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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 10, 2016 | 讚壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

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

Bava Kamma 40

Study Guide Bava Kamma 40. An animal owned by one who is deaf, not mentally capable or a minor – they are not responsible for the animal. 聽However a guardian is appointed to be in charge. 聽Exactly what he pays and whose money he pays from and in which case is debated. 聽A braita is quoted which says that a guardian is not responsible for paying the ransom fee that one pays if the ox kills a person. 聽a discussion ensues about what is the nature of the ransom payment and can it be derived from a tannaitic debate – is it repentance or compensation for the family of the deceased? 聽Some other questions are raised by Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov and he stumps Rav Nachman on them regarding the nature of the repentance of this ransom payment. 聽Can it be shared by joint owners and if so, how? 聽Can we assume one would take it as seriously as one who is obligated in a sin or guilt offering? 聽2 issues are raised about an animal who is borrowed – one where the borrower thinks he is a but he really was – the law is that they share the full payment (each pays half). 聽And a second case where he became a while he was borrowed but when he is returned to the original owner, he reverts back to being a . 聽The logic behind these halachot are explained in the gemara and the seeming contradiction between the two.

讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 讜诇讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 讻诇诇

There are two scenarios in which the baraita could be interpreted as referring to an innocuous ox. If one wants to interpret it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be discussing a case where he provided reduced safeguarding for it and did not provide superior safeguarding for it. If one wants to interpret it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, it can be discussing a case where he did not provide safeguarding for it at all.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 砖砖诪专谉 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬谉 诇转诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪讙讜驻讜

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox whose owner provided reduced safeguarding for them, he is exempt. The owner is liable only if he did not safeguard them at all. And accordingly, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov teaches us this, that the court appoints stewards for the owners of an innocuous ox to enable the injured party to collect damages from the proceeds of the sale of its body.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转专转讬 讟注诪讗

Ravina said to him that this is what Rava was saying by interpreting Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 statement with regard to a forewarned ox: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov stated one matter containing two elements of reasoning [ta鈥檃ma] in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, namely, that a forewarned ox retains its element of innocuousness, and that reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讛 诪讜注讚 讜谞转驻拽讞 讛讞专砖 讜谞砖转驻讛 讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛讙讚讬诇 讛拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转讜 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛

Ravina himself said a different explanation of the baraita: The practical difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov is with regard to whether a change of custody changes the status of the ox. For example, in a case where the ox was forewarned while in the custody of the steward and subsequently the deaf-mute regained his hearing, or the imbecile became halakhically competent, or the minor reached majority, and the ox returned to its owner鈥檚 custody. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is still in its previous status, the change of custody notwithstanding, and that therefore the owner is liable for the full cost of the damage. By contrast, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that the change of custody changes the status of the ox, which reverts to innocuousness, and so the owner pays only half the cost of the damage.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻住讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻讜驻专

The Sages taught in a baraita: Stewards are liable to pay from their superior-quality property for damage caused by forewarned oxen under their custody, but they do not pay a ransom if the oxen killed a person.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讜讬转诪讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that the purpose of ransom is atonement for the owner of the ox, and that therefore a minor orphan鈥檚 steward is exempt from liability to pay it, as orphans are not subject to the obligation of atonement since they are not morally responsible?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讚诪讬 谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬 诪讝讬拽

Rav 岣sda said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淚f a ransom is imposed upon him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life鈥 (Exodus 21:30), is referring to the monetary value of the injured party. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: The ransom corresponds to the monetary value of the one liable for the damage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讜驻专讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 住讘专 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛

What, do they not disagree with regard to this very issue? In other words, the Rabbis hold that ransom is monetary restitution for the damage caused, and therefore the heirs of the victim must be paid the monetary value of the victim. And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that ransom is atonement for causing the death of a person. Accordingly, the amount of the ransom is the monetary value of the one liable, since, from the perspective of his moral responsibility for the incident, he deserves to pay with his life. Although the court does not impose capital punishment, his atonement is through payment of his own value.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 住讘专 讘讚诪讝讬拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

Rav Pappa said: No, it is possible that according to everyone ransom is atonement, and here they disagree with regard to this issue: The Rabbis hold that we evaluate the amount that is appropriate for atonement according to the monetary value of the injured party, and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that we evaluate it according to the value of the one liable for the damage. All agree that the purpose of the ransom is atonement.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 谞讗诪专讛 砖讬转讛 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 砖讬转讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? Imposing is stated in the later verse: 鈥淚f ransom is imposed upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:30), and imposing is stated in the earlier verse, concerning a person who injures a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry: 鈥淗e shall be punished as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:22). This verbal analogy indicates comparison of the two halakhot: Just as there, with regard to compensation for causing miscarriage, the evaluation is according to the monetary value of the injured party, i.e., the fetus, so too here, the ransom is according to the value of the injured party.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 住讘专 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘

And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall give for the redemption of his life,鈥 indicates that the ransom is redemption of the life of the ox鈥檚 owner, and its amount should accordingly be the owner鈥檚 monetary value.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘 诪讬讛讜 讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

And the Rabbis would respond to this reasoning that indeed, the phrase: 鈥淔or the redemption of his life,鈥 is written, indicating that the purpose of the ransom is redemption of his life. Nevertheless, when we evaluate the amount he is liable to pay, we evaluate it according to the value of the injured party.

