half the live ox and half the dead ox, and that party takes the value of half the live ox and half the dead ox?

ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื•ืืช ื”ืžืช ืžืื™ ื•ื’ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara answers: If so, if that is the only halakha indicated by this clause, let the verse simply write: And the carcass they shall divide. What is the reason that the word โ€œalsoโ€ is added? It is added so that one may conclude two conclusions from the clause: That the carcass is also divided between the two parties, and that the liable party is never required to pay more than half the damage.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจื• ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืขืฆืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืขืฆืžื•

MISHNA: There are cases where one is liable for an act of damage caused by his ox, but exempt from liability for the same action if he performed it himself. Conversely, there are also cases where one is exempt from liability for the action of his ox, but liable for his own action.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคื™ืœ ืืช ืฉื™ื ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคื™ืœ ืืช ืฉื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘

How so? If his ox caused a person humilation, he is exempt from paying compensation, but if he himself humiliated another, he is liable. Similarly, if his ox blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his slaveโ€™s tooth, he is exempt from having to emancipate the slave for this mutilation. But if he himself blinded his slaveโ€™s eye or knocked out his tooth, he is liable to emancipate him, as stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:26โ€“27).

ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื‘ืืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื ืคืฉื•

By contrast, if his ox injured the ownerโ€™s father or his mother, he is liable to pay damages, but if he himself injured his father or his mother, he is exempt from paying compensation. Similarly, if his ox set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is liable to pay damages. But if he himself set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is exempt from paying damages. He is exempt from payment in these cases due to the fact that he is liable to receive the death penalty for injuring his father or mother or for desecrating Shabbat.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืงืœืงืœื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคื•ืง ืชื ื™ ืœื‘ืจื ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉื ื” ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื ื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื›ืœื‘ื• ืžื‘ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืืคืจื•

GEMARA: Rabbi Abbahu taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Anyone who performs labor destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who injures another or kindles a fire. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: Go out and teach it outside; this baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that deems one liable for injuring another or kindling a fire on Shabbat is not a mishna and should be ignored. And if you say that it is a mishna, one who injures another would be liable only in a case where he requires the blood to give to his dog, and one who kindles a fire would be liable only in a case where he requires its ashes. In these cases, the act is not purely destructive but has some constructive purpose.

ืชื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉื•ืจื• ืžื” ืฉื•ืจื• ื“ืœื ืงื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

We learned in the mishna: If his ox set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is liable. But if he himself set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is exempt. And the mishna is presumably teaching a case where he set the fire in a scenario that is similar to the case where his ox did so. Just as in the case where his ox set the fire it clearly does not need the ashes, as an ox does not act with such intentions,

Scroll To Top