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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 17, 2016 | 讬状讗 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 47

A pregnant cow damages but it is unclear if the calf was born before or after it damaged, the mishna says that half is paid from the cow and half from the calf. This doesn’t make sense as the owner of the damaged animal will get 3/4 instead of half damages! 聽Abaye and Rava each interpret the meaning of the mishna in different ways. 聽 If someone places items in someone else’s property with or without permission and it damages or gets damaged – what is the law? 聽If he gets permission to leave it their, the rabbis understand that the owner of the property accepted responsibility to watch the item. 聽Rebbi disagrees and says unless he explicitly said he would watch it, he has not accepted responsibility聽of a shomer. 聽If fruits are left without permission and the animal gets damaged from eating them, Rav thinks the owner who left the fruits is not responsible (he is only responsible if the animal tripped) because the fruit owner can say, “What were you doing eating my fruits?” 聽Rav’s opinion is questioned by Rav Sheshet based on a braita.

诇讬转讗 诇驻专讛 诪砖转诇诐 专讘讬注 谞讝拽 诪讜诇讚

if the cow is not here, e.g., it went astray, only one-quarter of the cost of the damage is reimbursed from the offspring.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讜诇讚 讘讛讚讛 讻讬 谞讙讞讛 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讘诇 讗讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇谉 讚讛讜讛 讜诇讚 讘讛讚讛 讻讬 谞讙讞讛 诪砖转诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讜诇讚

The Gemara infers: According to Rava, the reason for paying only one-quarter of the cost of the damage is that we do not know if the offspring was with it, as a fetus, when the cow gored or whether it was not. But if it is obvious to us that the offspring was with it as a fetus when it gored, the full amount of half the cost of the damage may be reimbursed from the offspring if the cow is not there.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 驻专讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讜诇讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讛 讛讬讗 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪讘讬爪转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讬专砖讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara comments: In this respect, Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava says: In the case of a cow that caused damage while pregnant, the injured party collects compensation from its offspring, i.e., the offspring that had been a fetus at the time of the goring. What is the reason? It is because it is considered an integral part of its body and therefore may be used to collect payment. By contrast, in the case of a hen that caused damage, the injured party does not collect compensation from its egg. Payment can be collected only from the body of the hen. What is the reason? The egg is simply a secretion and not an integral part of the hen鈥檚 body.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇驻专讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诇讜诇讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 诇讜诇讚 注诇 讙讘 驻专讛 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪讻讞讬砖 讗转 讛诪讝讬拽

And Rava also says: When assessing the damage inflicted by a goring ox on a cow whose newborn calf is found dead by its side, the court does not appraise the damage to the cow by itself and the damage to the offspring by itself. Rather, the court appraises the offspring together with the cow and evaluates the overall damage inflicted on the pregnant cow, which will be slightly less than it would be with two separate evaluations. The reason for this is that if you do not say this, you will be found to have ultimately weakened the one liable for damage by inflicting a loss on him, as the market value of a newborn calf is greater than the difference in market value between a pregnant cow and one that is not pregnant.

讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘拽讜讟注 讬讚 注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘诪讝讬拽 砖讚讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

And similarly, you find this principle in a case where someone severed the hand of another鈥檚 slave. The difference in value between a slave with a hand and a slave without a hand is assessed, rather than determining how much money the owner would request in exchange for allowing the hand of his slave to be cut off. And similarly, you also find this principle in a case of one who causes damage to part of another鈥檚 field. The court appraises not the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, but the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬讻讞讜砖 诪讝讬拽

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The main reason invoked by Rava is that otherwise you will be found to have ultimately weakened the one liable for damage. But if this is the halakha of assessing the damage, then let the one liable for damage be weakened by losing money.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专讛 诪注讘专转讗 讗讝讬拽转讱 驻专讛 诪注讘专转讗 砖讬讬诪谞讗 诇讱

Rav Ashi answered: This is because the one liable for damage can say to him: I caused damage to you through injuring a pregnant cow, and so I am assessing the value of a pregnant cow for you. Therefore, it is not correct to evaluate separately the damage to the cow and the damage to the offspring.