诪砖讘讞 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讱 讛讘讬讗讛讜 诇讬讚讬

Rava was praising Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov before Rav Na岣an, saying that he is a great man. Rav Na岣an said to him: When he happens to come to you, bring him to visit me.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻讜驻专

When Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov eventually came to him, Rav Na岣an said to him: Ask me something. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov asked him: If an ox belonging to two partners kills a person, how do they pay the ransom?

诪砖诇诐 讛讗讬 讻讜驻专 讜讛讗讬 讻讜驻专 讻讜驻专 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 讻讜驻专讬谉 讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讜讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

If this partner pays the ransom in full and that partner also pays the ransom in full, it would seem incorrect, as the Merciful One states that one ransom shall be paid, but not two ransoms. If this partner pays half the ransom and that partner pays half the ransom, it would also seem incorrect, as the Merciful One states that a full ransom shall be paid, but not half a ransom.

讗讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬 注专讻讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讻讜驻专讬谉 诪讗讬

While Rav Na岣an was sitting and pondering this question, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov asked him another question. He said to him: We learned in a mishna: The court repossesses property from those liable to pay their valuations who are delaying their payments. But the court does not repossess property from those liable to bring sin-offerings and guilt-offerings; they are relied upon to bring their offerings of their own initiative, as it is assumed they want to atone for their transgressions (Arakhin 21a). In light of this mishna, what is the halakha with regard to those liable to pay ransom?

讻讬讜谉 讚讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讻讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚诪讬 诪讞诪专 讞诪讬专 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 诪砖讻讜谞讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讜讘注讬 诪砖讻讜谞讬讛

Should it be reasoned that since it is atonement, it is similar to the cases of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which a person treats seriously, as it is in his interest to achieve atonement, and therefore the court does not need to repossess property from him? Or perhaps it should be reasoned that since he is required to give the ransom to another person, he considers it a financial liability and does not consider it an obligation toward the Most High, and consequently he does not treat it seriously enough; and therefore the court needs to repossess property from him, as he might not pay it.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讗 诇讗 讞讟讗 讜诪诪讜谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬拽 诇讗 讞诪讬专 诪讬诇转讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讘注讬 诪砖讻讜谞讬讛

Alternatively, it could be reasoned that since he himself did not sin but rather it is his property, i.e., his ox, that caused the damage, he does not treat the matter seriously enough, and therefore the court needs to repossess property from him to ensure payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽谉 讗住转讙专 讘拽诪讬讬转讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: Leave me alone. I am still stuck on the first question and have no solution, so you must not raise further difficult questions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 转诐 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讜注讚 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

The Sages taught: Even though one who borrows an ox from another is generally responsible for damage that it causes, if he borrowed it on the presumption that it was innocuous and it gored and caused damage, and it was then found to be forewarned, the owner pays half the cost of the damage and the borrower pays half the cost of the damage.

讛讜注讚 讘讘讬转 砖讜讗诇 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

If the ox was rendered forewarned in the house of the borrower, i.e., it gored three times while in his possession, and he was warned in court, and he then returned it to the owner and it subsequently gored, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, as with regard to him it is still considered innocuous, having become forewarned while not in his custody, and the borrower is exempt from paying any compensation, since the ox is no longer in his custody.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 转诐 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讜注讚 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 砖讗讬诇讬 讗专讬讗 诇讗 砖讗讬诇讬

The Master said in the baraita: If one borrowed the ox on the presumption that it was innocuous and it was found to be forewarned, the owner pays half the cost of the damage and the borrower pays half the cost of the damage. The Gemara asks: But why should the borrower pay at all? Let him say to the owner: I borrowed an ox; I did not borrow a lion. I did not accept responsibility for safeguarding a forewarned ox, which behaves violently like a lion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛讻讬专 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 谞讙讞谉

Rav said: Here we are dealing with a case where the borrower was aware at the time he borrowed it that it was a goring ox and liable to cause damage.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转诐 砖讗讬诇讬 诪讜注讚 诇讗 砖讗讬诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let him say to the owner: Even though I knew that it was a goring ox, nevertheless, I borrowed an innocuous ox. I did not intend to borrow a forewarned ox and thereby accept responsibility for safeguarding an ox for which one must pay the full cost of its damage.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬 转诐 讛讜讛 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 讘注讬转 砖诇讜诪讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗

The Gemara answers that the borrower is liable because the owner can say to him: Ultimately, even if it was innocuous, you would be required to pay half the damages. Therefore, now too, go pay half the damages.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 转诐 讛讜讛 诪砖转诇诐 诪讙讜驻讜

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let the borrower say to the owner: If it was innocuous, the damages would be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox, not from my property.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗转 诇讗讜 转讜专讗 讘注讬转 砖诇讜诪讬 诇讚讬讚讬

