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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2016 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • 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 39

As I’m teaching on Shabbat but won’t be able to record, attached is a sheet that organizes the daf. Study Guide Bava Kamma 39


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

ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื•ื˜ื ื ืฉื›ืจ

that the sinner, i.e., the rapist, should not be rewarded.

ื•ื ืชื‘ื™ื” ืœืขื ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ื

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืคืงื— ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืคืงื— ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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.

ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก

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: โ€œAnd warning has been given to its ownerโ€ (Exodus 21:29).

ื ืชืคืงื— ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื ืฉืชืคื” ื”ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœ ื”ืงื˜ืŸ ื—ื–ืจ ืœืชืžื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืชื•

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.

ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืืฆื˜ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื— ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื’ื™ื—ื•ื”ื•

If a stadium [haโ€™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: โ€œAnd if an ox gores a man or a womanโ€ (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.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื ื’ื•ืคื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจืช ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืคืงื— ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืืœืžื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื ื”ื•ื—ื–ืงื• ื ื’ื—ื ื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ืœืฉืœื ืžืขืœื™ื™ื”

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.

ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืžืืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก

The Gemara asks: From whose superior-quality property is compensation collected for damage caused by a forewarned ox belonging to minor orphans? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: From the superior-quality property of the orphans. Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina says: From the superior-quality property of the steward.

ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ื ื–ืงืงื™ืŸ ืœื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ืช ืื•ื›ืœืช ื‘ื”ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yoแธฅanan actually say this? But doesnโ€™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 orphansโ€™ father borrowed money from a gentile with interest, the court ensures that the debt is paid from the orphansโ€™ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื• ืœืฉื˜ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื™ืช ืื• ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžื–ื•ื ื™

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 womanโ€™s marriage contract, due to their interest in not paying for her sustenance. A widow can claim her marriage contract from her deceased husbandโ€™s property, and as long as she does not receive it, her husbandโ€™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 orphansโ€™ property, so that they will not have to pay for her sustenance in the interim. Evidently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that with the exception of these two cases, the court does not collect debts from the property of orphans.

ืื™ืคื•ืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคืกื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 แธคanina is the one who says that it is collected from the superior-quality property of the orphans.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื˜ื•ืขื” ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ื™ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื ื—ื™ืช ืœืขื•ืžืงื™ื” ื“ื“ื™ื ื

Rava said in response: Due to the difficulty created by the contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan here and the statement of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan there, you render Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina mistaken, by attributing an opinion to him that is not the halakha? Wasnโ€™t Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina a judge who delved into the complexities of the halakha?

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชื™ืคื•ืš ื•ืžื–ื™ืง ืฉืื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก

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 Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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,

ืžืžื ืขื™ ื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื™

people will refrain from becoming stewards, fearing that they would incur a financial loss by having to pay for damage caused by the orphansโ€™ animals. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina 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.

ื•ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ื ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื

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 tannaโ€™im.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื ืชื—ืจืฉื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื˜ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืฉื”ืœื›ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ืงื•ืกื ืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื•ืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ื‘ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื™ืŸ

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.

ื ืชืคืงื— ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื ืฉืชืคื” ื”ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœ ื”ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื‘ืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ืžืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ืงื•ืกื ืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื—ื–ืจ ืœืชืžื•ืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ื‘ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืชื•

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.

ืืžืจื• ืžืื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื•ืชื• ื“ืงืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืœื ืžื™ื™ืขื“ ื›ืœืœ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื—ื–ืจ ืœืชืžื•ืชื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“

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.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื•ืชื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื™ืžื•ืชื• ื“ืœื ืžื—ืกืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืืœืžื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื•

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 ownerโ€™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.

ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช ืžืฉื ื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืกื‘ืจ ืจืฉื•ืช ืžืฉื ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืจืฉื•ืช ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉื ื”

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

ยง 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 Yaโ€™akov pays half the cost of the damage.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yaโ€™akov do that he should pay for the damage? Rather, emend the baraita and say: Rabbi Yaโ€™akov says that he pays half the cost of the damage.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ื‘ืชื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ื•ืื™ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœืœ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื ื–ืง ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™

The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If it is with regard to an innocuous ox, isnโ€™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 Yaโ€™akovโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืคื—ื•ืชื” ื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืžืขื•ืœื”

Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Yaโ€™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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืฆื“ ืชืžื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื” ืขื•ืžื“ืช ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืขื“ ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืคื—ื•ืชื”

And Rabbi Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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 oxโ€™s forewarned status. He is liable with respect to the half that he pays due to its remaining element of innocuousness.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื•

And Rabbi Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžื” ืฉืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืคื™ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘

Abaye said to Rava: But do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaโ€™akov not disagree with regard to this matter? But isnโ€™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 Yaโ€™akov says that he pays only half the cost of the damage? Rabba bar Ulla says: There is no disagreement here; Rabbi Yaโ€™akov merely explained what Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to pay.

ื•ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, who says that Rabbi Yaโ€™akov and Rabbi Yehuda disagree, with regard to what principle do they disagree?

ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืœื ื ื˜ืจื™ื” ื›ืœืœ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืฆื“ ืชืžื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื” ืขื•ืžื“ืช ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ืคืœื’ื ื“ืžื•ืขื“

And Rabbi Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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 oxโ€™s element of innocuousness, and pays only the half damages he is liable to pay due to its forewarned status.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืื“ืžื•ืงื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื ื•ืงืžื ื‘ืชื

Rav Aแธฅa 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.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Kamma 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 39

ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื•ื˜ื ื ืฉื›ืจ

that the sinner, i.e., the rapist, should not be rewarded.