驻砖讬讟讗 驻专讛 讚讞讚 讜讜诇讚 讚讞讚 驻讬讟诪讗 诇讘注诇 驻专讛 谞驻讞讗 诪讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 驻专讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讞讜诇拽讬谉

The Gemara raises a question: It is obvious that in a case where the cow belonged to one person and the offspring belonged to another that the compensation for the cow鈥檚 loss of fat is paid to the owner of the cow. The additional value that the cow had due to the fact that it was fatter due to the pregnancy is paid to the owner of the cow. The question is: What is the halakha concerning the cow鈥檚 bulk? There is an increase in value of a pregnant cow that it is attributed to its improved appearance, which results from its carrying a fetus. Who is considered the injured party with regard to that sum? Rav Pappa said: This too belongs to the owner of the cow, whereas Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: They divide the restitution. And the halakha is that they divide the restitution.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讚专 砖讛讻谞讬住 拽讚专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜砖讘专讛 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 讘注诇 讛拽讚专讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In the case of a potter who brought his pots into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the homeowner鈥檚 animal broke the pots, the homeowner is exempt. If the owner鈥檚 animal was injured by the pots, the owner of the pots is liable. But if the potter brought them inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable if his animal caused damage to the pots.

讛讻谞讬住 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇转谉 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 讘注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘

Similarly, if someone brought his produce into the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the homeowner鈥檚 animal ate them, the homeowner is exempt. If his animal was injured by them, e.g., if it slipped on them, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought his produce inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused by his animal to them.

讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗

Similarly, if one brought his ox into the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without

讘专砖讜转 讜谞讙讞讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 谞讙讞 讛讜讗 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专讜 讜讛讘讗讬砖 诪讬诪讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘谞讜 诇转讜讻讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘

permission, and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored it or the homeowner鈥檚 dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. If it gored the homeowner鈥檚 ox, the owner of the goring ox is liable. Furthermore, if the ox that he brought into the courtyard without permission fell into the owner鈥檚 pit and contaminated its water, the owner of the ox is liable to pay compensation for despoiling the water. If the homeowner鈥檚 father or son were inside the pit at the time the ox fell and the person died as a result, the owner of the ox pays the ransom. But if he brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇砖诪讜专

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The homeowner is not liable in any of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, unless he explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗 讘专砖讜转 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 拽讚讬专讜转 讘谞讝拽讬 讘讛诪转讜 讚讘注诇 讞爪专 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘讬诇 讘注诇 拽讚讬专讜转 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讘讛诪转讜 讚讘注诇 讞爪专

GEMARA: From the first case of the mishna, it can be inferred that the reason the potter is liable is that he brought his pots into another鈥檚 courtyard without permission. But if he brought them in with permission, the potter would not be liable for damage caused to the courtyard owner鈥檚 animal; and we do not say that the potter accepted responsibility for the safeguarding of the courtyard owner鈥檚 animal from his own pots.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says at the conclusion of the mishna that any case where permission is granted to allow an item into one鈥檚 premises without specification, i.e., without an explicit agreement as to who is responsible for safeguarding the item, it is assumed that with regard to each party, he has not accepted upon himself the responsibility of safeguarding the item. Therefore, the potter who received permission to bring his pots into the owner鈥檚 courtyard similarly did not accept responsibility to safeguard against damage to the property of the owner of the courtyard.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘住转诪讗 谞诪讬 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

But say the latter clause: If the potter brought them into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable. In this case, we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and say that, even in a case where permission is granted to allow an item into one鈥檚 premises with-out specification, where the owner merely said he could bring them into the courtyard, the homeowner accepts upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the items to ensure that they are not damaged, as well.

