Bava Kamma 39
שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר.
that the sinner, i.e., the rapist, should not be rewarded.
וְנִתְּבֵיהּ לַעֲנִיִּים! אָמַר רַב מָרִי: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים.
The Gemara suggests: But if that is the reason, let him give the fine to the poor instead of to the Samaritan who he raped, to prevent assimilation. Rav Mari said: This is not done, because it is money that has no claimants. Since one would not be liable to give it to a specific poor person, the rapist could evade payment by responding to any claimant that he wants to give it to a different poor person. The Sages upheld the Torah law as it stands, and the fine is given to the Samaritan so that the sinner will not benefit.
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – חַיָּיב. וְשֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּקֵּחַ – פָּטוּר.
MISHNA: If an ox of a halakhically competent person gored an ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are not considered halakhically competent, the owner is liable for damages. But if an ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored an ox of a halakhically competent person, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability.
שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח – בֵּית דִּין מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס.
If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored another ox and caused damage, the court appoints a steward for them and warns them with regard to the ox that gored in the presence of the steward. The ox is thereby rendered a forewarned ox, since the steward is considered its owner with regard to the requirement of the verse: “And warning has been given to its owner” (Exodus 21:29).
נִתְפַּקֵּחַ הַחֵרֵשׁ, נִשְׁתַּפָּה הַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהִגְדִּיל הַקָּטָן – חָזַר לְתַמּוּתוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ.
If, after the ox was rendered forewarned in this manner, the deaf-mute regained his hearing, the imbecile became halakhically competent, or the minor reached the age of majority, the ox has thereby reverted to its status of innocuousness. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that the ox had the status of a forewarned ox only while it was under the custody of the steward. Rabbi Yosei says: It retains its previous status of being forewarned.
שׁוֹר הָאִצְטָדִין – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִגַּח״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיַּגִּיחוּהוּ.
If a stadium [ha’itztadin] ox, i.e., one that is trained to fight in a stadium, gores and kills a person, it is not liable to be put to death, as it is stated: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28). This is referring only to an ox that gores on its own initiative, but not to the case of an ox where others induced it to gore. Therefore, the owner of a stadium ox, which is trained to gore, is exempt from liability if it does.
גְּמָ׳ הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא – אָמְרַתְּ: שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּקֵּחַ – פָּטוּר; אַלְמָא אֵין מַעֲמִידִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְתָם – לִגְבּוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח – בֵּית דִּין מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, וּמְעִידִין לָהֶם בִּפְנֵי אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. אַלְמָא מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְתָם, לִגְבּוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ!
GEMARA: The Gemara comments: This matter itself is difficult. First the mishna said: If an ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored an ox of a halakhically competent person, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability. Apparently, the court does not appoint a steward for the owner of an innocuous ox for the purpose of collecting damages from the proceeds of the sale of its body. But say the latter clause of the mishna: If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored another ox and caused damage, the court appoints a steward for them and warns them with regard to the ox that gored in the presence of the steward. Apparently, the court appoints a steward for the owner of an innocuous ox for the purpose of collecting damages from its body.
אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְאִם הוּחְזְקוּ נַגְחָנִין – מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, וּמְשַׁוֵּינַן לְהוּ מוּעָד; דְּכִי הָדַר וְנָגַח – לְשַׁלֵּם מֵעֲלִיָּיה.
Rava said that this is what the mishna is teaching: A steward is not appointed to enable collection of compensation from the bodies of innocuous oxen, but if they have acquired the reputation of being habitually goring oxen, as this was not an isolated incident, the court appoints a steward for the owners, and warns them in the presence of the steward, and thereby renders the oxen forewarned. This is so that when one of the oxen gores again, the owner will be liable to pay compensation from his superior-quality property, and not only from the proceeds of the sale of the goring ox.
מֵעֲלִיַּית מַאן? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵעֲלִיַּית יְתוֹמִין, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: מֵעֲלִיַּית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס.
The Gemara asks: From whose superior-quality property is compensation collected for damage caused by a forewarned ox belonging to minor orphans? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From the superior-quality property of the orphans. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: From the superior-quality property of the steward.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אֵין נִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רִבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בָּהֶן.
The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav Asi says: The court does not attend to the property of orphans to have them pay a debt unless interest is eroding their estate. In other words, in a case where the orphans’ father borrowed money from a gentile with interest, the court ensures that the debt is paid from the orphans’ property, since if they wait to pay the debt, it will grow dramatically. Apparently, in other cases the court does not collect from their property.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אוֹ לִשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית, אוֹ לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה מִשּׁוּם מְזוֹנֵי!
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The court collects from them either to pay a debt recorded in a document that has the payment of interest stipulated in it, in order to ensure that the interest does not diminish the value their estate, or for the payment of a woman’s marriage contract, due to their interest in not paying for her sustenance. A widow can claim her marriage contract from her deceased husband’s property, and as long as she does not receive it, her husband’s heirs are responsible for providing her sustenance. In a case where the heirs are minor orphans, the court collects payment of the marriage contract from the orphans’ property, so that they will not have to pay for her sustenance in the interim. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that with the exception of these two cases, the court does not collect debts from the property of orphans.