The Gemara answers: The borrower cannot say this, because the owner can say to him: Ultimately, would you not have been required to pay me back the full value of my ox? As a borrower you are obligated to return the ox to me in the same condition that you borrowed it. Even if compensation was collected from the proceeds of its sale you would still have been required to return its full value to me. Therefore, in any event you would effectively be paying for the damage, so you are not losing anything from the fact that the ox is forewarned.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let the borrower say to him:

讗诐 转诐 讛讜讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 讜诪驻讟专讬谞讗

If the ox was innocuous, I would have admitted my liability and would thereby have been exempt. A fine is imposed only as result of the testimony of two witnesses; if the offender admits his liability, no fine is imposed. Therefore, since the liability to pay half the cost of the damage for the act of an innocuous ox is a fine, the borrower could have rendered himself exempt from liability through admission.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 转诐 讛讜讗 讛讜讛 诪注专讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讙诪讗

And even according to the one who says that payment of half the damage is considered monetary restitution, not a fine, and therefore his admission would not have rendered himself exempt from liability, let the borrower say to him: If the ox was innocuous, I would have smuggled it out to the marsh [agma] so that the injured party would not find it in my possession. He would then be unable to collect damages from me, since he can collect payment only from the proceeds of the sale of the ox. By contrast, compensation for damage caused by a forewarned ox can be collected from all of the owner鈥檚 property, and the borrower had no way of render-ing himself exempt from liability. Therefore, it is unclear why the borrower is liable to pay half the cost of the damage.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗拽讚讬诐 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜转驻住讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the court seized the ox first, before the borrower had the chance to admit his liability or to smuggle the ox to the marsh. Therefore, the borrower cannot claim that he would have been able to render himself exempt from liability.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注诇讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转驻住转讬讛 诇转讜专讗讬 讘讬讚讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讛讚专转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讱 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讱 讛讜讜 砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the owner pay half the cost of the damage? Let him say to the borrower: You let my ox be seized by the court, with whom I cannot engage in litigation in an attempt to reach a compromise; the court collects full payment, and you are responsible for this situation. Therefore, you should pay the entire amount. The Gemara answers that the owner is liable to pay because the borrower can say to him: If I would have returned it to you, would the court not have taken it from you?

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讛讚专转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪注专讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讙诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讬讛 讛讜讜 诪砖转诇诪讬

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let the owner say to him in response: If you would have returned it to me I would have smuggled it to the marsh, and the court would not have been able to seize it. The Gemara answers: The owner cannot say this, because the borrower can say to him: Ultimately, would the injured party not then have received payment from your superior-quality property, as is the halakha in the case of a forewarned ox, where the compensation paid is not only from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox?

讛谞讬讞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara comments: This explanation works out well in a case where the owner has other property from which compensation can be collected, besides the ox. But where he does not have other property, what is there to say? In that case, the borrower has in fact caused him loss.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖转注讘讚谞讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪砖转注讘讚谞讗 诇讛讗讬讱 诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara answers: The reason the borrower is exempt is because he can say to the owner: Just as I am indebted to you, to return your ox to you, so too, I am indebted to that injured party to whom you owe compensation. This is due to the ruling of Rabbi Natan.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that if one is owed one hundred dinars by another, and the other person, i.e., the debtor, is owed one hundred dinars by another person, the court appropriates payment from that latter debtor and gives the money directly to this first creditor, without going through the middleman, who is both the first debtor and the second creditor? The verse states, with regard to returning stolen property: 鈥淎nd he gives it to the one with regard to whom he is guilty鈥 (Numbers 5:7), indicating that there is a situation where the liable party pays a third party to whom his creditor owes money in turn.

讛讜注讚 讘讘讬转 砖讜讗诇 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

It is stated at the end of the baraita cited earlier (40a): If the ox was rendered forewarned in the house of the borrower, and the borrower then returned it to the owner and it subsequently gored, the owner pays half the cost of the damage and the borrower is exempt from paying any compensation.

住讬驻讗 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 专讬砖讗 专砖讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: The last clause of that baraita indicates that a change of custody changes the status of the ox; if it was rendered forewarned while in the borrower鈥檚 possession and was then returned to its owner, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage for any subsequent damage it might cause, as it is no longer considered forewarned. By contrast, the first clause of the same baraita, which teaches that the ox retains its status as forewarned even after being borrowed, indicates that a change of custody does not change the status of the ox.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This baraita is disjointed [tavra]. The tanna who taught this clause did not teach that clause.

