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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 15, 2016 | 讟壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

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

Bava Kamma 45

Once the animal is sentenced to death, it is forbidden to benefit from it. 聽Therefore at that point, if one sells it, the sale is invalid and likewise if one dedicates it to the temple, it is not holy and if one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. 聽However before the sentence, all those acts are valid. 聽There is a debate regarding someone watching someone else’s animal and the animal gets sentenced to death – can the one watching it, return it to the owner after the sentence or not? 聽The gemara rejects the option that they are arguing about whether one who steals something that then becomes forbidden can he return the object if does he need to pay the value of it at the time of the sale. 聽The gemara concludes that their argument has to do with whether or not the animal has to appear in court – if he does, then the original owner can blame the watcher for bringing it to court and claim that had he returned it before court, he would have sent the animal away and he never would have been sentenced to death. 聽When it comes to the 4 shomrim who have someone’s animal – what is their level of responsibility?聽A braita is brought and then it is determined according to whose opinion is this braita.聽There is a 4-way argument regarding what level of watching is enough to exempt the owner from damages of a shor tam and a shor muad.Is the halacha the same for both or different?


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

诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 诪讜转专 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘讬转 讘注诇讬讜 诪讜讞讝专

it is considered legally sold and belongs to the purchaser for all purposes. Similarly, if he consecrated it, it is halakhically consecrated, and all the halakhot of consecrated property apply to it. If he slaughtered it, one is permitted to eat its meat. If a bailee charged with safeguarding it returned it to its owner鈥檚 house before the verdict it is considered to be returned, and the owner has no further claim against the bailee.

诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘讬转 讘注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讞讝专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬讜 诪讜讞讝专

By contrast, once its verdict has been issued, if the owner sells it, it is not considered sold, since the ox is no longer his. Similarly, if he consecrates it, it is not considered consecrated. If he slaughters it, its meat is forbidden. If a bailee returns it to its owner鈥檚 house it is not considered to have been returned, since the ox is considered to have been killed. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: Even once its verdict has been issued, if the bailee returns it to its owner it is considered to have been returned.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: The Rabbis hold that with regard to items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit one does not say: That which is yours is before you, and no compensation is required. Once the deposited item was rendered forbidden, the bailee cannot return it as is to its owner, claiming that since it has not been physically damaged he has fulfilled his obligation to return it and therefore the owner has no further claims against him. And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that one does say, with regard to items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit: That which is yours is before you.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞驻诇讜讙 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞

Rabba said: Clearly, according to everyone, one says with regard to items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit: That which is yours is before you; as, if this was the subject of disagreement, let them dispute this matter with regard to leavened bread on Passover, which is a more common case of an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讙讜诪专讬谉 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讜专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讙讜诪专讬谉 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讜专 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讛讚专转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讛讜讛 诪注专拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讙诪讗 讛砖转讗 讗转驻砖转讬讛 诇转讜专讗讬 讘讬讚讗 讚诇讗 讬讻讬诇谞讗 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛

Rather, here they disagree with regard to the matter of issuing the verdict for an ox in its absence. The Rabbis hold that the verdict for an ox can be issued only in its presence. Therefore, the bailee is not exempt by returning it after the verdict, as the owner could say to him: If you had returned the ox to me before the verdict I would have smuggled it to the marsh, and the court would not have been able to sentence it to stoning. Now you have let my ox be seized by the court, with whom I cannot engage in litigation.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讙讜诪专讬谉 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讜专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讬讙诪专 讛讜讜 讙诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that the verdict for an ox can be issued in its absence. Therefore, the bailee is exempt, as he can say to the owner in response to his claim: Ultimately, they would have issued the verdict anyway, so I did not cause your ox to be stoned by not returning it to you before the verdict.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讻诪讬转转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讻讱 诪讬转转 讛砖讜专 诪讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讗祝 砖讜专 讘驻谞讬讜

According to this explanation, what is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that the ox鈥檚 verdict can be issued only in its presence? The verse states: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29), indicating that as the death of the owner, i.e., a person, for killing another person, so is the death of the ox for killing a person. Just as the owner is sentenced to death only in his presence, so too, an ox is sentenced to death only in its presence.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注诇讬诐 讘谞讬 讟注谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖讜专 讘专 讟注谞转讗 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that the owner and the ox cannot be compared. Granted, the owner must be present when the verdict is issued, as people are able to present claims in their defense; but as for an ox, is it capable of presenting claims? Consequently, it makes no difference whether or not the verdict is issued in its presence.

诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇砖讜讗诇 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讛专讙讜 转诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛讻讜驻专 诪讜注讚讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讚诪讬 砖讜专 诇讘注诇讬讜 讞讜抓 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If the ox鈥檚 owner conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, or to a paid bailee, or to a renter, they enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner. The Sages taught: There are four people who enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner, and they are: An unpaid bailee, and a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter. If the oxen killed people while in the possession of one of these people, if the oxen were innocuous at the time they killed, they are killed and the bailees are exempt from paying ransom. If they were forewarned, they are killed and the bailees pay ransom. And regardless if they were innocuous or forewarned, the bailees are liable to return the value of the ox to its owner, with the exception of an unpaid bailee.

讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚谞讟专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 谞讟专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞讬讞讬讬讘

The Sages said: What are the circumstances in which the bailees are liable, with the exception of an unpaid bailee? If he safeguarded the ox appropriately but the ox killed a person anyway, all of the other bailees should also be exempt from reimbursing the owner for the ox and not just an unpaid bailee, as they did everything that was required of them. And if he did not safeguard it properly, even the unpaid bailee should be liable, as he was also required to safeguard it.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讟专讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讟专讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讻诇转讛 诇讜 砖诪讬专转讜 讛谞讱 诇讗 讻诇转讛 砖诪讬专转谉

The Sages said in response: Here we are dealing with a case where the bailee provided reduced safeguarding and did not provide superior safeguarding. In this case the unpaid bailee has fulfilled his safeguarding duties; since he does not receive anything in exchange this level of safeguarding is sufficient. Those other bailees, who have a greater responsibility, have not fulfilled their required level of safeguarding.

讗诪专讬 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Sages said, in clarification of the baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir,

讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬 诇讬转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讻专

who says that a renter is considered like an unpaid bailee with regard to his responsibility for the rented item, let it teach that bailees are liable to compensate the owner, with the exception of an unpaid bailee and a renter.

讜讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 谞讬转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讻讜诇谉 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇注谞讬谉 讻讜驻专

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee, let it teach: With the exception of an unpaid bailee, as it in fact states; but it should also state that in a case where the oxen are forewarned, all of them are exempt with regard to ransom, as Rabbi Yehuda says in the next mishna that a forewarned ox requires only a reduced level of safeguarding. Therefore, this baraita does not appear to be in accordance with the opinion of either tanna.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 住讻讬谉 讜诇注谞讬谉 砖讜讻专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that an ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife; i.e., there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox鈥檚 owner, or in the context of the baraita, the bailee, from liability if the ox causes damage or kills. And with regard to a renter, the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讚诪讞诇讬祝 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜转谞讬 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Abaye said: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; and it is as Rabba bar Avuh reversed the two opinions and taught: How does a renter pay? In other words, what is his degree of responsibility? Rabbi Meir says: Like a paid bailee. Rabbi Yehuda says: Like an unpaid bailee.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪住专 砖讜专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讝拽 驻讟讜专

Rabbi Elazar says: If the owner conveyed his ox to an unpaid bailee, if the ox caused damage, the bailee is liable to pay damages; but if the ox was injured, he is exempt.

讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖诪讬专转 谞讝拽讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讝拽 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖诪讬专转 谞讝拽讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讝讬拽 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专

The Sages said: What are the circumstances? If Rabbi Elazar was referring to a bailee who accepted responsibility upon himself for guarding it from causing damage, even if the ox was injured he should be liable. And if he was referring to a bailee who did not accept responsibility for guarding it from causing damage, even if it causes damage he should be exempt from payment.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖诪讬专转 谞讝拽讬讜 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻讬专 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 谞讙讞谉 讜住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讜诪讝讬拽 讗讞专讬谞讬 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讚讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讗住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛

Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case where he accepted responsibility upon himself for guarding it from causing damage; but here we are dealing with a case where the bailee recognized that the ox was a goring ox, and in that case the normal way of things is that the bailee accepted upon himself responsibility for safeguarding it so that it would not go and injure others, since he knew that it was dangerous. But it presumably did not enter his mind that other oxen would come and injure it. Therefore, he did not accept responsibility for safeguarding against such an occurrence.