אֵיפוֹךְ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵעֲלִיַּית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפְּסִין, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: מֵעֲלִיַּית יְתוֹמִין.
The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions. Rabbi Yoḥanan is the one who says that payment for damage caused by forewarned oxen is collected from the superior-quality property of the steward, and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina is the one who says that it is collected from the superior-quality property of the orphans.
אָמַר רָבָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא טוֹעֶה? וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא דַּיָּינָא הוּא, וְנָחֵית לְעוּמְקֵיהּ דְּדִינָא!
Rava said in response: Due to the difficulty created by the contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan here and the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan there, you render Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina mistaken, by attributing an opinion to him that is not the halakha? Wasn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina a judge who delved into the complexities of the halakha?
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וּמַזִּיק שָׁאנֵי. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵעֲלִיַּית יְתוֹמִים – דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ מֵעֲלִיַּית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס,
Rather, one can resolve the contradiction in another manner: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. And the resolution to the contradiction is that although Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that debts are not collected from the property of minor orphans, the halakha with regard to one who causes damage to another by not safeguarding his animal is different. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that compensation is collected from the superior-quality property of the orphans, because if you say that it should be collected from the superior-quality property of the steward,
מִמַּנְעִי וְלָא עָבְדִי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר מֵעֲלִיַּית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס – וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין מִן הַיְּתוֹמִים לְכִי גָדְלִי.
people will refrain from becoming stewards, fearing that they would incur a financial loss by having to pay for damage caused by the orphans’ animals. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says that it is collected from the superior-quality property of the steward, and there is no concern that people will refrain from becoming stewards, because if they pay for the orphans they are subsequently repaid by the orphans when they grow up.
וּ״מַעֲמִידִים לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין לְתָם לִגְבּוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ״ – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא,
The Gemara notes: And the matter of whether or not the court appoints stewards for the halakhically incompetent owners of an innocuous ox for the purpose of collecting damages from the sale of its body if it gores is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.
דְּתַנְיָא: שׁוֹר שֶׁנִּתְחָרְשׁוּ בְּעָלָיו, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטּוּ בְּעָלָיו, וְשֶׁהָלְכוּ בְּעָלָיו לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם – יְהוּדָה בֶּן נְקוֹסָא אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס: הֲרֵי הוּא בְּתַמּוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּעִידוּ בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי הַבְּעָלִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין, וּמְעִידִין בָּהֶן בִּפְנֵי אַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין.
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox whose owner became a deaf-mute, or whose owner became an imbecile, or whose owner went overseas, if the ox gores, Yehuda ben Nakosa said that Sumakhos said: It retains its status of innocuousness until the court renders it forewarned in the presence of the owner. And the Rabbis say: The court appoints stewards for them, and the ox is rendered forewarned in the presence of the stewards.
נִתְפַּקֵּחַ הַחֵרֵשׁ, נִשְׁתַּפָּה הַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהִגְדִּיל הַקָּטָן – וּבָאוּ בְּעָלָיו מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, יְהוּדָה בֶּן נְקוֹסָא אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס: חָזַר לְתַמּוּתוֹ, עַד שֶׁיָּעִידוּ בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי בְעָלִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר: הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ.
If the deaf-mute regained his hearing, or the imbecile became halakhically competent, or the minor reached majority, or its owner came back from overseas, Yehuda ben Nakosa said that Sumakhos said: The ox has reverted to its previous status of innocuousness, until it is rendered forewarned in the presence of the owner. Rabbi Yosei said: The ox retains its status of being forewarned.
אֲמַרוּ: מַאי ״הֲרֵי הוּא בְּתַמּוּתוֹ״ דְּקָאָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא מִיַּיעַד כְּלָל – הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״חָזַר לְתַמּוּתוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיַּיעַד!
The Sages said: What did Sumakhos mean by saying that it retains its status of innocuousness? If we say that he meant that it is not rendered forewarned at all, and is still considered innocuous, from the fact that Sumakhos himself teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that the ox has reverted to its previous status of innocuousness, it is clear by inference that previously it was rendered forewarned.
אֶלָּא מַאי ״הֲרֵי הוּא בְּתַמּוּתוֹ״ – הֲרֵי הוּא בִּתְמִימוּתוֹ, דְּלָא מְחַסְּרִינַן לֵיהּ. אַלְמָא אֵין מַעֲמִידִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְתָם לִגְבּוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס – אַלְמָא מַעֲמִידִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְתָם לִגְבּוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ.
Rather, what did Sumakhos mean by saying that it retains its status of innocuousness [betammuto]? He meant that it retains its completeness [bitmimuto], as we do not reduce its owner’s share of it by collecting compensation from the sale of its body. Rather, the injured party must wait until the owner becomes competent or returns. Apparently, the court does not appoint a steward for the owner of an innocuous ox to enable the injured party to collect damages from its body. And the Rabbis, who disagree with Sumakhos, say that the court appoints a steward for the owner and renders the ox forewarned in the presence of the steward. Apparently, they hold that the court does appoint a steward for the owner of an innocuous ox to enable the injured party to collect damages from its body.