ื•ื ืชื‘ื™ื” ืœืขื ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ื

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืคืงื— ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืคืงื— ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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.

ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก

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: โ€œAnd warning has been given to its ownerโ€ (Exodus 21:29).

ื ืชืคืงื— ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื ืฉืชืคื” ื”ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœ ื”ืงื˜ืŸ ื—ื–ืจ ืœืชืžื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืชื•

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.

ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืืฆื˜ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื— ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื’ื™ื—ื•ื”ื•

If a stadium [haโ€™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: โ€œAnd if an ox gores a man or a womanโ€ (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.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื ื’ื•ืคื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจืช ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืคืงื— ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืืœืžื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื ื”ื•ื—ื–ืงื• ื ื’ื—ื ื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื•ื ื’ื— ืœืฉืœื ืžืขืœื™ื™ื”

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.

ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืžืืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก

The Gemara asks: From whose superior-quality property is compensation collected for damage caused by a forewarned ox belonging to minor orphans? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: From the superior-quality property of the orphans. Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina says: From the superior-quality property of the steward.

ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ื ื–ืงืงื™ืŸ ืœื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ืช ืื•ื›ืœืช ื‘ื”ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yoแธฅanan actually say this? But doesnโ€™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 orphansโ€™ father borrowed money from a gentile with interest, the court ensures that the debt is paid from the orphansโ€™ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื• ืœืฉื˜ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื™ืช ืื• ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžื–ื•ื ื™

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 womanโ€™s marriage contract, due to their interest in not paying for her sustenance. A widow can claim her marriage contract from her deceased husbandโ€™s property, and as long as she does not receive it, her husbandโ€™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 orphansโ€™ property, so that they will not have to pay for her sustenance in the interim. Evidently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that with the exception of these two cases, the court does not collect debts from the property of orphans.

ืื™ืคื•ืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคืกื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 แธคanina is the one who says that it is collected from the superior-quality property of the orphans.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื˜ื•ืขื” ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ื™ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื ื—ื™ืช ืœืขื•ืžืงื™ื” ื“ื“ื™ื ื

Rava said in response: Due to the difficulty created by the contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan here and the statement of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan there, you render Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina mistaken, by attributing an opinion to him that is not the halakha? Wasnโ€™t Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina a judge who delved into the complexities of the halakha?

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชื™ืคื•ืš ื•ืžื–ื™ืง ืฉืื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก

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 Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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,

ืžืžื ืขื™ ื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืขืœื™ื™ืช ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื™

people will refrain from becoming stewards, fearing that they would incur a financial loss by having to pay for damage caused by the orphansโ€™ animals. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina 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.

ื•ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ื ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื

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 tannaโ€™im.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื ืชื—ืจืฉื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื˜ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืฉื”ืœื›ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ืงื•ืกื ืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื•ืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ื‘ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื™ืŸ

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.

ื ืชืคืงื— ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื ืฉืชืคื” ื”ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœ ื”ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื‘ืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ืžืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ืงื•ืกื ืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื—ื–ืจ ืœืชืžื•ืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ื‘ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืชื•

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.

ืืžืจื• ืžืื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื•ืชื• ื“ืงืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืœื ืžื™ื™ืขื“ ื›ืœืœ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื—ื–ืจ ืœืชืžื•ืชื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื™ืขื“

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.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื•ืชื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืชืžื™ืžื•ืชื• ื“ืœื ืžื—ืกืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื•ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืืœืžื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื•

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 ownerโ€™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.

ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช ืžืฉื ื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืกื‘ืจ ืจืฉื•ืช ืžืฉื ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืจืฉื•ืช ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉื ื”

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืจ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

ยง 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 Yaโ€™akov pays half the cost of the damage.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yaโ€™akov do that he should pay for the damage? Rather, emend the baraita and say: Rabbi Yaโ€™akov says that he pays half the cost of the damage.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ื‘ืชื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ื•ืื™ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœืœ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื ื–ืง ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™

The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If it is with regard to an innocuous ox, isnโ€™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 Yaโ€™akovโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืคื—ื•ืชื” ื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืžืขื•ืœื”

Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Yaโ€™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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืฆื“ ืชืžื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื” ืขื•ืžื“ืช ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืขื“ ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ืจื” ืคื—ื•ืชื”

And Rabbi Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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 oxโ€™s forewarned status. He is liable with respect to the half that he pays due to its remaining element of innocuousness.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื•

And Rabbi Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ื’ื— ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžื” ืฉืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืคื™ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘

Abaye said to Rava: But do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaโ€™akov not disagree with regard to this matter? But isnโ€™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 Yaโ€™akov says that he pays only half the cost of the damage? Rabba bar Ulla says: There is no disagreement here; Rabbi Yaโ€™akov merely explained what Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to pay.

ื•ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, who says that Rabbi Yaโ€™akov and Rabbi Yehuda disagree, with regard to what principle do they disagree?

ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืœื ื ื˜ืจื™ื” ื›ืœืœ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืฆื“ ืชืžื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื” ืขื•ืžื“ืช ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ืœืชื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžื’ื•ืคื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ืคืœื’ื ื“ืžื•ืขื“

And Rabbi Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™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 oxโ€™s element of innocuousness, and pays only the half damages he is liable to pay due to its forewarned status.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืื“ืžื•ืงื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื ื•ืงืžื ื‘ืชื

Rav Aแธฅa 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.

Scroll To Top