专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讚专讬砖讗 专砖讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专砖讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜住讬驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讱 讚诪讬讬注讚转 诇讬讛 诇转讜专讗讬

Rabba said: From the fact that the first clause follows the opinion that a change of custody does not change the status of the ox, it is inferred that the last clause also follows the opinion that a change of custody does not change its status. And this is the reason that in the last clause the ox reverts to its status of innocuousness: It is because the owner can say to the borrower: It is not in your power to render my ox forewarned, as I did not give it to you with that intention and it was your negligence that caused the change in its status. Therefore, the owner is not liable to pay additional compensation that results from the status the ox acquired under the custody of the borrower.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 讜专讬砖讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜诇讱 砖诐 讘注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜

Rav Pappa said: From the fact that the last clause follows the opinion that a change of custody changes the status of the ox, it is inferred that the first clause also follows the opinion that a change of custody changes its status. And this is the reason that in the first clause the ox is considered forewarned even when in the custody of the borrower: It is because wherever it goes, the name of its owner is upon it. Since it was rendered forewarned under its owner鈥檚 custody, with whom it remains identified, it is not considered to have undergone a change of custody.

砖讜专 讛讗爪讟讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that a stadium ox is not liable to be put to death, since it was trained to gore. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox kills a person it may not be brought as an offering, even if it is not put to death. If a stadium ox kills a person, what is the halakha with regard to sacrificing it on the altar?

专讘 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 专讘 讗诪专 讻砖专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讛专讬 谞注讘讚 讘讜 注讘讬专讛

Rav says that it is fit to be brought as an offering, and Shmuel says that it is disqualified. Rav says that the ox is fit because it acted due to circumstances beyond its control, as goring is what it was trained to do; and Shmuel says that it is disqualified as, in any event, a transgression was committed through it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讜讘注 讜讗转 讛谞专讘注 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞注讘讚 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞讜讙讞

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita that interprets the verse: 鈥淵ou shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The phrase 鈥渇rom the cattle鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility to be brought as an offering. The phrase 鈥渇rom the herd鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that had been worshipped as a god. 鈥淔rom the flock鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that had been set aside for idol worship. The additional conjunction 鈥渙r,鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r from the flock鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that gores a person, killing him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 谞讗诪专 专讜讘注 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 谞讜讙讞 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 谞讜讙讞 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 专讜讘注

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: If it is stated that an animal that engaged in bestiality is disqualified from being brought as an offering, why is it stated that an animal that gores is disqualified? And if it is stated that an animal that gores is disqualified, why is it stated that an animal that engaged in bestiality is disqualified?

诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘专讜讘注 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜讙讞 讜讬砖 讘谞讜讙讞 砖讗讬谉 讘专讜讘注

He explains: It is because there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that engaged in bestiality that does not pertain to one that gores, and, conversely, there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that gores that does not pertain to an animal that engaged in bestiality.

专讜讘注 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 谞讜讙讞 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 谞讜讙讞 诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 专讜讘注 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 专讜讘注 讜讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 谞讜讙讞

He clarifies: With regard to an animal that engaged in bestiality, the Torah renders a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully, as it is disqualified in either case. By contrast, with regard to an animal that gores, the Torah does not render a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. Conversely, with regard to an animal that gores, its owner pays the ransom; whereas the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality does not pay a ransom. Therefore, the Torah had to state that an animal that engaged in bestiality is disqualified and had to state that an animal that gores is disqualified.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讜讘注 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 谞讜讙讞 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗讜 诇拽专讘谉

The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, the baraita teaches that with regard to an animal that engaged in bestiality, the Torah renders a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. By contrast, with regard to an animal that gores, the Torah does not render a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Is it not with regard to the animal鈥檚 eligibility to be brought as an offering? Accordingly, a stadium ox, which is considered a victim of circumstances beyond its control, is fit to be brought as an offering, contrary to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

诇讗 诇拽讟诇讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is with regard to the animal being put to death, i.e., the ox is not killed if it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽专讘谉 谞讜讙讞 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 诇讗讜 讗讜谞住 讚讬讚讬讛 讻转讬讘 讜诇讗讜 专爪讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇拽讟诇讗

So too, it is reasonable, as if you say that the ruling of the baraita is with regard to the animal鈥檚 eligibility to be brought as an offering, how can the baraita state the following: By contrast, with regard to an animal that gores, the Torah does not render a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. Neither are circumstances beyond its control written in that context, nor is its willingness written; the issue is not mentioned in the Torah at all. Rather, is the ruling of the baraita not stated with regard to the animal being put to death, where this distinction is indicated in the Torah? The mishna interprets the phrase: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores鈥 (Exodus 21:28), as indicating that the ox is not put to death in a case where it is induced to gore; therefore, this distinction is mentioned in the Torah with regard to the animal being put to death. Accordingly, the baraita does not address the topic of dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜讙讞 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 专讜讘注 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚专讘注讛 讜拽讟诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 讘拽专谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 讘专讘讬注讛

The Master said in the same baraita: With regard to an animal that gores, its owner pays the ransom, whereas the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality does not pay a ransom. What are the circumstances under which the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality is not liable to pay the ransom? If we say that it is when the animal engaged in bestiality with a woman and killed her in the process, what is the difference to me whether it killed her with its horn, and what is the difference to me whether it killed her through bestiality?

