Bava Kamma 36

ראוי ליטול ואין לו והתניא הרי זה משתלם לקטן מן המועד ולגדול מן התם דתפס

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’t it taught in a baraita that he receives payment for his small ox from the liable party’s forewarned ox, and for his large ox from the liable party’s 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’s ox, in which case the court allows it to remain in his possession. The court cannot compel the defendant to pay him ab initio.

היו שניהם של איש אחד שניהם חייבים אמר ליה רבא מפרזיקא לרב אשי שמע מינה שוורים תמים שהזיקו רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה

§ 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?

הכא במאי עסקינן במועדין

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’s property. Therefore, he can collect from either ox as compensation.

אי במועדין אימא סיפא היה אחד גדול ואחד קטן הניזק אומר גדול הזיק והמזיק אומר לא כי אלא קטן הזיק המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אי במועדין מאי נפקא ליה מיניה סוף סוף דמי תורא מעליא בעי לשלומי

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.

אמר ליה סיפא בתמין ורישא במועדין

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.

אמר ליה רב אחא סבא לרב אשי אי במועדין חייבים חייב גברא מיבעי ליה ותו מאי שניהם

Rav Aḥa 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?

אלא לעולם בתמין ורבי עקיבא היא דאמר שותפין נינהו וטעמא דאיתנהו לתרוייהו דלא מצי מדחי ליה אבל ליתנהו לתרוייהו מצי אמר ליה זיל אייתי ראיה דהאי תורא אזקך ואשלם לך

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.

הדרן עלך המניח

מתני׳ שור שנגח ארבעה וחמשה שוורים זה אחר זה ישלם לאחרון שבהם ואם יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפניו ואם יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפני פניו והאחרון אחרון נשכר דברי רבי מאיר

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.

רבי שמעון אומר שור שוה מאתים שנגח לשור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום זה נוטל מנה וזה נוטל מנה

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.

חזר ונגח שור אחר שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו זה נוטל חמשים זוז וזה נוטל חמשים זוז

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.

חזר ונגח שור אחר שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו חמשים זוז ושנים הראשונים דינר זהב

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.

גמ׳ מתניתין מני דלא כרבי ישמעאל ודלא כרבי עקיבא

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).

אי כרבי ישמעאל דאמר בעלי חובות נינהו האי אחרון אחרון נשכר ראשון ראשון נשכר מבעי ליה אי כרבי עקיבא דאמר תורא דשותפי הוא האי יש בו מותר

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

יחזיר לשלפניו לכולם מבעי ליה

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.

אמר רבא לעולם כרבי ישמעאל דאמר בעלי חובות נינהו ודקשיא לך אחרון אחרון נשכר ראשון ראשון נשכר מבעי ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שתפסו ניזק לגבות הימנו ונעשה עליו כשומר שכר לנזקין

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.

אי הכי יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפניו יחזיר לבעלים מבעי ליה

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.

אמר רבינא הכי קתני אם יש בו מותר בנזקיו יחזיר לשלפניו

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.

וכן כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן משום פשיעת שומרין נגעו בה

Similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he related that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna touched on this topic with regard to a bailee’s negligence.

במאי אוקימתא כרבי ישמעאל אי הכי אימא סיפא רבי שמעון אומר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום זה נוטל מנה וזה נוטל מנה

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.

חזר ונגח שור אחר שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו זה נוטל חמשים זוז וזה נוטל חמשים זוז חזר ונגח שור שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו נוטל חמשים זוז ושנים הראשונים דינר זהב

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.

אתאן לרבי עקיבא דאמר תורא דשותפי הוא רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא רבי עקיבא

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?

אמרי אין דהא אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא שבוק מתניתין ותא בתראי רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא רבי עקיבא

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.

אתמר נמי אמר רבי יוחנן הקדישו ניזק איכא בינייהו

It was also stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan also holds that the dispute in the mishna corresponds to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.

תנן התם התוקע לחבירו נותן לו סלע רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי יוסי הגלילי מנה

§ 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.

ההוא גברא דתקע לחבריה שלחיה רב טוביה בר מתנה לקמיה דרב יוסף סלע צורי תנן או סלע מדינה תנן

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.

אמר ליה תניתוה ושנים הראשונים דינר זהב ואי סלקא דעתך תני תנא סלע מדינה נפלוג ונתני עד תריסר וסלע

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.

אמר ליה תנא כי רוכלא ליתני וליזיל

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.

מאי הוי עלה פשטוה מהא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה

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.

אמר ליה ההוא גברא הואיל ופלגא דזוזא הוא לא בעינא נתביה לעניים הדר אמר ליה נתביה ניהלי איזיל ואברי ביה נפשאי

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’avri] myself with it.

אמר ליה רב יוסף כבר זכו ביה עניים ואף על גב דליכא עניים הכא אנן יד עניים אנן דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל יתומים

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