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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 18, 2016 | 讬状讘 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 48

Study Guide Bava Kamma 48. Rav’s opinion is that if one puts fruits in another’s property without permission, one is not responsible if an animal eats it and gets sick/dies from it. 聽His opinion is questioned by various tanaitic sources that seem to indicate otherwise. 聽Each one is answered up to fit in with Rav. 聽If one brings in an animal or item with permission and the owner therefore accepts responsibility, is he also responsible in a case where the item/animal gets damaged by someone else’s animal that was trespassing? 聽Rava brings 2聽other laws about related cases where the animal case turns into a bor (pit) case. 聽And one more case where a person comes into one’s property without permission. 聽If the owner attacks him, is he responsible for damages or not? 聽The next case in the mishna is analyzed – when the animal falls into a pit in the owner’s property and contaminated the water or kills a person inside the pit. 聽Exactly in what scenario is the water case – when he contaminates on the way down or after having fallen there? 聽In the case of killing, he pays ransom – is it because it is a shur muad聽Or maybe a shor tam according to the opinion that you pay half the ransom or according to the opinion that goring in the owner’s property pays full damages and would thereby pay full ransom upon death.


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

诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗

what reason is there to rule one way where the produce is brought in with permission, and what reason is there to rule another way where the produce is brought in without permission? With regard to damage done by the ox of a stranger, it should not make any difference.

讗诪专讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讞讬讬讘转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛

The Sages said in response: If he brought in the produce with permission, it is a case of damage under the category of Eating (see 2a), in the domain of the injured party, since, with respect to the produce, the courtyard is treated as belonging to its owner, and the halakha is that if an animal causes damage categorized as Eating in the domain of the injured party, the ox鈥檚 owner is liable. But if he brought it into the courtyard without permission, it is a case of damage under the category of Eating in the public domain, and if an animal causes damage categorized as Eating in the public domain, the ox鈥檚 owner is exempt. Given this explanation, the answer to the question of what type of safeguarding the courtyard owner accepted cannot be derived from the baraita.

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 讜讘讗 砖讜专 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜谞讙讞讜 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 proof from another baraita: If one brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and an ox from elsewhere comes and gores it, he is exempt. But if he brought it into the courtyard with permission, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: Who is exempt and who is liable? Is it not the owner of the courtyard who is exempt and the owner of the courtyard who is liable? If so, this proves that the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for all damage occurring on his premises.

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 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara responds: No, the owner of the ox that gored is exempt, and the owner of the ox that gored is liable. The Gemara asks: If so, what significance is there to specifying the case of with permission, and what significance is there to specifying the case of without permission with regard to this ox? For damage categorized as Goring (see 2b), the owner of the animal is liable wherever the goring occurred, even in the public domain.

讗诪专讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇诪讗 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

The Sages said in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: The halakha of damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party is different, and the owner of the goring animal pays the full cost of the damage. According to this opinion, the baraita should be interpreted as follows: If the injured party brought his ox into the courtyard with permission, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the property of the injured party, and the owner of the Goring animal pays the full cost of the damage. But if he brought it in without permission, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the public domain, and he pays only half the cost of the damage.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注诇转讛 诇诪讬驻讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讗转讗 讘专讞讗 讚诪专讬 讚讘讬转讗 讗讻诇讛 诇诇讬砖讗 讞讘讬诇 讜诪讬转 讞讬讬讘讛 专讘讗 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚诪讬 讘专讞讗

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain woman who entered a certain house to bake. Subsequently, a goat belonging to the owner of the house came and ate the woman鈥檚 dough, and as a result it became overheated and died. Rava deemed the woman liable to pay compensation for the goat.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rava disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav says that in a case where someone brings in his produce to another鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the latter鈥檚 animal is injured by eating it, the owner of the produce is nevertheless exempt, since the animal should not have eaten it.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讻讗 讘专砖讜转 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Sages said in response: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where someone brought in his produce without permission, he did not accept responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against the produce causing damage, whereas here, where the woman brought in the dough with permission, the woman did accept responsibility upon herself for safeguarding against the dough causing damage.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗砖讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讟讞讜谉 讞讟讬谉 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 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讞讬讬讘转 讟注诪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗 讘专砖讜转 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: And in what way is it different from the case of the baraita mentioned previously: 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? And moreover, if the homeowner鈥檚 animal was injured by the wheat, the woman is liable. The Gemara infers: The reason she is liable is specifically that she entered without permission, but if she entered with permission, she would be exempt.