讜转讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

And furthermore, the end of the mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the owner of the courtyard is not liable in any of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, unless the homeowner explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them. Therefore, it emerges that the first clause and the last clause of the mishna are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but the middle clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Is this a reasonable way to read the mishna?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讘专砖讜转 砖诪讬专转 拽讚讬专讜转 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讘专讜 讘专讜讞

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira said: This mishna is disjointed and doesn鈥檛 follow a single opinion. Rather, the one who taught this clause of the mishna did not teach that clause of the mishna. Rava said: The beginning of the mishna is entirely in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. In the case where the potter received permission to place his pots there, the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility upon himself for the safeguarding of the pots, and even to the extent that if the pots broke due to the wind, he would be liable. The owner of the pots, by contrast, did not accept any responsibility to ensure that his items would not cause damage.

讛讻谞讬住 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

搂 The mishna teaches: If he brought his produce into the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the owner鈥檚 animal was injured by the produce, he is liable. Rav says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the animal slipped on it and fell, but if it ate from the produce and was injured, he is exempt. What is the reason? The animal should not have eaten it, and it was not the owner of the fruit who acted improperly but the animal itself.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 住诐 讛诪讜转 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐 住诐 讛诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讗讘诇 驻讬专讜转 讚注讘讬讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

Rav Sheshet said: I say that Rav stated this halakha while dozing and lying down, and it is not entirely precise, as it is taught in a baraita: One who places poison before another鈥檚 animal is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. From the above statement, it may be inferred that it is specifically where he put poison before the animal that he is exempt, since it is not suitable for eating. But if he put produce before it, which is suitable for eating, and the animal dies from eating it, he is also liable according to human laws. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: But why is he liable? Here also Rav鈥檚 logic can be invoked, that the animal should not have eaten it. Therefore, this baraita poses a difficulty for Rav.

讗诪专讬 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 住诐 讛诪讜转 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐

In order to explain Rav鈥檚 statement, the Sages said: The same is true, that even if the animal was injured by eating the produce, he would also be exempt according to human laws, and this baraita teaches us this, that even in the case of poison, which is not suitable for eating, the one who placed the poison before the animal is liable according to the laws of Heaven.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住诐 讛诪讜转 谞诪讬 讘讗驻专讝转讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 驻讬专讬

And if you wish, say instead that the case where the baraita exempts from liability according to human laws the one who placed poison before the animal is referring to an item suitable for eating as well, such as afrazta, a type of herb that appears edible for animals but is actually poisonous. Therefore, this herb is halakhically equivalent to any other produce for which he is exempt from liability according to human laws, since, as Rav explained, the animal should not have eaten it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讟讞讜谉 讞讟讬诐 讗爪诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇转谉 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讞讬讬讘转 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from a baraita: In the case of a woman who entered the house of a homeowner without permission in order to grind wheat, and the homeowner鈥檚 animal ate the wheat, he is exempt. Moreover, if the homeowner鈥檚 animal was injured by the wheat, the woman is liable. Now according to Rav鈥檚 explanation, why is she liable? Let us say here as well that the animal should not have eaten it.

讗诪专讬 讜诪讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘讛谉

In order to explain Rav鈥檚 statement, the Sages said: What is the difficulty here? Is this baraita preferable to the mishna that we interpreted as a scenario where the animal slipped on the produce? Similarly, the baraita is also referring to a case where the animal was injured by slipping on the wheat, not by eating it.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘讛谉 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And he who asked it, why did he ask it? This answer seems obvious. The Gemara answers: The questioner could have said to you: Granted, the mishna that teaches: If it is injured by them [bahen], is referring to a case where the animal slipped on them [bahen]. But here in the baraita it teaches the phrase: If it is injured, and it does not teach the additional term: Bahen. Since this case is immediately preceded by the case of: And the owner鈥檚 animal ate them, it is reasonable to surmise that when the baraita teaches the case of the animal being injured, the injury is due to eating.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara notes: And the other one, i.e., the one who provided the answer, could have said to you in response: There is no difference whether it states: It was injured, or: It was injured by them, as in both cases the injury can be explained as resulting from slipping and not from eating.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇 讞讟讬谉 讜讛转专讬讝 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讬讗讻诇