וְסֵיפָא בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רְשׁוּת מְשַׁנָּה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – סוֹמְכוֹס סָבַר: רְשׁוּת מְשַׁנָּה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: רְשׁוּת אֵינָהּ מְשַׁנָּה.
The Gemara asks: And in the latter clause of the baraita, with regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to whether a change of custody changes the status of the ox. Sumakhos holds that a change of custody changes the status of the ox, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that a change of custody does not change it; rather, it is determined by the actions of the ox itself, regardless of its custody.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח – רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox that gored that belonged to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, Rabbi Ya’akov pays half the cost of the damage.
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Ya’akov do that he should pay for the damage? Rather, emend the baraita and say: Rabbi Ya’akov says that he pays half the cost of the damage.
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִי בְּתָם – פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָמֵי חֲצִי נֶזֶק הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם! וְאִי בְּמוּעָד, אִי דְּעָבְדִי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה – כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא בָּעֵי לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי, וְאִי דְּלָא עָבְדִי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה – כּוּלֵּיהּ נֶזֶק בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי!
The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If it is with regard to an innocuous ox, isn’t this obvious? Everyone else also holds that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by their ox that gored, so what is the novel element of Rabbi Ya’akov’s statement? And if it is with regard to a forewarned ox it is unclear why the owner pays half the cost of the damage, as if it is a case where he provided adequate safeguarding for it he is not required to pay at all, and if it is a case where he did not provide adequate safeguarding for it he is required to pay the entire cost of the damage.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּמוּעָד, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּעָבְדִי שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה, וְלָא עָבְדִי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה.
Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Ya’akov stated his ruling with regard to a forewarned ox, and here we are dealing with a case where he provided reduced safeguarding and did not provide superior safeguarding for it.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דְּאָמַר: צַד תַּמּוּת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת; וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דְּאָמַר: מוּעָד סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּשְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה;
And Rabbi Ya’akov holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that when an ox is rendered forewarned the liability for its element of innocuousness remains in place. In other words, with regard to half of the damages, it is treated like an innocuous ox, and it is treated as a forewarned ox only with regard to the other half of the damages. Therefore, half the cost of the damage is still collected from the proceeds of the sale of its body. And furthermore, with regard to another issue Rabbi Ya’akov holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that although superior safeguarding is necessary for an innocuous ox, reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox. Consequently, one who safeguards his forewarned ox in this manner is exempt from paying the additional half that he would be liable to pay due to the ox’s forewarned status. He is liable with respect to the half that he pays due to its remaining element of innocuousness.
וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן – דְּאָמְרִי: מַעֲמִידִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְתָם לִגְבּוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ.
And Rabbi Ya’akov also holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the court appoints a steward for the owner of an innocuous ox to enable the injured party to collect damages from its body. Therefore, Rabbi Ya’akov rules that in the case in the baraita, where a forewarned ox owned by a halakhically incompetent person is safeguarded in a reduced fashion, half the cost of the damage must be paid from the proceeds of the sale of its body.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָתַנְיָא: שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב, וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: חֲצִי נֶזֶק הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם! אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: מַה שֶּׁמְּחַיֵּיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
Abaye said to Rava: But do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ya’akov not disagree with regard to this matter? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to an ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, that gored, Rabbi Yehuda deems the owner liable, and Rabbi Ya’akov says that he pays only half the cost of the damage? Rabba bar Ulla says: There is no disagreement here; Rabbi Ya’akov merely explained what Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to pay.
וּלְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר פְּלִיגִי, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי?
The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, who says that Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Yehuda disagree, with regard to what principle do they disagree?
אָמַר לָךְ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמוּעָד, וְלָא נַטְרֵיהּ כְּלָל.
The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you that here we are dealing with a forewarned ox whose owner did not safeguard it at all and that is consequently liable for the full cost of the damage.
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא. סָבַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא – דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: צַד תַּמּוּת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת; וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא – דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְתָם לִגְבּוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ, וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: אֵין מַעֲמִידִין, וְלָא מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא פַּלְגָא דְמוּעָד.
And Rabbi Ya’akov holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one issue and disagrees with him with regard to one issue. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one issue, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that when an ox is rendered forewarned its element of innocuousness remains in its place, and Rabbi Ya’akov agrees. And he disagrees with him with regard to one issue, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that the court appoints a steward for the owner of an innocuous ox to enable the injured party to collect damages from its body, whereas Rabbi Ya’akov holds that the court does not appoint a steward. Therefore, the owner is exempt from paying the half for which he would be liable due to the ox’s element of innocuousness, and pays only the half damages he is liable to pay due to its forewarned status.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר אַבָּיֵי לְרָבִינָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר פְּלִיגִי – שַׁפִּיר; אֶלָּא לְרָבָא דְּאָמַר לָא פְּלִיגִי – אַדְּמוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּמוּעָד, נוֹקְמַהּ בְּתָם!
Rav Aḥa bar Abaye said to Ravina: Granted, according to Abaye, who says that they disagree, the explanation works out well. But according to Rava, who says that they do not disagree, instead of interpreting the baraita as referring to a forewarned ox, he should have interpreted it as referring to an innocuous ox.