诪转谞讬壮 拽砖专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讘诪讜住专讛 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗 讜讛讝讬拽 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: If the ox鈥檚 owner tied it with reins to a fence or locked the gate before it in an appropriate manner, but nevertheless the ox emerged and caused damage, whether the ox is innocuous or forewarned the owner is liable, since this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诐 讞讬讬讘 讜诪讜注讚 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖诪讜专 讛讜讗 讝讛

Rabbi Yehuda says that if the ox is innocuous the owner is liable even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous ox. But if the ox is forewarned, the owner is exempt from paying compensation for damage, as it is stated in the verse describing damage by a forewarned ox: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it鈥 (Exodus 21:36), and this ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate was secured.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 住讻讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer says: An ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife; there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox鈥檚 owner from liability.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转诐 谞讬讞讬讬讘 讚谞讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讙讘讬 诪讜注讚 讚谞讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讜讬诇讬祝 谞讙讬讞讛 诇转诐 谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讜注讚

GEMARA: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? He holds that ordinary oxen are not presumed to be under safeguarding, as their owners do not ordinarily safeguard them; and the Merciful One stated in the Torah that one will be liable even for damage caused by an innocuous ox inasmuch as it requires at least a reduced level of safeguarding, such as with reins. The Merciful One then stated with regard to a forewarned ox: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it,鈥 to indicate that it is not sufficient to provide it with only a reduced level of safeguarding, as it requires superior safeguarding. And Rabbi Meir derives this requirement with regard to an innocuous ox from a verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox. In both cases superior safeguarding is required; otherwise the owner is liable.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转诐 谞砖诇诐 讚谞讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讙讘讬 诪讜注讚 讚谞注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讛讜讬 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讜讗讬谉 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讗诇讗 诇诪注讟 诪讬注讟 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛

By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that ordinary oxen are presumed to be under some reduced level of safeguarding. Since the Merciful One stated nevertheless that even for damage caused by an innocuous ox the owner will pay, it may be inferred that it requires superior safeguarding. The Merciful One then states with regard to a forewarned ox: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it,鈥 emphasizing again that one must provide it with superior safeguarding. This constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that an amplification following an amplification is stated only in order to restrict its extent. Accordingly, the verse excludes the requirement of superior safeguarding with regard to a forewarned ox, and therefore reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner from liability.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讙讬讞讛 诇转诐 谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讜注讚 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专

And if you would say that through the verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox the Torah compares their halakhot, nevertheless, the Merciful One restricted this halakha by emphasizing: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it,鈥 referring specifically to it, a forewarned ox, and not to the other, i.e., innocuous, ox.

讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诇讗讜 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪讜专 诪讗讬 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this phrase necessary for the negative [lav] statement that if the owner does not provide superior safeguarding he is liable? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the Merciful One write: And the owner has not secured. What is the purpose of the added emphasis: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it鈥? It is to indicate that the restriction of this halakha relates specifically to it, a forewarned ox, and not to the other, i.e., innocuous, ox.

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 砖砖诪专讜 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 驻讟讜专

It is taught in a baraita that there is a fourth opinion. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the cases of both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox in which its owner provided reduced safeguarding, he is exempt from liability.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讜注讚 讘砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讜讬诇讬祝 谞讙讬讞讛 诇转诐 讜谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讜注讚

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for his opinion? He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox, and he derives from the verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox that just as reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox, it is sufficient for an innocuous ox as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讗 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 爪讚 讛注讚讗讛 砖讘讜 讗讘诇 爪讚 转诪讜转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Yehuda deemed only the forewarned element of the ox exempt. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling that reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner of a forewarned ox relates only to the additional half of the damage that is paid for a forewarned ox beyond the half of the damage that one is liable to pay for an innocuous ox. But the liability for its element of innocuousness remains in place. Therefore, if the owner did not provide superior safeguarding for the forewarned ox he is still liable to pay half the cost of the damage as he would if it were innocuous.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讜注讚 诇拽专谉 讬诪讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 诇拽专谉 砖诪讗诇

Rav says: If an ox is forewarned with regard to goring with its right horn, it is not thereby forewarned with regard to goring with its left horn.

讗诪专讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讘注讬 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 拽专谉 砖诪讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬诪讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 爪讚 转诪讜转 讜讗讬转 讘讬讛 爪讚 诪讜注讚转

The Sages said: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav鈥檚 statement made? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox require superior safeguarding? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why did he state that the ox still has an innocuous element specifically with regard to the left horn? Even with regard to the right horn itself it has both elements; it has an element of innocuousness and it also has a forewarned element.

讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 讘讬讛 爪讚 转诪讜转 讜诪讜注讚转

The Sages said: Actually, Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava that the ox鈥檚 innocuous element remains. And this is what he is saying: You find an element both of innocuousness and of a forewarned status in the same ox specifically in a case like this, where an ox is forewarned with regard to one horn but not with regard to the other.

  • 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 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 45

诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 诪讜转专 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘讬转 讘注诇讬讜 诪讜讞讝专

it is considered legally sold and belongs to the purchaser for all purposes. Similarly, if he consecrated it, it is halakhically consecrated, and all the halakhot of consecrated property apply to it. If he slaughtered it, one is permitted to eat its meat. If a bailee charged with safeguarding it returned it to its owner鈥檚 house before the verdict it is considered to be returned, and the owner has no further claim against the bailee.

诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪讻专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘讬转 讘注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讞讝专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬讜 诪讜讞讝专

By contrast, once its verdict has been issued, if the owner sells it, it is not considered sold, since the ox is no longer his. Similarly, if he consecrates it, it is not considered consecrated. If he slaughters it, its meat is forbidden. If a bailee returns it to its owner鈥檚 house it is not considered to have been returned, since the ox is considered to have been killed. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: Even once its verdict has been issued, if the bailee returns it to its owner it is considered to have been returned.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: The Rabbis hold that with regard to items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit one does not say: That which is yours is before you, and no compensation is required. Once the deposited item was rendered forbidden, the bailee cannot return it as is to its owner, claiming that since it has not been physically damaged he has fulfilled his obligation to return it and therefore the owner has no further claims against him. And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that one does say, with regard to items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit: That which is yours is before you.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞驻诇讜讙 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞

Rabba said: Clearly, according to everyone, one says with regard to items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit: That which is yours is before you; as, if this was the subject of disagreement, let them dispute this matter with regard to leavened bread on Passover, which is a more common case of an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讙讜诪专讬谉 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讜专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讙讜诪专讬谉 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讜专 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讛讚专转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讛讜讛 诪注专拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讙诪讗 讛砖转讗 讗转驻砖转讬讛 诇转讜专讗讬 讘讬讚讗 讚诇讗 讬讻讬诇谞讗 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛

Rather, here they disagree with regard to the matter of issuing the verdict for an ox in its absence. The Rabbis hold that the verdict for an ox can be issued only in its presence. Therefore, the bailee is not exempt by returning it after the verdict, as the owner could say to him: If you had returned the ox to me before the verdict I would have smuggled it to the marsh, and the court would not have been able to sentence it to stoning. Now you have let my ox be seized by the court, with whom I cannot engage in litigation.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讙讜诪专讬谉 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讜专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讬讙诪专 讛讜讜 讙诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that the verdict for an ox can be issued in its absence. Therefore, the bailee is exempt, as he can say to the owner in response to his claim: Ultimately, they would have issued the verdict anyway, so I did not cause your ox to be stoned by not returning it to you before the verdict.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讻诪讬转转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讻讱 诪讬转转 讛砖讜专 诪讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讗祝 砖讜专 讘驻谞讬讜

According to this explanation, what is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that the ox鈥檚 verdict can be issued only in its presence? The verse states: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29), indicating that as the death of the owner, i.e., a person, for killing another person, so is the death of the ox for killing a person. Just as the owner is sentenced to death only in his presence, so too, an ox is sentenced to death only in its presence.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注诇讬诐 讘谞讬 讟注谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖讜专 讘专 讟注谞转讗 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that the owner and the ox cannot be compared. Granted, the owner must be present when the verdict is issued, as people are able to present claims in their defense; but as for an ox, is it capable of presenting claims? Consequently, it makes no difference whether or not the verdict is issued in its presence.

诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇砖讜讗诇 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讛专讙讜 转诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛讻讜驻专 诪讜注讚讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讚诪讬 砖讜专 诇讘注诇讬讜 讞讜抓 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If the ox鈥檚 owner conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, or to a paid bailee, or to a renter, they enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner. The Sages taught: There are four people who enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner, and they are: An unpaid bailee, and a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter. If the oxen killed people while in the possession of one of these people, if the oxen were innocuous at the time they killed, they are killed and the bailees are exempt from paying ransom. If they were forewarned, they are killed and the bailees pay ransom. And regardless if they were innocuous or forewarned, the bailees are liable to return the value of the ox to its owner, with the exception of an unpaid bailee.

讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚谞讟专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 谞讟专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞讬讞讬讬讘

The Sages said: What are the circumstances in which the bailees are liable, with the exception of an unpaid bailee? If he safeguarded the ox appropriately but the ox killed a person anyway, all of the other bailees should also be exempt from reimbursing the owner for the ox and not just an unpaid bailee, as they did everything that was required of them. And if he did not safeguard it properly, even the unpaid bailee should be liable, as he was also required to safeguard it.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讟专讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讟专讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讻诇转讛 诇讜 砖诪讬专转讜 讛谞讱 诇讗 讻诇转讛 砖诪讬专转谉

The Sages said in response: Here we are dealing with a case where the bailee provided reduced safeguarding and did not provide superior safeguarding. In this case the unpaid bailee has fulfilled his safeguarding duties; since he does not receive anything in exchange this level of safeguarding is sufficient. Those other bailees, who have a greater responsibility, have not fulfilled their required level of safeguarding.

讗诪专讬 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Sages said, in clarification of the baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir,

讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬 诇讬转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讻专

who says that a renter is considered like an unpaid bailee with regard to his responsibility for the rented item, let it teach that bailees are liable to compensate the owner, with the exception of an unpaid bailee and a renter.

讜讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 谞讬转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讻讜诇谉 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇注谞讬谉 讻讜驻专

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee, let it teach: With the exception of an unpaid bailee, as it in fact states; but it should also state that in a case where the oxen are forewarned, all of them are exempt with regard to ransom, as Rabbi Yehuda says in the next mishna that a forewarned ox requires only a reduced level of safeguarding. Therefore, this baraita does not appear to be in accordance with the opinion of either tanna.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 住讻讬谉 讜诇注谞讬谉 砖讜讻专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that an ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife; i.e., there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox鈥檚 owner, or in the context of the baraita, the bailee, from liability if the ox causes damage or kills. And with regard to a renter, the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讚诪讞诇讬祝 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜转谞讬 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Abaye said: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; and it is as Rabba bar Avuh reversed the two opinions and taught: How does a renter pay? In other words, what is his degree of responsibility? Rabbi Meir says: Like a paid bailee. Rabbi Yehuda says: Like an unpaid bailee.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪住专 砖讜专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讝拽 驻讟讜专

Rabbi Elazar says: If the owner conveyed his ox to an unpaid bailee, if the ox caused damage, the bailee is liable to pay damages; but if the ox was injured, he is exempt.

讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖诪讬专转 谞讝拽讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讝拽 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖诪讬专转 谞讝拽讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讝讬拽 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专

The Sages said: What are the circumstances? If Rabbi Elazar was referring to a bailee who accepted responsibility upon himself for guarding it from causing damage, even if the ox was injured he should be liable. And if he was referring to a bailee who did not accept responsibility for guarding it from causing damage, even if it causes damage he should be exempt from payment.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖诪讬专转 谞讝拽讬讜 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻讬专 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 谞讙讞谉 讜住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讜诪讝讬拽 讗讞专讬谞讬 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讚讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讗住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛

Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case where he accepted responsibility upon himself for guarding it from causing damage; but here we are dealing with a case where the bailee recognized that the ox was a goring ox, and in that case the normal way of things is that the bailee accepted upon himself responsibility for safeguarding it so that it would not go and injure others, since he knew that it was dangerous. But it presumably did not enter his mind that other oxen would come and injure it. Therefore, he did not accept responsibility for safeguarding against such an occurrence.

诪转谞讬壮 拽砖专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讘诪讜住专讛 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讬爪讗 讜讛讝讬拽 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: If the ox鈥檚 owner tied it with reins to a fence or locked the gate before it in an appropriate manner, but nevertheless the ox emerged and caused damage, whether the ox is innocuous or forewarned the owner is liable, since this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诐 讞讬讬讘 讜诪讜注讚 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖诪讜专 讛讜讗 讝讛

Rabbi Yehuda says that if the ox is innocuous the owner is liable even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous ox. But if the ox is forewarned, the owner is exempt from paying compensation for damage, as it is stated in the verse describing damage by a forewarned ox: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it鈥 (Exodus 21:36), and this ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate was secured.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 住讻讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer says: An ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife; there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox鈥檚 owner from liability.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转诐 谞讬讞讬讬讘 讚谞讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讙讘讬 诪讜注讚 讚谞讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讜讬诇讬祝 谞讙讬讞讛 诇转诐 谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讜注讚

