Today's Daf Yomi
July 6, 2016 | 诇壮 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 36
The gemara tries to establish what type of claims each of the sides had in the cases mentioned in the mishna. 聽Were they each claiming definite claims or was one side’s claim a doubtful one. 聽The new perek starts with an argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon about a shor tam who attacks 4 or 5 times in a row. 聽Who gets paid what? 聽Then the gemara tries to establish the logic of their arguments and how they fit in with the broader approaches of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael regarding whether the owner of the damaged one has rights to the animal who caused the damaged or not.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
专讗讜讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖转诇诐 诇拽讟谉 诪谉 讛诪讜注讚 讜诇讙讚讜诇 诪谉 讛转诐 讚转驻住
The Gemara answers: The mishna does not indicate that the injured party receives compensation. Rather, it indicates that it is fitting for him to take compensation, but in practice he does not receive any compensation. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that he receives payment for his small ox from the liable party鈥檚 forewarned ox, and for his large ox from the liable party鈥檚 innocuous ox? Evidently he does receive payment. The Gemara answers: This baraita is also referring to a case where the injured party seized the defendant鈥檚 ox, in which case the court allows it to remain in his possession. The court cannot compel the defendant to pay him ab initio.
讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖诇 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝讬拽讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讜讜专讬诐 转诪讬诐 砖讛讝讬拽讜 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛
搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where an ox was injured by one of two oxen that were pursuing it, if both oxen belonged to one person, both are liable. Rava of Parzika said to Rav Ashi: Should one learn from the fact that both are liable that in a case of innocuous oxen that caused damage, if the injured party wishes, he can collect damages from the proceeds from the sale of this ox, and if he wishes, he can collect from the sale of that ox?
讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讜注讚讬谉
Rav Ashi rejected this inference: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with forewarned oxen, in which case the injured party does not collect damages exclusively from the belligerent ox but rather from any of its owner鈥檚 property. Therefore, he can collect from either ox as compensation.
讗讬 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讞讚 拽讟谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇 讛讝讬拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 拽讟谉 讛讝讬拽 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗讬 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讚诪讬 转讜专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬
Rava of Parzika replied: If the mishna is referring to forewarned oxen, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one of the belligerent oxen was large and the other one was small, and the injured party says that the large ox caused the damage, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small ox caused the damage, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. If this is referring to forewarned oxen, what difference does it make to him which one caused the injury? Ultimately, the liable party is required to pay the value of a full ox in any case.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讬驻讗 讘转诪讬谉 讜专讬砖讗 讘诪讜注讚讬谉
Rav Ashi said to him: The latter clause of the mishna is referring to innocuous oxen, and the first clause is referring to forewarned oxen.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讙讘专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜转讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐
Rav A岣 the Elder said to Rav Ashi: If it is referring to a case of forewarned oxen, where compensation is not collected specifically from the belligerent ox, why does the mishna state: They are liable, in the plural form? It should have stated: The man is liable. And furthermore, what is the word both in the statement: Both are liable, referring to?
讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘转诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜转驻讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚讛讗讬 转讜专讗 讗讝拽讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱
Rather, the first clause of the mishna is actually referring to innocuous oxen, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the injured party and the liable party are partners, as they share ownership of the belligerent ox. And therefore, the reason that the owner of the belligerent oxen is liable is that the two of them are available, so he cannot dismiss the injured party by claiming that this ox is not the one that caused the injury. But if the two of them are not available, e.g., if one died or was lost, he can say to the injured party: Go bring proof that it was this ox that caused you damage, and I will pay you compensation.
讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪谞讬讞
诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖谞讙讞 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖讜讜专讬诐 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讬砖诇诐 诇讗讞专讜谉 砖讘讛诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜 讜讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专
MISHNA: With regard to an innocuous ox that gored four or five other oxen one after the other, its owner shall pay the owner of the last one of them half of the damages from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox; and if there is surplus value left in his ox after he pays that owner, he shall return it to the owner of the previous ox that was gored; and if there is still surplus value left in his ox after he pays that owner, he shall return it to the one prior to the previous one. The principle is that the owner of the latest of the oxen gored in succession gains. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 砖谞讙讞 诇砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛谞讘诇讛 讬驻讛 讻诇讜诐 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛
Rabbi Shimon says that the division of the compensation is as follows: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, thereby killing it, and the carcass is worthless, the injured party takes one hundred dinars, i.e., half the cost of the damage, from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, and the owner of the belligerent ox takes the remaining one hundred dinars.
讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝
If the ox, after goring the first ox but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the owner of the last ox that was gored takes one hundred dinars, and with regard to payment for the previous goring, the owner of this ox that was gored takes fifty dinars, which is half the remaining value of the belligerent ox after one hundred dinars were paid to the last injured party, and the owner of that belligerent ox takes the remaining fifty dinars.
讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜砖谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘
If the ox, after goring the first two oxen but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the last injured party takes one hundred dinars, the previous one takes fifty dinars, and the first two, i.e., the first injured party and the owner of the belligerent ox, divide the remainder, each receiving one gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five silver dinars.
讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗
GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Apparently the mishna is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see 33a).
讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗讬 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讻专 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞砖讻专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讜专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专
The Gemara explains: If the mishna had been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the owners of the gored oxen are considered creditors of the owner of the belligerent ox, then instead of stating this halakha that the owner of the latest of the oxen gored in succession gains, the mishna should have stated that the owner of the earliest of the oxen gored in succession gains, since the creditor to whom the ox is initially liened collects first. And if the mishna had been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the belligerent ox belongs to its owner and to the injured party, who are considered partners in the ownership of the ox, then instead of stating this ruling that if there is surplus value remaining in the ox after he pays that owner
讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜 诇讻讜诇诐 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛
he shall return it to the owner of the previous ox, the mishna should have ruled that the surplus shall be returned to all of them, i.e., all the prior injured parties, since they all share joint ownership of the belligerent ox.
讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讚拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讻专 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞砖讻专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转驻住讜 谞讬讝拽 诇讙讘讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 注诇讬讜 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇谞讝拽讬谉
Rava said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that all the injured parties are creditors. And as for the difficulty you pose, that instead of stating that the owner of the latest of the oxen gored in succession gains, the mishna should have stated that the owner of the earliest of the oxen gored in succession gains, that can be answered. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the first injured party seized the ox to collect payment from it, and consequently became like a paid bailee with regard to damage it causes. Therefore, he is responsible for any subsequent attacks by the ox. Similarly, if the next injured party seizes the ox from the first as compensation, he becomes responsible for any subsequent attacks.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛
The Gemara asks: If so, instead of the mishna stating that if there is surplus value left in his ox after he pays that owner, he shall return it to the owner of the previous ox that was gored, it should have stated that he shall return it to its owner, since half the value of the belligerent ox belongs to its owner, who is not responsible for any later damage it causes.
讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讘谞讝拽讬讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜
Ravina said that this is what the mishna is teaching: If there is surplus value with regard to its damages, i.e., the latter injured party sustained less of a loss than the previous one, that injured party shall return this surplus value to the previous injured party.
讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 谞讙注讜 讘讛
Similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he related that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna touched on this topic with regard to a bailee鈥檚 negligence.
讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛谞讘诇讛 讬驻讛 讻诇讜诐 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛
The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the ruling in the mishna? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says that the division of the compensation is as follows: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, thereby killing it, and the carcass is worthless, the injured party takes one hundred dinars from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, and the owner of the belligerent ox takes the remaining one hundred dinars.
讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜砖谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘
If the ox, after goring the first ox but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the owner of the last ox that was gored takes one hundred dinars; and with regard to payment for the previous goring, the owner of this ox that was gored takes fifty dinars, which is half the remaining value of the belligerent ox after one hundred dinars were paid to the last injured party, and the owner of that belligerent ox takes the remaining fifty dinars. If the ox, after goring the first two oxen but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the last injured party takes one hundred dinars, the previous one takes fifty dinars, and the first two divide the remainder, each receiving one gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five silver dinars.
讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讜专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗
The Gemara continues: In the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the ox belongs to its owner and to the injured party, who are considered partners in the ownership of the ox. Is it possible that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva?
讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讚讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 砖讘讜拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜转讗 讘转专讗讬 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗
The Sages said that yes, this is the case, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, leave the presumption that the entire mishna follows one opinion and follow my interpretation: The first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛拽讚讬砖讜 谞讬讝拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜
It was also stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in the mishna is with regard to a case where the injured party consecrated the ox. If he is a partner in the ownership of the ox, his consecration takes effect; if he is considered merely a creditor, the consecration is ineffective. Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that the dispute in the mishna corresponds to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.
转谞谉 讛转诐 讛转讜拽注 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 住诇注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪谞讛
搂 With regard to the gold dinar mentioned in the mishna, we learned in another mishna there (90a): One who slaps [hatokea] another is liable to give him a sela as a compensatory fine. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: He is liable to give him one hundred dinars.
讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚转拽注 诇讞讘专讬讛 砖诇讞讬讛 专讘 讟讜讘讬讛 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 住诇注 爪讜专讬 转谞谉 讗讜 住诇注 诪讚讬谞讛 转谞谉
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who slapped another. Rav Toviya bar Mattana sent an enquiry before Rav Yosef, asking him whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a Tyrian sela, which is worth four dinars, or whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a provincial sela, worth only half of a dinar, or one-eighth of a Tyrian sela.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转谞讬 转谞讗 住诇注 诪讚讬谞讛 谞驻诇讜讙 讜谞转谞讬 注讚 转专讬住专 讜住诇注
Rav Yosef said to him: You learned this in a mishna: And the first two divide the remainder, each receiving one gold dinar, worth twenty-five silver dinars. And if it enters your mind that the tanna teaches monetary sums using a provincial sela in order to calculate compensation, let him further divide the value that the first two litigants receive and teach a case where the belligerent ox gored an additional ox, so that their shares decrease until they reach twelve dinars and one sela apiece, which are twelve and a half dinars. The fact that he does not do so indicates that the mishna does not use a provincial sela, whose value is less than one dinar, and therefore a gold dinar cannot be divided in a manner that leaves each party with whole coins.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讻讬 专讜讻诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讜诇讬讝讬诇
Rav Toviya bar Mattana said to him: This is not proof; should the tanna have continued teaching additional cases, exhausting all possibilities, like a peddler selling his wares, who advertises every item of his merchandise? The cases cited in the mishna suffice to illustrate the point.
诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 驻砖讟讜讛 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛
What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Sages resolved it based on that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All references to coinage mentioned in the Torah refer to Tyrian coinage, whereas all mentions of coinage in the statements of the Sages refer to provincial coinage. Therefore, a person who slaps another is fined a provincial sela, worth half of a dinar.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 谞转讘讬讛 诇注谞讬讬诐 讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞转讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讘专讬 讘讬讛 谞驻砖讗讬
Following the verdict, that man who was slapped said to Rav Yosef: Since the fine is only half a dinar, I do not want it, as it is beneath me to collect such an amount. Instead, let him give it to the poor. Then he retracted his decision, and said to Rav Yosef: Let him give it to me, and I will go and sustain [ve鈥檃vri] myself with it.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讬讛 注谞讬讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 注谞讬讬诐 讛讻讗 讗谞谉 讬讚 注谞讬讬诐 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬诐
Rav Yosef said to him: Since you already committed to give it to charity, the poor have already acquired it and it now belongs to them. And although there are no poor people here to acquire it, we, the court, are the hand, i.e., the legal extension, of the poor. We represent them, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Orphans
-
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.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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 36
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
专讗讜讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖转诇诐 诇拽讟谉 诪谉 讛诪讜注讚 讜诇讙讚讜诇 诪谉 讛转诐 讚转驻住
The Gemara answers: The mishna does not indicate that the injured party receives compensation. Rather, it indicates that it is fitting for him to take compensation, but in practice he does not receive any compensation. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that he receives payment for his small ox from the liable party鈥檚 forewarned ox, and for his large ox from the liable party鈥檚 innocuous ox? Evidently he does receive payment. The Gemara answers: This baraita is also referring to a case where the injured party seized the defendant鈥檚 ox, in which case the court allows it to remain in his possession. The court cannot compel the defendant to pay him ab initio.
讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖诇 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝讬拽讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讜讜专讬诐 转诪讬诐 砖讛讝讬拽讜 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛
搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where an ox was injured by one of two oxen that were pursuing it, if both oxen belonged to one person, both are liable. Rava of Parzika said to Rav Ashi: Should one learn from the fact that both are liable that in a case of innocuous oxen that caused damage, if the injured party wishes, he can collect damages from the proceeds from the sale of this ox, and if he wishes, he can collect from the sale of that ox?
讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讜注讚讬谉
Rav Ashi rejected this inference: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with forewarned oxen, in which case the injured party does not collect damages exclusively from the belligerent ox but rather from any of its owner鈥檚 property. Therefore, he can collect from either ox as compensation.
讗讬 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讞讚 拽讟谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇 讛讝讬拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 拽讟谉 讛讝讬拽 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗讬 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讚诪讬 转讜专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬
Rava of Parzika replied: If the mishna is referring to forewarned oxen, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one of the belligerent oxen was large and the other one was small, and the injured party says that the large ox caused the damage, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small ox caused the damage, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. If this is referring to forewarned oxen, what difference does it make to him which one caused the injury? Ultimately, the liable party is required to pay the value of a full ox in any case.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讬驻讗 讘转诪讬谉 讜专讬砖讗 讘诪讜注讚讬谉
Rav Ashi said to him: The latter clause of the mishna is referring to innocuous oxen, and the first clause is referring to forewarned oxen.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讙讘专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜转讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐
Rav A岣 the Elder said to Rav Ashi: If it is referring to a case of forewarned oxen, where compensation is not collected specifically from the belligerent ox, why does the mishna state: They are liable, in the plural form? It should have stated: The man is liable. And furthermore, what is the word both in the statement: Both are liable, referring to?
讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘转诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜转驻讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚讛讗讬 转讜专讗 讗讝拽讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱
Rather, the first clause of the mishna is actually referring to innocuous oxen, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the injured party and the liable party are partners, as they share ownership of the belligerent ox. And therefore, the reason that the owner of the belligerent oxen is liable is that the two of them are available, so he cannot dismiss the injured party by claiming that this ox is not the one that caused the injury. But if the two of them are not available, e.g., if one died or was lost, he can say to the injured party: Go bring proof that it was this ox that caused you damage, and I will pay you compensation.
讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪谞讬讞
诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖谞讙讞 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖讜讜专讬诐 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讬砖诇诐 诇讗讞专讜谉 砖讘讛诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜 讜讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专
MISHNA: With regard to an innocuous ox that gored four or five other oxen one after the other, its owner shall pay the owner of the last one of them half of the damages from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox; and if there is surplus value left in his ox after he pays that owner, he shall return it to the owner of the previous ox that was gored; and if there is still surplus value left in his ox after he pays that owner, he shall return it to the one prior to the previous one. The principle is that the owner of the latest of the oxen gored in succession gains. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 砖谞讙讞 诇砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛谞讘诇讛 讬驻讛 讻诇讜诐 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛
Rabbi Shimon says that the division of the compensation is as follows: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, thereby killing it, and the carcass is worthless, the injured party takes one hundred dinars, i.e., half the cost of the damage, from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, and the owner of the belligerent ox takes the remaining one hundred dinars.
讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝
If the ox, after goring the first ox but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the owner of the last ox that was gored takes one hundred dinars, and with regard to payment for the previous goring, the owner of this ox that was gored takes fifty dinars, which is half the remaining value of the belligerent ox after one hundred dinars were paid to the last injured party, and the owner of that belligerent ox takes the remaining fifty dinars.
讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜砖谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘
If the ox, after goring the first two oxen but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the last injured party takes one hundred dinars, the previous one takes fifty dinars, and the first two, i.e., the first injured party and the owner of the belligerent ox, divide the remainder, each receiving one gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five silver dinars.
讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗
GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Apparently the mishna is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see 33a).
讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗讬 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讻专 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞砖讻专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讜专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专
The Gemara explains: If the mishna had been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the owners of the gored oxen are considered creditors of the owner of the belligerent ox, then instead of stating this halakha that the owner of the latest of the oxen gored in succession gains, the mishna should have stated that the owner of the earliest of the oxen gored in succession gains, since the creditor to whom the ox is initially liened collects first. And if the mishna had been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the belligerent ox belongs to its owner and to the injured party, who are considered partners in the ownership of the ox, then instead of stating this ruling that if there is surplus value remaining in the ox after he pays that owner
讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜 诇讻讜诇诐 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛
he shall return it to the owner of the previous ox, the mishna should have ruled that the surplus shall be returned to all of them, i.e., all the prior injured parties, since they all share joint ownership of the belligerent ox.
讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讚拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讻专 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞砖讻专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转驻住讜 谞讬讝拽 诇讙讘讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 注诇讬讜 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇谞讝拽讬谉
Rava said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that all the injured parties are creditors. And as for the difficulty you pose, that instead of stating that the owner of the latest of the oxen gored in succession gains, the mishna should have stated that the owner of the earliest of the oxen gored in succession gains, that can be answered. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the first injured party seized the ox to collect payment from it, and consequently became like a paid bailee with regard to damage it causes. Therefore, he is responsible for any subsequent attacks by the ox. Similarly, if the next injured party seizes the ox from the first as compensation, he becomes responsible for any subsequent attacks.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛
The Gemara asks: If so, instead of the mishna stating that if there is surplus value left in his ox after he pays that owner, he shall return it to the owner of the previous ox that was gored, it should have stated that he shall return it to its owner, since half the value of the belligerent ox belongs to its owner, who is not responsible for any later damage it causes.
讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜转专 讘谞讝拽讬讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇砖诇驻谞讬讜
Ravina said that this is what the mishna is teaching: If there is surplus value with regard to its damages, i.e., the latter injured party sustained less of a loss than the previous one, that injured party shall return this surplus value to the previous injured party.
讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 谞讙注讜 讘讛
Similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he related that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna touched on this topic with regard to a bailee鈥檚 negligence.
讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛谞讘诇讛 讬驻讛 讻诇讜诐 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛
The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the ruling in the mishna? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says that the division of the compensation is as follows: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, thereby killing it, and the carcass is worthless, the injured party takes one hundred dinars from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, and the owner of the belligerent ox takes the remaining one hundred dinars.
讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讞讝专 讜谞讙讞 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 谞讜讟诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讜砖谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘
If the ox, after goring the first ox but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the owner of the last ox that was gored takes one hundred dinars; and with regard to payment for the previous goring, the owner of this ox that was gored takes fifty dinars, which is half the remaining value of the belligerent ox after one hundred dinars were paid to the last injured party, and the owner of that belligerent ox takes the remaining fifty dinars. If the ox, after goring the first two oxen but before compensation had been paid, again gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the last injured party takes one hundred dinars, the previous one takes fifty dinars, and the first two divide the remainder, each receiving one gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five silver dinars.
讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讜专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗
The Gemara continues: In the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the ox belongs to its owner and to the injured party, who are considered partners in the ownership of the ox. Is it possible that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva?
讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讚讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 砖讘讜拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜转讗 讘转专讗讬 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗
The Sages said that yes, this is the case, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, leave the presumption that the entire mishna follows one opinion and follow my interpretation: The first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛拽讚讬砖讜 谞讬讝拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜
It was also stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in the mishna is with regard to a case where the injured party consecrated the ox. If he is a partner in the ownership of the ox, his consecration takes effect; if he is considered merely a creditor, the consecration is ineffective. Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that the dispute in the mishna corresponds to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.
转谞谉 讛转诐 讛转讜拽注 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 住诇注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪谞讛
搂 With regard to the gold dinar mentioned in the mishna, we learned in another mishna there (90a): One who slaps [hatokea] another is liable to give him a sela as a compensatory fine. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: He is liable to give him one hundred dinars.
讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚转拽注 诇讞讘专讬讛 砖诇讞讬讛 专讘 讟讜讘讬讛 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 住诇注 爪讜专讬 转谞谉 讗讜 住诇注 诪讚讬谞讛 转谞谉
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who slapped another. Rav Toviya bar Mattana sent an enquiry before Rav Yosef, asking him whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a Tyrian sela, which is worth four dinars, or whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a provincial sela, worth only half of a dinar, or one-eighth of a Tyrian sela.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转谞讬 转谞讗 住诇注 诪讚讬谞讛 谞驻诇讜讙 讜谞转谞讬 注讚 转专讬住专 讜住诇注
Rav Yosef said to him: You learned this in a mishna: And the first two divide the remainder, each receiving one gold dinar, worth twenty-five silver dinars. And if it enters your mind that the tanna teaches monetary sums using a provincial sela in order to calculate compensation, let him further divide the value that the first two litigants receive and teach a case where the belligerent ox gored an additional ox, so that their shares decrease until they reach twelve dinars and one sela apiece, which are twelve and a half dinars. The fact that he does not do so indicates that the mishna does not use a provincial sela, whose value is less than one dinar, and therefore a gold dinar cannot be divided in a manner that leaves each party with whole coins.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讻讬 专讜讻诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讜诇讬讝讬诇
Rav Toviya bar Mattana said to him: This is not proof; should the tanna have continued teaching additional cases, exhausting all possibilities, like a peddler selling his wares, who advertises every item of his merchandise? The cases cited in the mishna suffice to illustrate the point.
诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 驻砖讟讜讛 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛
What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Sages resolved it based on that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All references to coinage mentioned in the Torah refer to Tyrian coinage, whereas all mentions of coinage in the statements of the Sages refer to provincial coinage. Therefore, a person who slaps another is fined a provincial sela, worth half of a dinar.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 谞转讘讬讛 诇注谞讬讬诐 讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞转讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讘专讬 讘讬讛 谞驻砖讗讬
Following the verdict, that man who was slapped said to Rav Yosef: Since the fine is only half a dinar, I do not want it, as it is beneath me to collect such an amount. Instead, let him give it to the poor. Then he retracted his decision, and said to Rav Yosef: Let him give it to me, and I will go and sustain [ve鈥檃vri] myself with it.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讬讛 注谞讬讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 注谞讬讬诐 讛讻讗 讗谞谉 讬讚 注谞讬讬诐 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬诐
Rav Yosef said to him: Since you already committed to give it to charity, the poor have already acquired it and it now belongs to them. And although there are no poor people here to acquire it, we, the court, are the hand, i.e., the legal extension, of the poor. We represent them, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Orphans