讜讗诇讗 讚专讘注讛 讜诇讗 拽讟诇讛 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讟诇讛 讛讜讗

And rather, if the baraita is referring to a case where the animal engaged in bestiality with her but did not kill her, in that case, this halakha that he does not pay a ransom is simply due to the fact that it did not kill her, so paying ransom is irrelevant; it is not a feature associated with the halakhot of an animal that engaged in bestiality.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚专讘注讛 讜诇讗 拽讟诇讛 讚讗转讬讜讛 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜拽讟诇讜讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

Abaye said: Actually, it is referring to a case where the animal engaged in bestiality with her but did not kill her, and it is still noteworthy that its owner is not liable to pay ransom, as the woman was brought to court, and they executed her for her transgression. Lest you say

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Kamma 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 40

讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 讜诇讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 讻诇诇

There are two scenarios in which the baraita could be interpreted as referring to an innocuous ox. If one wants to interpret it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be discussing a case where he provided reduced safeguarding for it and did not provide superior safeguarding for it. If one wants to interpret it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, it can be discussing a case where he did not provide safeguarding for it at all.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 砖砖诪专谉 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬谉 诇转诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪讙讜驻讜

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox whose owner provided reduced safeguarding for them, he is exempt. The owner is liable only if he did not safeguard them at all. And accordingly, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov teaches us this, that the court appoints stewards for the owners of an innocuous ox to enable the injured party to collect damages from the proceeds of the sale of its body.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转专转讬 讟注诪讗

Ravina said to him that this is what Rava was saying by interpreting Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 statement with regard to a forewarned ox: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov stated one matter containing two elements of reasoning [ta鈥檃ma] in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, namely, that a forewarned ox retains its element of innocuousness, and that reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讛 诪讜注讚 讜谞转驻拽讞 讛讞专砖 讜谞砖转驻讛 讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛讙讚讬诇 讛拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转讜 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛

Ravina himself said a different explanation of the baraita: The practical difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov is with regard to whether a change of custody changes the status of the ox. For example, in a case where the ox was forewarned while in the custody of the steward and subsequently the deaf-mute regained his hearing, or the imbecile became halakhically competent, or the minor reached majority, and the ox returned to its owner鈥檚 custody. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is still in its previous status, the change of custody notwithstanding, and that therefore the owner is liable for the full cost of the damage. By contrast, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that the change of custody changes the status of the ox, which reverts to innocuousness, and so the owner pays only half the cost of the damage.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻住讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻讜驻专

The Sages taught in a baraita: Stewards are liable to pay from their superior-quality property for damage caused by forewarned oxen under their custody, but they do not pay a ransom if the oxen killed a person.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讜讬转诪讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that the purpose of ransom is atonement for the owner of the ox, and that therefore a minor orphan鈥檚 steward is exempt from liability to pay it, as orphans are not subject to the obligation of atonement since they are not morally responsible?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讚诪讬 谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬 诪讝讬拽

Rav 岣sda said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淚f a ransom is imposed upon him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life鈥 (Exodus 21:30), is referring to the monetary value of the injured party. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: The ransom corresponds to the monetary value of the one liable for the damage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讜驻专讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 住讘专 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛

What, do they not disagree with regard to this very issue? In other words, the Rabbis hold that ransom is monetary restitution for the damage caused, and therefore the heirs of the victim must be paid the monetary value of the victim. And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that ransom is atonement for causing the death of a person. Accordingly, the amount of the ransom is the monetary value of the one liable, since, from the perspective of his moral responsibility for the incident, he deserves to pay with his life. Although the court does not impose capital punishment, his atonement is through payment of his own value.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 住讘专 讘讚诪讝讬拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

Rav Pappa said: No, it is possible that according to everyone ransom is atonement, and here they disagree with regard to this issue: The Rabbis hold that we evaluate the amount that is appropriate for atonement according to the monetary value of the injured party, and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that we evaluate it according to the value of the one liable for the damage. All agree that the purpose of the ransom is atonement.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 谞讗诪专讛 砖讬转讛 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 砖讬转讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? Imposing is stated in the later verse: 鈥淚f ransom is imposed upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:30), and imposing is stated in the earlier verse, concerning a person who injures a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry: 鈥淗e shall be punished as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:22). This verbal analogy indicates comparison of the two halakhot: Just as there, with regard to compensation for causing miscarriage, the evaluation is according to the monetary value of the injured party, i.e., the fetus, so too here, the ransom is according to the value of the injured party.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 住讘专 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘

And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall give for the redemption of his life,鈥 indicates that the ransom is redemption of the life of the ox鈥檚 owner, and its amount should accordingly be the owner鈥檚 monetary value.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘 诪讬讛讜 讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

And the Rabbis would respond to this reasoning that indeed, the phrase: 鈥淔or the redemption of his life,鈥 is written, indicating that the purpose of the ransom is redemption of his life. Nevertheless, when we evaluate the amount he is liable to pay, we evaluate it according to the value of the injured party.

诪砖讘讞 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讱 讛讘讬讗讛讜 诇讬讚讬

Rava was praising Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov before Rav Na岣an, saying that he is a great man. Rav Na岣an said to him: When he happens to come to you, bring him to visit me.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻讜驻专

When Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov eventually came to him, Rav Na岣an said to him: Ask me something. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov asked him: If an ox belonging to two partners kills a person, how do they pay the ransom?