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the ox ate wheat belonging to the homeowner and consequently was stricken with diarrhea and died, then the homeowner is exempt. But if the ox鈥檚 owner brought it into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable. The Gemara comments: Why, in the latter case, is the owner liable for the damage to the ox? Shouldn鈥檛 the assertion: The ox shouldn鈥檛 have eaten it, be invoked, and any injury that follows is the responsibility of the ox鈥檚 owner?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专砖讜转 讗砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 拽专诪讬转 讘专砖讜转 砖诪讬专转 砖讜专讜 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞谞拽 讗转 注爪诪讜

Rava said in response: Are you raising a contradiction from a case with permission and applying it against a case without permission? There is no difficulty here, since in the case where the ox鈥檚 owner brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the homeowner thereby accepted responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against any damage to the other鈥檚 ox. And even if the ox strangled itself, he would still be liable.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诪讛讜 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚注诇诪讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where the owner of the courtyard accepted upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the items entering his premises, what is the halakha? Did he accept upon himself only the responsibility of safeguarding himself and his animals from causing damage? Or, perhaps he even accepted responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against all forms of damage that originate from the outside.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 住讬诪讜谉 讘谞讝拽讬谉 讚讘讬 拽专谞讗 讛讻谞讬住 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讘讗 砖讜专 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讗讻诇谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗谉 驻讟讜专 讜诪讗谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讞爪专 [讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讞爪专]

Come and hear a solution based on that which Rav Yehuda bar Simon taught in the tractate of Nezikin from the school of Karna: If one brought his produce into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and an ox came from elsewhere and ate it, he is exempt. But if one brought the produce into the courtyard with permission, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: Who is the phrase: He is exempt, referring to, and who is the phrase: He is liable, referring to? Does it not mean that the owner of the courtyard is exempt and the owner of the courtyard is liable? This would indicate that by granting permission for the produce to be brought in, he accepts responsibility to safeguard against other damage as well, such as that caused by another ox entering from the outside.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛砖讜专

In response, they said that this interpretation should be rejected: No, it means that the owner of the ox that causes damage is exempt, and the owner of the ox is liable.

讜讗讬 讘注诇 讛砖讜专

The Gemara asks: But if it is referring to the owner of the ox,

  • 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 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 47

诇讬转讗 诇驻专讛 诪砖转诇诐 专讘讬注 谞讝拽 诪讜诇讚

if the cow is not here, e.g., it went astray, only one-quarter of the cost of the damage is reimbursed from the offspring.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讜诇讚 讘讛讚讛 讻讬 谞讙讞讛 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讘诇 讗讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇谉 讚讛讜讛 讜诇讚 讘讛讚讛 讻讬 谞讙讞讛 诪砖转诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讜诇讚

The Gemara infers: According to Rava, the reason for paying only one-quarter of the cost of the damage is that we do not know if the offspring was with it, as a fetus, when the cow gored or whether it was not. But if it is obvious to us that the offspring was with it as a fetus when it gored, the full amount of half the cost of the damage may be reimbursed from the offspring if the cow is not there.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 驻专讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讜诇讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讛 讛讬讗 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪讘讬爪转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讬专砖讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara comments: In this respect, Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava says: In the case of a cow that caused damage while pregnant, the injured party collects compensation from its offspring, i.e., the offspring that had been a fetus at the time of the goring. What is the reason? It is because it is considered an integral part of its body and therefore may be used to collect payment. By contrast, in the case of a hen that caused damage, the injured party does not collect compensation from its egg. Payment can be collected only from the body of the hen. What is the reason? The egg is simply a secretion and not an integral part of the hen鈥檚 body.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇驻专讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诇讜诇讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 诇讜诇讚 注诇 讙讘 驻专讛 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪讻讞讬砖 讗转 讛诪讝讬拽