讗诪专讬 诇讟讞讜谉 讞讟讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 爪谞讬注讜转讗 诪讬讚讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诪住诇拽讬 诪专讜讜转讗 讚讞爪专 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讗讘诇 诇诪讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讗 讛讬讗 爪谞讬注讜转讗 诪专讜讜转讗 讚讞爪专 诪住诇拽讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讛诇讻讱 注诇讛 讚讬讚讛 专诪讬讗 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Sages said in response: If she entered the house to grind wheat, since she does not require any privacy, the owners of the courtyard do not need to absent themselves from there, and the responsibility for safeguarding against damage therefore rests upon them. But if she enters to bake, since she requires privacy for this, as the process of kneading involves exposing her elbows, the owners of the courtyard absent themselves from there to allow her to bake. Therefore, the responsibility for safeguarding against damage to anything in the courtyard rests upon her.

讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘讗 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 讜讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讬 讞爪专 讜讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讬 讛讘讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: If one brought his ox inside the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored it or the homeowner鈥檚 dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. Rava says: If one brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the ox dug pits, ditches, or caves in it, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage caused by his animal to the courtyard, but the owner of the courtyard is liable for any damage caused by the pit if someone falls inside.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬讱 诇诪诇讜讬讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪诇讬讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻专讬讬讛 讚诪讬

Even though the Master says that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), it limits the liability for the pit to a person who digs a pit, but not an ox that digs a pit, in which case the owner of the courtyard should be exempt, nevertheless, here, in Rava鈥檚 statement, since this owner of the courtyard should have filled the pit with earth and he did not fill it, he is considered like someone who actually dug the pit.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 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 讜讛讝讬拽 讗转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 专讘抓 驻讟讜专

And similarly, Rava says: In the case of one who brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the ox injured the homeowner, or the homeowner stumbled and was injured by it, the owner of the ox is liable. If the ox crouched [ravatz], and by doing so caused damage, the ox鈥檚 owner is exempt.

讜诪砖讜诐 讚专讘抓 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 专讘抓 砖讛专讘讬抓 讙诇诇讬诐 讜谞讟谞驻讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讛讜讬讗 讙诇诇讬诐 讘讜专 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And is he exempt because the animal caused damage when it crouched? Rav Pappa said: What is the meaning of the term ravatz? It means that it dropped feces [hirbitz] on the ground, and subsequently the clothes of the homeowner were soiled. Consequently, the feces constitute a pit, and we do not find a case of damage categorized as Pit that one is liable for causing damage to utensils. Therefore, the owner of the animal is exempt.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 转拽诇讛 讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讚 讚诪驻拽专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who says: Any obstruction is categorized as Pit, and the same halakha exempting the one responsible for the pit from damage to utensils applies to them as well. But according to the opinion of Rav, who says that one鈥檚 property is not categorized as Pit until he renounces ownership of it, what is there to say?

讗诪专讬 住转诐 讙诇诇讬诐 讗驻拽讜专讬 诪驻拽讬专 诇讛讜

The Sages said in response: The animal鈥檚 owner usually renounces ownership of ordinary feces, and so they are categorized as Pit even according to the opinion of Rav.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讛讝讬拽 讗转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬拽讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专

And Rava says: In the case of a person or an animal that entered the courtyard of a homeowner without permission and injured the homeowner, or the homeowner was injured by stumbling on the intruder, the person or owner of the animal is liable. Moreover, if the homeowner damages the person or animal, he is exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讘讬讛 讛讝讬拽讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇讗讝讜拽讬 诇讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗

Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the homeowner did not know of his presence. But if he knew of his presence, even if he entered without permission, then if the homeowner injured him, the homeowner is liable. What is the reason? It is due to the fact that the injured party can say to the owner of the courtyard: Although you have the right to eject me from your courtyard, you do not have the right to injure me.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗

The Gemara comments: And Rava and Rav Pappa, who hold that one who enters without permission is liable if damage is caused, follow their lines of reasoning, as Rava says, and some say it was Rav Pappa who said it:

砖谞讬讛诐 讘专砖讜转 讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讝讬拽讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讛讜讝拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚砖谞讬讛诐 讘专砖讜转 讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讚讘专砖讜转 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘

In a case of two people who were both somewhere with permission, or two people who were both somewhere without permission, if they injure each other directly, they are both liable. If they were injured by one another through stumbling over one another, they are exempt. From this statement, it may be inferred that the reason both are liable if either damages the other is specifically that the two of them were both there with permission or the two of them were both there without permission. But if one, i.e., the homeowner, was there with permission, and the other entered without permission, then the one who was there with permission is exempt if he injured the other, but the one who entered without permission is liable if he injured the homeowner, in accordance with the opinion of Rava and Rav Pappa.

谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜讛讘讗讬砖 诪讬诪讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讗讬砖 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 砖讜专 讘讜专 讜诪讬诐 讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Rava says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the ox contaminated the water at the time of the fall. But if it contaminated the water after the fall, e.g., the animal died there and the decomposing carcass despoiled the water, he is exempt. What is the reason? The ox, in this case, is considered as a pit, and the water has the status of utensils that fall into a pit, and we have not found a case of damage categorized as Pit that renders one liable for causing damage to utensils. Therefore, he is exempt.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 转拽诇讛 讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讚 讚诪驻拽专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who says: Any obstruction is categorized as Pit, and the same halakha exempting the one responsible for the pit from damage to utensils applies to them as well. But according to the opinion of Rav, who says that one鈥檚 property is not categorized as Pit until he renounces ownership of it, what is there to say? Presumably, the owner did not renounce ownership of the ox or even of the carcass.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讗讬砖 诪讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 讛讘讗讬砖 诪专讬讞讜 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rather, if this statement was stated, it was stated like this: Rava says that they taught this halakha only in the case where the ox contaminated the water with its body, i.e., its carcass. But if it contaminated the water with its stench, the owner is exempt. What is the reason? It is because the damage is caused merely by an indirect action. Although the ox鈥檚 owner was initially responsible for his animal falling into the pit, the stench did not result directly from this action. It subsequently occurred on its own, and one is not liable for damage that is caused merely by an indirect action.

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 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 转诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪讜注讚 诇讬驻讜诇 注诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讘讜专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: But why does he pay a ransom? Isn鈥檛 the ox innocuous, in which case its owner is not liable to pay a ransom? Rav says: Here we are dealing with an ox that is forewarned for falling on people in pits.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讞讝讗 讬专讜拽讗 讜谞驻诇

The Gemara asks: If so, the ox is liable to be put to death, because if it is forewarned for this behavior, it is considered to have acted intentionally. Rav Yosef said in response: This is a case where it saw some grass that it intended to eat on the edge of the pit, and fell in the pit instead. Since there was no intention to cause damage by falling, the ox is not liable to be put to death, but since it was forewarned for this behavior, its owner still pays ransom.

砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

Shmuel said: This ox mentioned in the mishna is innocuous, and in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: The owner of an innocuous ox that caused damage pays half a ransom. Therefore, when the mishna states that he pays a ransom, it means that he pays half a ransom.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐

Ulla said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who maintains that payment of a ransom is applicable even in the case of an innocuous ox, but he states his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: For damage categorized as Goring that is carried out by an innocuous ox in the courtyard of the injured party, the ox鈥檚 owner pays the full cost of the damage. So too, he pays a full ransom despite the fact that the ox is innocuous.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘谞讜 诇转讜讻讜 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Ulla, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If his father or his 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. The mishna thereby provides a case of damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party. But according to Shmuel鈥檚 explanation, why mention his father or his son specifically? Even if the injured party were another person, not a close relative of the owner of the property, the owner of the animal would be required to pay half a ransom, and even if it was in the public domain.

讗讜专讞讬讛 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: Indeed, that is the case, and the mishna is simply teaching this ruling by means of the typical scenario, that presumably it was someone from the family of the one who owns the property containing the pit that was inside the pit.

讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 [讻讜壮] 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches: But if he brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused. 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 onto his premises, unless he explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them. It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to the halakha in this dispute: Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, and Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜砖诪专讜 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讝拽 驻讟讜专 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜 讛讜讝拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专

The Sages taught a case similar to that of the mishna: If the owner of the courtyard said to the owner of the ox: Bring your ox into my courtyard and safeguard it, then if the ox caused damage to the property of the owner of the courtyard, the animal鈥檚 owner is liable. And if the ox was injured, the owner of the courtyard is exempt. If he said to him: Bring your ox in and I will safeguard it, then if the ox was injured, the owner of the courtyard is liable; if the ox caused damage, its owner is exempt.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜砖诪专讜 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讝拽 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult: You said in the first clause that if the courtyard鈥檚 owner said to him: Bring your ox into my courtyard and safeguard it, then if the ox caused damage, its owner is liable. And if it was injured, the owner of the courtyard is exempt.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪专讜 讚讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讞爪专 讛讗 住转诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讞爪专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讚讘住转诪讗 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Gemara infers: The reason that the owner of the ox is liable and the owner of the courtyard is exempt is specifically that the owner of the courtyard said to the owner of the ox: Safeguard it. One can infer that if he granted permission for the ox to enter without specifying that the owner of the animal safeguard it, the owner of the courtyard is liable if the ox was injured, and the owner of the ox is exempt if it caused damage. The reason the owner of the courtyard is liable is that the tanna of this baraita holds that in an unspecified case, where the obligation to safeguard the animal was not mentioned, the owner of the courtyard implicitly accepts upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the ox.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜 讛讜讝拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: Say the latter clause: If he said to him: Bring your ox in and I will safeguard it, then if the ox was injured, the owner of the courtyard is liable; if the ox caused damage, its owner is exempt.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讛讗 住转诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讞爪专 讚讘住转诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Gemara infers: The reason that the owner of the courtyard is liable and the owner of the ox is exempt is specifically that the homeowner said to the owner of the ox: And I will safeguard it. One can infer that if the owner of the courtyard granted permission for the ox to enter without specifying that the owner of the animal safeguard it, the owner of the ox is liable if it damages the property of the owner of the courtyard, and the owner of the courtyard is exempt if the ox is damaged. The reason the owner of the courtyard is not liable is that the tanna of this baraita holds that in an unspecified case, where the obligation to safeguard the animal was not mentioned, the owner of the courtyard does not accept upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the ox.

讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬

The Gemara concludes its analysis: We come to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that unless the homeowner explicitly accepts upon himself responsibility for safeguarding, he is not liable. Based on this understanding, the first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 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 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 砖诪专讜 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜

Rabbi Elazar said: Indeed, the baraita is disjointed, and the one who taught this clause did not teach that clause. Rava said: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and no inference should be drawn from the extra words: And I will safeguard it, in the latter clause. Since the first clause mentions that the owner of the courtyard instructed: Safeguard it, the latter clause also teaches that he said: And I will safeguard it, to maintain symmetry. The same halakha applies even when granting permission to enter without specification, since, according to the Rabbis, granting permission to enter includes an implicit acceptance of responsibility for safeguarding.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐

Rav Pappa said: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that if no specification was made, the owner of the courtyard does not accept responsibility, as inferred from the latter clause of the baraita. And as for the inference drawn from the first clause, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: For damage categorized as Goring that is carried out by an innocuous ox in the courtyard of the injured party, the ox鈥檚 owner pays the full cost of the damage.

讛诇讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪专讜 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讘讞爪专 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

Therefore, if the owner of the courtyard said to the owner of the ox: Safeguard it, he is clearly not transferring the rights to any portion of the courtyard to him, as evident from the fact that the owner of the ox must safeguard it and may not treat the courtyard as if it were his own. Consequently, if the ox gored, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party, and one responsible for damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party pays the full cost of the damage.

诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪专讜 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讘讞爪专 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

By contrast, if the owner of the courtyard did not say to the owner of the ox: Safeguard it, then by granting him permission to bring the ox onto his courtyard, he effectively transfers rights to an area within the courtyard. Therefore, with regard to damages, it becomes a courtyard of partners, and the one responsible for damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of partners pays only half the cost of the damage.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讻讛 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讬诇讚讬讛 驻讟讜专 诪讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 讜讗讚诐 砖讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讻讛 讛讗砖讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讬诇讚讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转

MISHNA: In the case of an ox that was intending to gore another ox but struck a pregnant woman, and her offspring, i.e., the fetuses, emerged due to miscarriage, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. But in the case of a person who was intending to injure another but struck a pregnant woman instead, and her offspring emerged due to miscarriage, he pays compensation for miscarried offspring.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 砖诪讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 诪砖讬诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

How does he pay compensation for miscarried offspring, i.e., how is their value assessed? The court appraises the value of the woman by calculating how much she would be worth if sold as a maidservant before giving birth, and how much she would be worth after giving birth. He then pays the difference in value to the woman鈥檚 husband. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:

  • 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 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 48

诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗

what reason is there to rule one way where the produce is brought in with permission, and what reason is there to rule another way where the produce is brought in without permission? With regard to damage done by the ox of a stranger, it should not make any difference.