诪砖诇诐 讛讗讬 讻讜驻专 讜讛讗讬 讻讜驻专 讻讜驻专 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 讻讜驻专讬谉 讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讜讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

If this partner pays the ransom in full and that partner also pays the ransom in full, it would seem incorrect, as the Merciful One states that one ransom shall be paid, but not two ransoms. If this partner pays half the ransom and that partner pays half the ransom, it would also seem incorrect, as the Merciful One states that a full ransom shall be paid, but not half a ransom.

讗讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬 注专讻讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讻讜驻专讬谉 诪讗讬

While Rav Na岣an was sitting and pondering this question, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov asked him another question. He said to him: We learned in a mishna: The court repossesses property from those liable to pay their valuations who are delaying their payments. But the court does not repossess property from those liable to bring sin-offerings and guilt-offerings; they are relied upon to bring their offerings of their own initiative, as it is assumed they want to atone for their transgressions (Arakhin 21a). In light of this mishna, what is the halakha with regard to those liable to pay ransom?

讻讬讜谉 讚讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讻讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚诪讬 诪讞诪专 讞诪讬专 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 诪砖讻讜谞讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讜讘注讬 诪砖讻讜谞讬讛

Should it be reasoned that since it is atonement, it is similar to the cases of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which a person treats seriously, as it is in his interest to achieve atonement, and therefore the court does not need to repossess property from him? Or perhaps it should be reasoned that since he is required to give the ransom to another person, he considers it a financial liability and does not consider it an obligation toward the Most High, and consequently he does not treat it seriously enough; and therefore the court needs to repossess property from him, as he might not pay it.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讗 诇讗 讞讟讗 讜诪诪讜谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬拽 诇讗 讞诪讬专 诪讬诇转讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讘注讬 诪砖讻讜谞讬讛

Alternatively, it could be reasoned that since he himself did not sin but rather it is his property, i.e., his ox, that caused the damage, he does not treat the matter seriously enough, and therefore the court needs to repossess property from him to ensure payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽谉 讗住转讙专 讘拽诪讬讬转讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: Leave me alone. I am still stuck on the first question and have no solution, so you must not raise further difficult questions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 转诐 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讜注讚 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

The Sages taught: Even though one who borrows an ox from another is generally responsible for damage that it causes, if he borrowed it on the presumption that it was innocuous and it gored and caused damage, and it was then found to be forewarned, the owner pays half the cost of the damage and the borrower pays half the cost of the damage.

讛讜注讚 讘讘讬转 砖讜讗诇 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

If the ox was rendered forewarned in the house of the borrower, i.e., it gored three times while in his possession, and he was warned in court, and he then returned it to the owner and it subsequently gored, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, as with regard to him it is still considered innocuous, having become forewarned while not in his custody, and the borrower is exempt from paying any compensation, since the ox is no longer in his custody.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 转诐 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讜注讚 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 砖讗讬诇讬 讗专讬讗 诇讗 砖讗讬诇讬

The Master said in the baraita: If one borrowed the ox on the presumption that it was innocuous and it was found to be forewarned, the owner pays half the cost of the damage and the borrower pays half the cost of the damage. The Gemara asks: But why should the borrower pay at all? Let him say to the owner: I borrowed an ox; I did not borrow a lion. I did not accept responsibility for safeguarding a forewarned ox, which behaves violently like a lion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛讻讬专 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 谞讙讞谉

Rav said: Here we are dealing with a case where the borrower was aware at the time he borrowed it that it was a goring ox and liable to cause damage.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转诐 砖讗讬诇讬 诪讜注讚 诇讗 砖讗讬诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let him say to the owner: Even though I knew that it was a goring ox, nevertheless, I borrowed an innocuous ox. I did not intend to borrow a forewarned ox and thereby accept responsibility for safeguarding an ox for which one must pay the full cost of its damage.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬 转诐 讛讜讛 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 讘注讬转 砖诇讜诪讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗

The Gemara answers that the borrower is liable because the owner can say to him: Ultimately, even if it was innocuous, you would be required to pay half the damages. Therefore, now too, go pay half the damages.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 转诐 讛讜讛 诪砖转诇诐 诪讙讜驻讜

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let the borrower say to the owner: If it was innocuous, the damages would be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox, not from my property.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗转 诇讗讜 转讜专讗 讘注讬转 砖诇讜诪讬 诇讚讬讚讬

The Gemara answers: The borrower cannot say this, because the owner can say to him: Ultimately, would you not have been required to pay me back the full value of my ox? As a borrower you are obligated to return the ox to me in the same condition that you borrowed it. Even if compensation was collected from the proceeds of its sale you would still have been required to return its full value to me. Therefore, in any event you would effectively be paying for the damage, so you are not losing anything from the fact that the ox is forewarned.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let the borrower say to him:

讗诐 转诐 讛讜讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 讜诪驻讟专讬谞讗

If the ox was innocuous, I would have admitted my liability and would thereby have been exempt. A fine is imposed only as result of the testimony of two witnesses; if the offender admits his liability, no fine is imposed. Therefore, since the liability to pay half the cost of the damage for the act of an innocuous ox is a fine, the borrower could have rendered himself exempt from liability through admission.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 转诐 讛讜讗 讛讜讛 诪注专讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讙诪讗

And even according to the one who says that payment of half the damage is considered monetary restitution, not a fine, and therefore his admission would not have rendered himself exempt from liability, let the borrower say to him: If the ox was innocuous, I would have smuggled it out to the marsh [agma] so that the injured party would not find it in my possession. He would then be unable to collect damages from me, since he can collect payment only from the proceeds of the sale of the ox. By contrast, compensation for damage caused by a forewarned ox can be collected from all of the owner鈥檚 property, and the borrower had no way of render-ing himself exempt from liability. Therefore, it is unclear why the borrower is liable to pay half the cost of the damage.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗拽讚讬诐 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜转驻住讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the court seized the ox first, before the borrower had the chance to admit his liability or to smuggle the ox to the marsh. Therefore, the borrower cannot claim that he would have been able to render himself exempt from liability.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注诇讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转驻住转讬讛 诇转讜专讗讬 讘讬讚讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讛讚专转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讱 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讱 讛讜讜 砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the owner pay half the cost of the damage? Let him say to the borrower: You let my ox be seized by the court, with whom I cannot engage in litigation in an attempt to reach a compromise; the court collects full payment, and you are responsible for this situation. Therefore, you should pay the entire amount. The Gemara answers that the owner is liable to pay because the borrower can say to him: If I would have returned it to you, would the court not have taken it from you?

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讛讚专转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪注专讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讙诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讬讛 讛讜讜 诪砖转诇诪讬

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, let the owner say to him in response: If you would have returned it to me I would have smuggled it to the marsh, and the court would not have been able to seize it. The Gemara answers: The owner cannot say this, because the borrower can say to him: Ultimately, would the injured party not then have received payment from your superior-quality property, as is the halakha in the case of a forewarned ox, where the compensation paid is not only from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox?

讛谞讬讞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara comments: This explanation works out well in a case where the owner has other property from which compensation can be collected, besides the ox. But where he does not have other property, what is there to say? In that case, the borrower has in fact caused him loss.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖转注讘讚谞讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪砖转注讘讚谞讗 诇讛讗讬讱 诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara answers: The reason the borrower is exempt is because he can say to the owner: Just as I am indebted to you, to return your ox to you, so too, I am indebted to that injured party to whom you owe compensation. This is due to the ruling of Rabbi Natan.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that if one is owed one hundred dinars by another, and the other person, i.e., the debtor, is owed one hundred dinars by another person, the court appropriates payment from that latter debtor and gives the money directly to this first creditor, without going through the middleman, who is both the first debtor and the second creditor? The verse states, with regard to returning stolen property: 鈥淎nd he gives it to the one with regard to whom he is guilty鈥 (Numbers 5:7), indicating that there is a situation where the liable party pays a third party to whom his creditor owes money in turn.

讛讜注讚 讘讘讬转 砖讜讗诇 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注诇讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜砖讜讗诇 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

It is stated at the end of the baraita cited earlier (40a): If the ox was rendered forewarned in the house of the borrower, and the borrower then returned it to the owner and it subsequently gored, the owner pays half the cost of the damage and the borrower is exempt from paying any compensation.

住讬驻讗 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 专讬砖讗 专砖讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: The last clause of that baraita indicates that a change of custody changes the status of the ox; if it was rendered forewarned while in the borrower鈥檚 possession and was then returned to its owner, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage for any subsequent damage it might cause, as it is no longer considered forewarned. By contrast, the first clause of the same baraita, which teaches that the ox retains its status as forewarned even after being borrowed, indicates that a change of custody does not change the status of the ox.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This baraita is disjointed [tavra]. The tanna who taught this clause did not teach that clause.

专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讚专讬砖讗 专砖讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专砖讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜住讬驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讱 讚诪讬讬注讚转 诇讬讛 诇转讜专讗讬

Rabba said: From the fact that the first clause follows the opinion that a change of custody does not change the status of the ox, it is inferred that the last clause also follows the opinion that a change of custody does not change its status. And this is the reason that in the last clause the ox reverts to its status of innocuousness: It is because the owner can say to the borrower: It is not in your power to render my ox forewarned, as I did not give it to you with that intention and it was your negligence that caused the change in its status. Therefore, the owner is not liable to pay additional compensation that results from the status the ox acquired under the custody of the borrower.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专砖讜转 诪砖谞讛 讜专讬砖讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜诇讱 砖诐 讘注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜

Rav Pappa said: From the fact that the last clause follows the opinion that a change of custody changes the status of the ox, it is inferred that the first clause also follows the opinion that a change of custody changes its status. And this is the reason that in the first clause the ox is considered forewarned even when in the custody of the borrower: It is because wherever it goes, the name of its owner is upon it. Since it was rendered forewarned under its owner鈥檚 custody, with whom it remains identified, it is not considered to have undergone a change of custody.