And Rava also says: When assessing the damage inflicted by a goring ox on a cow whose newborn calf is found dead by its side, the court does not appraise the damage to the cow by itself and the damage to the offspring by itself. Rather, the court appraises the offspring together with the cow and evaluates the overall damage inflicted on the pregnant cow, which will be slightly less than it would be with two separate evaluations. The reason for this is that if you do not say this, you will be found to have ultimately weakened the one liable for damage by inflicting a loss on him, as the market value of a newborn calf is greater than the difference in market value between a pregnant cow and one that is not pregnant.

讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘拽讜讟注 讬讚 注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘诪讝讬拽 砖讚讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

And similarly, you find this principle in a case where someone severed the hand of another鈥檚 slave. The difference in value between a slave with a hand and a slave without a hand is assessed, rather than determining how much money the owner would request in exchange for allowing the hand of his slave to be cut off. And similarly, you also find this principle in a case of one who causes damage to part of another鈥檚 field. The court appraises not the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, but the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讬讻讞讜砖 诪讝讬拽

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The main reason invoked by Rava is that otherwise you will be found to have ultimately weakened the one liable for damage. But if this is the halakha of assessing the damage, then let the one liable for damage be weakened by losing money.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专讛 诪注讘专转讗 讗讝讬拽转讱 驻专讛 诪注讘专转讗 砖讬讬诪谞讗 诇讱

Rav Ashi answered: This is because the one liable for damage can say to him: I caused damage to you through injuring a pregnant cow, and so I am assessing the value of a pregnant cow for you. Therefore, it is not correct to evaluate separately the damage to the cow and the damage to the offspring.

驻砖讬讟讗 驻专讛 讚讞讚 讜讜诇讚 讚讞讚 驻讬讟诪讗 诇讘注诇 驻专讛 谞驻讞讗 诪讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 驻专讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讞讜诇拽讬谉

The Gemara raises a question: It is obvious that in a case where the cow belonged to one person and the offspring belonged to another that the compensation for the cow鈥檚 loss of fat is paid to the owner of the cow. The additional value that the cow had due to the fact that it was fatter due to the pregnancy is paid to the owner of the cow. The question is: What is the halakha concerning the cow鈥檚 bulk? There is an increase in value of a pregnant cow that it is attributed to its improved appearance, which results from its carrying a fetus. Who is considered the injured party with regard to that sum? Rav Pappa said: This too belongs to the owner of the cow, whereas Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: They divide the restitution. And the halakha is that they divide the restitution.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讚专 砖讛讻谞讬住 拽讚专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜砖讘专讛 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 讘注诇 讛拽讚专讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In the case of a potter who brought his pots into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the homeowner鈥檚 animal broke the pots, the homeowner is exempt. If the owner鈥檚 animal was injured by the pots, the owner of the pots is liable. But if the potter brought them inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable if his animal caused damage to the pots.

讛讻谞讬住 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇转谉 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 讘注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘

Similarly, if someone brought his produce into the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the homeowner鈥檚 animal ate them, the homeowner is exempt. If his animal was injured by them, e.g., if it slipped on them, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought his produce inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused by his animal to them.

讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗

Similarly, if one brought his ox into the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without

讘专砖讜转 讜谞讙讞讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 谞讙讞 讛讜讗 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专讜 讜讛讘讗讬砖 诪讬诪讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘谞讜 诇转讜讻讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘

permission, and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored it or the homeowner鈥檚 dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. If it gored the homeowner鈥檚 ox, the owner of the goring ox is liable. Furthermore, if the ox that he brought into the courtyard without permission fell into the owner鈥檚 pit and contaminated its water, the owner of the ox is liable to pay compensation for despoiling the water. If the homeowner鈥檚 father or son were inside the pit at the time the ox fell and the person died as a result, the owner of the ox pays the ransom. But if he brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇砖诪讜专