GEMARA: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? He holds that ordinary oxen are not presumed to be under safeguarding, as their owners do not ordinarily safeguard them; and the Merciful One stated in the Torah that one will be liable even for damage caused by an innocuous ox inasmuch as it requires at least a reduced level of safeguarding, such as with reins. The Merciful One then stated with regard to a forewarned ox: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it,鈥 to indicate that it is not sufficient to provide it with only a reduced level of safeguarding, as it requires superior safeguarding. And Rabbi Meir derives this requirement with regard to an innocuous ox from a verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox. In both cases superior safeguarding is required; otherwise the owner is liable.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转诐 谞砖诇诐 讚谞讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讙讘讬 诪讜注讚 讚谞注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讛讜讬 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讜讗讬谉 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讗诇讗 诇诪注讟 诪讬注讟 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛

By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that ordinary oxen are presumed to be under some reduced level of safeguarding. Since the Merciful One stated nevertheless that even for damage caused by an innocuous ox the owner will pay, it may be inferred that it requires superior safeguarding. The Merciful One then states with regard to a forewarned ox: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it,鈥 emphasizing again that one must provide it with superior safeguarding. This constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that an amplification following an amplification is stated only in order to restrict its extent. Accordingly, the verse excludes the requirement of superior safeguarding with regard to a forewarned ox, and therefore reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner from liability.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讙讬讞讛 诇转诐 谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讜注讚 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专

And if you would say that through the verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox the Torah compares their halakhot, nevertheless, the Merciful One restricted this halakha by emphasizing: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it,鈥 referring specifically to it, a forewarned ox, and not to the other, i.e., innocuous, ox.

讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诇讗讜 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬砖诪讜专 诪讗讬 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this phrase necessary for the negative [lav] statement that if the owner does not provide superior safeguarding he is liable? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the Merciful One write: And the owner has not secured. What is the purpose of the added emphasis: 鈥淎nd the owner has not secured it鈥? It is to indicate that the restriction of this halakha relates specifically to it, a forewarned ox, and not to the other, i.e., innocuous, ox.

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 砖砖诪专讜 砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 驻讟讜专

It is taught in a baraita that there is a fourth opinion. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the cases of both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox in which its owner provided reduced safeguarding, he is exempt from liability.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讜注讚 讘砖诪讬专讛 驻讞讜转讛 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讜讬诇讬祝 谞讙讬讞讛 诇转诐 讜谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讜注讚

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for his opinion? He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox, and he derives from the verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox that just as reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox, it is sufficient for an innocuous ox as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讗 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 爪讚 讛注讚讗讛 砖讘讜 讗讘诇 爪讚 转诪讜转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Yehuda deemed only the forewarned element of the ox exempt. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling that reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner of a forewarned ox relates only to the additional half of the damage that is paid for a forewarned ox beyond the half of the damage that one is liable to pay for an innocuous ox. But the liability for its element of innocuousness remains in place. Therefore, if the owner did not provide superior safeguarding for the forewarned ox he is still liable to pay half the cost of the damage as he would if it were innocuous.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讜注讚 诇拽专谉 讬诪讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 诇拽专谉 砖诪讗诇

Rav says: If an ox is forewarned with regard to goring with its right horn, it is not thereby forewarned with regard to goring with its left horn.

讗诪专讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讜注讚 砖诪讬专讛 诪注讜诇讛 讘注讬 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 拽专谉 砖诪讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬诪讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 爪讚 转诪讜转 讜讗讬转 讘讬讛 爪讚 诪讜注讚转

The Sages said: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav鈥檚 statement made? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox require superior safeguarding? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why did he state that the ox still has an innocuous element specifically with regard to the left horn? Even with regard to the right horn itself it has both elements; it has an element of innocuousness and it also has a forewarned element.

讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 讘讬讛 爪讚 转诪讜转 讜诪讜注讚转

The Sages said: Actually, Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava that the ox鈥檚 innocuous element remains. And this is what he is saying: You find an element both of innocuousness and of a forewarned status in the same ox specifically in a case like this, where an ox is forewarned with regard to one horn but not with regard to the other.

Scroll To Top