砖讜专 讛讗爪讟讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that a stadium ox is not liable to be put to death, since it was trained to gore. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox kills a person it may not be brought as an offering, even if it is not put to death. If a stadium ox kills a person, what is the halakha with regard to sacrificing it on the altar?

专讘 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 专讘 讗诪专 讻砖专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讛专讬 谞注讘讚 讘讜 注讘讬专讛

Rav says that it is fit to be brought as an offering, and Shmuel says that it is disqualified. Rav says that the ox is fit because it acted due to circumstances beyond its control, as goring is what it was trained to do; and Shmuel says that it is disqualified as, in any event, a transgression was committed through it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讜讘注 讜讗转 讛谞专讘注 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞注讘讚 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞讜讙讞

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita that interprets the verse: 鈥淵ou shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The phrase 鈥渇rom the cattle鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility to be brought as an offering. The phrase 鈥渇rom the herd鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that had been worshipped as a god. 鈥淔rom the flock鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that had been set aside for idol worship. The additional conjunction 鈥渙r,鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r from the flock鈥 is mentioned to exclude an animal that gores a person, killing him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 谞讗诪专 专讜讘注 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 谞讜讙讞 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 谞讜讙讞 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 专讜讘注

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: If it is stated that an animal that engaged in bestiality is disqualified from being brought as an offering, why is it stated that an animal that gores is disqualified? And if it is stated that an animal that gores is disqualified, why is it stated that an animal that engaged in bestiality is disqualified?

诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘专讜讘注 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜讙讞 讜讬砖 讘谞讜讙讞 砖讗讬谉 讘专讜讘注

He explains: It is because there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that engaged in bestiality that does not pertain to one that gores, and, conversely, there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that gores that does not pertain to an animal that engaged in bestiality.

专讜讘注 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 谞讜讙讞 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 谞讜讙讞 诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 专讜讘注 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 专讜讘注 讜讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 谞讜讙讞

He clarifies: With regard to an animal that engaged in bestiality, the Torah renders a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully, as it is disqualified in either case. By contrast, with regard to an animal that gores, the Torah does not render a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. Conversely, with regard to an animal that gores, its owner pays the ransom; whereas the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality does not pay a ransom. Therefore, the Torah had to state that an animal that engaged in bestiality is disqualified and had to state that an animal that gores is disqualified.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讜讘注 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 谞讜讙讞 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗讜 诇拽专讘谉

The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, the baraita teaches that with regard to an animal that engaged in bestiality, the Torah renders a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. By contrast, with regard to an animal that gores, the Torah does not render a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Is it not with regard to the animal鈥檚 eligibility to be brought as an offering? Accordingly, a stadium ox, which is considered a victim of circumstances beyond its control, is fit to be brought as an offering, contrary to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

诇讗 诇拽讟诇讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is with regard to the animal being put to death, i.e., the ox is not killed if it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽专讘谉 谞讜讙讞 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉 诇讗讜 讗讜谞住 讚讬讚讬讛 讻转讬讘 讜诇讗讜 专爪讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇拽讟诇讗

So too, it is reasonable, as if you say that the ruling of the baraita is with regard to the animal鈥檚 eligibility to be brought as an offering, how can the baraita state the following: By contrast, with regard to an animal that gores, the Torah does not render a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. Neither are circumstances beyond its control written in that context, nor is its willingness written; the issue is not mentioned in the Torah at all. Rather, is the ruling of the baraita not stated with regard to the animal being put to death, where this distinction is indicated in the Torah? The mishna interprets the phrase: 鈥淎nd if an ox gores鈥 (Exodus 21:28), as indicating that the ox is not put to death in a case where it is induced to gore; therefore, this distinction is mentioned in the Torah with regard to the animal being put to death. Accordingly, the baraita does not address the topic of dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜讙讞 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 专讜讘注 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚专讘注讛 讜拽讟诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 讘拽专谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 讘专讘讬注讛

The Master said in the same baraita: With regard to an animal that gores, its owner pays the ransom, whereas the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality does not pay a ransom. What are the circumstances under which the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality is not liable to pay the ransom? If we say that it is when the animal engaged in bestiality with a woman and killed her in the process, what is the difference to me whether it killed her with its horn, and what is the difference to me whether it killed her through bestiality?

讜讗诇讗 讚专讘注讛 讜诇讗 拽讟诇讛 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讟诇讛 讛讜讗

And rather, if the baraita is referring to a case where the animal engaged in bestiality with her but did not kill her, in that case, this halakha that he does not pay a ransom is simply due to the fact that it did not kill her, so paying ransom is irrelevant; it is not a feature associated with the halakhot of an animal that engaged in bestiality.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚专讘注讛 讜诇讗 拽讟诇讛 讚讗转讬讜讛 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜拽讟诇讜讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

Abaye said: Actually, it is referring to a case where the animal engaged in bestiality with her but did not kill her, and it is still noteworthy that its owner is not liable to pay ransom, as the woman was brought to court, and they executed her for her transgression. Lest you say

Scroll To Top