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The homeowner is not liable in any of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, unless he explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗 讘专砖讜转 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 拽讚讬专讜转 讘谞讝拽讬 讘讛诪转讜 讚讘注诇 讞爪专 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘讬诇 讘注诇 拽讚讬专讜转 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讘讛诪转讜 讚讘注诇 讞爪专

GEMARA: From the first case of the mishna, it can be inferred that the reason the potter is liable is that he brought his pots into another鈥檚 courtyard without permission. But if he brought them in with permission, the potter would not be liable for damage caused to the courtyard owner鈥檚 animal; and we do not say that the potter accepted responsibility for the safeguarding of the courtyard owner鈥檚 animal from his own pots.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says at the conclusion of the mishna that any case where permission is granted to allow an item into one鈥檚 premises without specification, i.e., without an explicit agreement as to who is responsible for safeguarding the item, it is assumed that with regard to each party, he has not accepted upon himself the responsibility of safeguarding the item. Therefore, the potter who received permission to bring his pots into the owner鈥檚 courtyard similarly did not accept responsibility to safeguard against damage to the property of the owner of the courtyard.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘住转诪讗 谞诪讬 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

But say the latter clause: If the potter brought them into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable. In this case, we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and say that, even in a case where permission is granted to allow an item into one鈥檚 premises with-out specification, where the owner merely said he could bring them into the courtyard, the homeowner accepts upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the items to ensure that they are not damaged, as well.

讜转讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

And furthermore, the end of the mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the owner of the courtyard is not liable in any of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, unless the homeowner explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them. Therefore, it emerges that the first clause and the last clause of the mishna are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but the middle clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Is this a reasonable way to read the mishna?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讘专砖讜转 砖诪讬专转 拽讚讬专讜转 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讘专讜 讘专讜讞

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira said: This mishna is disjointed and doesn鈥檛 follow a single opinion. Rather, the one who taught this clause of the mishna did not teach that clause of the mishna. Rava said: The beginning of the mishna is entirely in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. In the case where the potter received permission to place his pots there, the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility upon himself for the safeguarding of the pots, and even to the extent that if the pots broke due to the wind, he would be liable. The owner of the pots, by contrast, did not accept any responsibility to ensure that his items would not cause damage.

讛讻谞讬住 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

搂 The mishna teaches: If he brought his produce into the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the owner鈥檚 animal was injured by the produce, he is liable. Rav says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the animal slipped on it and fell, but if it ate from the produce and was injured, he is exempt. What is the reason? The animal should not have eaten it, and it was not the owner of the fruit who acted improperly but the animal itself.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 住诐 讛诪讜转 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐 住诐 讛诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讗讘诇 驻讬专讜转 讚注讘讬讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

Rav Sheshet said: I say that Rav stated this halakha while dozing and lying down, and it is not entirely precise, as it is taught in a baraita: One who places poison before another鈥檚 animal is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. From the above statement, it may be inferred that it is specifically where he put poison before the animal that he is exempt, since it is not suitable for eating. But if he put produce before it, which is suitable for eating, and the animal dies from eating it, he is also liable according to human laws. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: But why is he liable? Here also Rav鈥檚 logic can be invoked, that the animal should not have eaten it. Therefore, this baraita poses a difficulty for Rav.

讗诪专讬 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 住诐 讛诪讜转 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐

In order to explain Rav鈥檚 statement, the Sages said: The same is true, that even if the animal was injured by eating the produce, he would also be exempt according to human laws, and this baraita teaches us this, that even in the case of poison, which is not suitable for eating, the one who placed the poison before the animal is liable according to the laws of Heaven.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住诐 讛诪讜转 谞诪讬 讘讗驻专讝转讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 驻讬专讬

And if you wish, say instead that the case where the baraita exempts from liability according to human laws the one who placed poison before the animal is referring to an item suitable for eating as well, such as afrazta, a type of herb that appears edible for animals but is actually poisonous. Therefore, this herb is halakhically equivalent to any other produce for which he is exempt from liability according to human laws, since, as Rav explained, the animal should not have eaten it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讟讞讜谉 讞讟讬诐 讗爪诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇转谉 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讞讬讬讘转 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from a baraita: In the case of a woman who entered the house of a homeowner without permission in order to grind wheat, and the homeowner鈥檚 animal ate the wheat, he is exempt. Moreover, if the homeowner鈥檚 animal was injured by the wheat, the woman is liable. Now according to Rav鈥檚 explanation, why is she liable? Let us say here as well that the animal should not have eaten it.

讗诪专讬 讜诪讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘讛谉

In order to explain Rav鈥檚 statement, the Sages said: What is the difficulty here? Is this baraita preferable to the mishna that we interpreted as a scenario where the animal slipped on the produce? Similarly, the baraita is also referring to a case where the animal was injured by slipping on the wheat, not by eating it.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘讛谉 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And he who asked it, why did he ask it? This answer seems obvious. The Gemara answers: The questioner could have said to you: Granted, the mishna that teaches: If it is injured by them [bahen], is referring to a case where the animal slipped on them [bahen]. But here in the baraita it teaches the phrase: If it is injured, and it does not teach the additional term: Bahen. Since this case is immediately preceded by the case of: And the owner鈥檚 animal ate them, it is reasonable to surmise that when the baraita teaches the case of the animal being injured, the injury is due to eating.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara notes: And the other one, i.e., the one who provided the answer, could have said to you in response: There is no difference whether it states: It was injured, or: It was injured by them, as in both cases the injury can be explained as resulting from slipping and not from eating.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇 讞讟讬谉 讜讛转专讬讝 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讬讗讻诇

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the ox ate wheat belonging to the homeowner and consequently was stricken with diarrhea and died, then the homeowner is exempt. But if the ox鈥檚 owner brought it into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable. The Gemara comments: Why, in the latter case, is the owner liable for the damage to the ox? Shouldn鈥檛 the assertion: The ox shouldn鈥檛 have eaten it, be invoked, and any injury that follows is the responsibility of the ox鈥檚 owner?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专砖讜转 讗砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 拽专诪讬转 讘专砖讜转 砖诪讬专转 砖讜专讜 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞谞拽 讗转 注爪诪讜

Rava said in response: Are you raising a contradiction from a case with permission and applying it against a case without permission? There is no difficulty here, since in the case where the ox鈥檚 owner brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the homeowner thereby accepted responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against any damage to the other鈥檚 ox. And even if the ox strangled itself, he would still be liable.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诪讛讜 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚注诇诪讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where the owner of the courtyard accepted upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the items entering his premises, what is the halakha? Did he accept upon himself only the responsibility of safeguarding himself and his animals from causing damage? Or, perhaps he even accepted responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against all forms of damage that originate from the outside.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 住讬诪讜谉 讘谞讝拽讬谉 讚讘讬 拽专谞讗 讛讻谞讬住 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讘讗 砖讜专 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讗讻诇谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗谉 驻讟讜专 讜诪讗谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讞爪专 [讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讞爪专]

Come and hear a solution based on that which Rav Yehuda bar Simon taught in the tractate of Nezikin from the school of Karna: If one brought his produce into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and an ox came from elsewhere and ate it, he is exempt. But if one brought the produce into the courtyard with permission, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: Who is the phrase: He is exempt, referring to, and who is the phrase: He is liable, referring to? Does it not mean that the owner of the courtyard is exempt and the owner of the courtyard is liable? This would indicate that by granting permission for the produce to be brought in, he accepts responsibility to safeguard against other damage as well, such as that caused by another ox entering from the outside.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛砖讜专

In response, they said that this interpretation should be rejected: No, it means that the owner of the ox that causes damage is exempt, and the owner of the ox is liable.

讜讗讬 讘注诇 讛砖讜专

The Gemara asks: But if it is referring to the owner of the ox,

Scroll To Top