讗诪专讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讞讬讬讘转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜砖谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛

The Sages said in response: If he brought in the produce with permission, it is a case of damage under the category of Eating (see 2a), in the domain of the injured party, since, with respect to the produce, the courtyard is treated as belonging to its owner, and the halakha is that if an animal causes damage categorized as Eating in the domain of the injured party, the ox鈥檚 owner is liable. But if he brought it into the courtyard without permission, it is a case of damage under the category of Eating in the public domain, and if an animal causes damage categorized as Eating in the public domain, the ox鈥檚 owner is exempt. Given this explanation, the answer to the question of what type of safeguarding the courtyard owner accepted cannot be derived from the baraita.

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 讜讘讗 砖讜专 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜谞讙讞讜 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 proof from another baraita: If one brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and an ox from elsewhere comes and gores it, he is exempt. But if he brought it into the courtyard with permission, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: Who is exempt and who is liable? Is it not the owner of the courtyard who is exempt and the owner of the courtyard who is liable? If so, this proves that the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for all damage occurring on his premises.

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 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara responds: No, the owner of the ox that gored is exempt, and the owner of the ox that gored is liable. The Gemara asks: If so, what significance is there to specifying the case of with permission, and what significance is there to specifying the case of without permission with regard to this ox? For damage categorized as Goring (see 2b), the owner of the animal is liable wherever the goring occurred, even in the public domain.

讗诪专讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇诪讗 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

The Sages said in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: The halakha of damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party is different, and the owner of the goring animal pays the full cost of the damage. According to this opinion, the baraita should be interpreted as follows: If the injured party brought his ox into the courtyard with permission, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the property of the injured party, and the owner of the Goring animal pays the full cost of the damage. But if he brought it in without permission, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the public domain, and he pays only half the cost of the damage.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注诇转讛 诇诪讬驻讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讗转讗 讘专讞讗 讚诪专讬 讚讘讬转讗 讗讻诇讛 诇诇讬砖讗 讞讘讬诇 讜诪讬转 讞讬讬讘讛 专讘讗 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚诪讬 讘专讞讗

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain woman who entered a certain house to bake. Subsequently, a goat belonging to the owner of the house came and ate the woman鈥檚 dough, and as a result it became overheated and died. Rava deemed the woman liable to pay compensation for the goat.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rava disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav says that in a case where someone brings in his produce to another鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the latter鈥檚 animal is injured by eating it, the owner of the produce is nevertheless exempt, since the animal should not have eaten it.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讻讗 讘专砖讜转 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Sages said in response: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where someone brought in his produce without permission, he did not accept responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against the produce causing damage, whereas here, where the woman brought in the dough with permission, the woman did accept responsibility upon herself for safeguarding against the dough causing damage.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗砖讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讟讞讜谉 讞讟讬谉 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 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讞讬讬讘转 讟注诪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗 讘专砖讜转 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: And in what way is it different from the case of the baraita mentioned previously: 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? And moreover, if the homeowner鈥檚 animal was injured by the wheat, the woman is liable. The Gemara infers: The reason she is liable is specifically that she entered without permission, but if she entered with permission, she would be exempt.

讗诪专讬 诇讟讞讜谉 讞讟讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 爪谞讬注讜转讗 诪讬讚讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诪住诇拽讬 诪专讜讜转讗 讚讞爪专 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讗讘诇 诇诪讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讗 讛讬讗 爪谞讬注讜转讗 诪专讜讜转讗 讚讞爪专 诪住诇拽讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讛诇讻讱 注诇讛 讚讬讚讛 专诪讬讗 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Sages said in response: If she entered the house to grind wheat, since she does not require any privacy, the owners of the courtyard do not need to absent themselves from there, and the responsibility for safeguarding against damage therefore rests upon them. But if she enters to bake, since she requires privacy for this, as the process of kneading involves exposing her elbows, the owners of the courtyard absent themselves from there to allow her to bake. Therefore, the responsibility for safeguarding against damage to anything in the courtyard rests upon her.

讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘讗 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 讜讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讬 讞爪专 讜讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讬 讛讘讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: If one brought his ox inside the homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission and the homeowner鈥檚 ox gored it or the homeowner鈥檚 dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. Rava says: If one brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the ox dug pits, ditches, or caves in it, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage caused by his animal to the courtyard, but the owner of the courtyard is liable for any damage caused by the pit if someone falls inside.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬讱 诇诪诇讜讬讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪诇讬讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻专讬讬讛 讚诪讬

Even though the Master says that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), it limits the liability for the pit to a person who digs a pit, but not an ox that digs a pit, in which case the owner of the courtyard should be exempt, nevertheless, here, in Rava鈥檚 statement, since this owner of the courtyard should have filled the pit with earth and he did not fill it, he is considered like someone who actually dug the pit.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 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 讜讛讝讬拽 讗转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 专讘抓 驻讟讜专

And similarly, Rava says: In the case of one who brought his ox into a homeowner鈥檚 courtyard without permission, and the ox injured the homeowner, or the homeowner stumbled and was injured by it, the owner of the ox is liable. If the ox crouched [ravatz], and by doing so caused damage, the ox鈥檚 owner is exempt.

讜诪砖讜诐 讚专讘抓 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 专讘抓 砖讛专讘讬抓 讙诇诇讬诐 讜谞讟谞驻讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讛讜讬讗 讙诇诇讬诐 讘讜专 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And is he exempt because the animal caused damage when it crouched? Rav Pappa said: What is the meaning of the term ravatz? It means that it dropped feces [hirbitz] on the ground, and subsequently the clothes of the homeowner were soiled. Consequently, the feces constitute a pit, and we do not find a case of damage categorized as Pit that one is liable for causing damage to utensils. Therefore, the owner of the animal is exempt.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 转拽诇讛 讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讚 讚诪驻拽专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who says: Any obstruction is categorized as Pit, and the same halakha exempting the one responsible for the pit from damage to utensils applies to them as well. But according to the opinion of Rav, who says that one鈥檚 property is not categorized as Pit until he renounces ownership of it, what is there to say?

讗诪专讬 住转诐 讙诇诇讬诐 讗驻拽讜专讬 诪驻拽讬专 诇讛讜

The Sages said in response: The animal鈥檚 owner usually renounces ownership of ordinary feces, and so they are categorized as Pit even according to the opinion of Rav.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讛讝讬拽 讗转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬拽讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专

And Rava says: In the case of a person or an animal that entered the courtyard of a homeowner without permission and injured the homeowner, or the homeowner was injured by stumbling on the intruder, the person or owner of the animal is liable. Moreover, if the homeowner damages the person or animal, he is exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讘讬讛 讛讝讬拽讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇讗讝讜拽讬 诇讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗

Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the homeowner did not know of his presence. But if he knew of his presence, even if he entered without permission, then if the homeowner injured him, the homeowner is liable. What is the reason? It is due to the fact that the injured party can say to the owner of the courtyard: Although you have the right to eject me from your courtyard, you do not have the right to injure me.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗

The Gemara comments: And Rava and Rav Pappa, who hold that one who enters without permission is liable if damage is caused, follow their lines of reasoning, as Rava says, and some say it was Rav Pappa who said it:

砖谞讬讛诐 讘专砖讜转 讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讝讬拽讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讛讜讝拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚砖谞讬讛诐 讘专砖讜转 讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讚讘专砖讜转 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘

In a case of two people who were both somewhere with permission, or two people who were both somewhere without permission, if they injure each other directly, they are both liable. If they were injured by one another through stumbling over one another, they are exempt. From this statement, it may be inferred that the reason both are liable if either damages the other is specifically that the two of them were both there with permission or the two of them were both there without permission. But if one, i.e., the homeowner, was there with permission, and the other entered without permission, then the one who was there with permission is exempt if he injured the other, but the one who entered without permission is liable if he injured the homeowner, in accordance with the opinion of Rava and Rav Pappa.

谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜讛讘讗讬砖 诪讬诪讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讗讬砖 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 砖讜专 讘讜专 讜诪讬诐 讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Rava says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the ox contaminated the water at the time of the fall. But if it contaminated the water after the fall, e.g., the animal died there and the decomposing carcass despoiled the water, he is exempt. What is the reason? The ox, in this case, is considered as a pit, and the water has the status of utensils that fall into a pit, and we have not found a case of damage categorized as Pit that renders one liable for causing damage to utensils. Therefore, he is exempt.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 转拽诇讛 讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讚 讚诪驻拽专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who says: Any obstruction is categorized as Pit, and the same halakha exempting the one responsible for the pit from damage to utensils applies to them as well. But according to the opinion of Rav, who says that one鈥檚 property is not categorized as Pit until he renounces ownership of it, what is there to say? Presumably, the owner did not renounce ownership of the ox or even of the carcass.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讘讗讬砖 诪讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 讛讘讗讬砖 诪专讬讞讜 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rather, if this statement was stated, it was stated like this: Rava says that they taught this halakha only in the case where the ox contaminated the water with its body, i.e., its carcass. But if it contaminated the water with its stench, the owner is exempt. What is the reason? It is because the damage is caused merely by an indirect action. Although the ox鈥檚 owner was initially responsible for his animal falling into the pit, the stench did not result directly from this action. It subsequently occurred on its own, and one is not liable for damage that is caused merely by an indirect action.

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 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 转诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪讜注讚 诇讬驻讜诇 注诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讘讜专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: But why does he pay a ransom? Isn鈥檛 the ox innocuous, in which case its owner is not liable to pay a ransom? Rav says: Here we are dealing with an ox that is forewarned for falling on people in pits.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讞讝讗 讬专讜拽讗 讜谞驻诇

The Gemara asks: If so, the ox is liable to be put to death, because if it is forewarned for this behavior, it is considered to have acted intentionally. Rav Yosef said in response: This is a case where it saw some grass that it intended to eat on the edge of the pit, and fell in the pit instead. Since there was no intention to cause damage by falling, the ox is not liable to be put to death, but since it was forewarned for this behavior, its owner still pays ransom.

砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

Shmuel said: This ox mentioned in the mishna is innocuous, and in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: The owner of an innocuous ox that caused damage pays half a ransom. Therefore, when the mishna states that he pays a ransom, it means that he pays half a ransom.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐

Ulla said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who maintains that payment of a ransom is applicable even in the case of an innocuous ox, but he states his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: For damage categorized as Goring that is carried out by an innocuous ox in the courtyard of the injured party, the ox鈥檚 owner pays the full cost of the damage. So too, he pays a full ransom despite the fact that the ox is innocuous.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘谞讜 诇转讜讻讜 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Ulla, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If his father or his 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. The mishna thereby provides a case of damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party. But according to Shmuel鈥檚 explanation, why mention his father or his son specifically? Even if the injured party were another person, not a close relative of the owner of the property, the owner of the animal would be required to pay half a ransom, and even if it was in the public domain.

讗讜专讞讬讛 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: Indeed, that is the case, and the mishna is simply teaching this ruling by means of the typical scenario, that presumably it was someone from the family of the one who owns the property containing the pit that was inside the pit.

讜讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 [讻讜壮] 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches: But if he brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused. 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 onto his premises, unless he explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them. It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to the halakha in this dispute: Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, and Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜砖诪专讜 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讝拽 驻讟讜专 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜 讛讜讝拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专

The Sages taught a case similar to that of the mishna: If the owner of the courtyard said to the owner of the ox: Bring your ox into my courtyard and safeguard it, then if the ox caused damage to the property of the owner of the courtyard, the animal鈥檚 owner is liable. And if the ox was injured, the owner of the courtyard is exempt. If he said to him: Bring your ox in and I will safeguard it, then if the ox was injured, the owner of the courtyard is liable; if the ox caused damage, its owner is exempt.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜砖诪专讜 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讝拽 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult: You said in the first clause that if the courtyard鈥檚 owner said to him: Bring your ox into my courtyard and safeguard it, then if the ox caused damage, its owner is liable. And if it was injured, the owner of the courtyard is exempt.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪专讜 讚讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讞爪专 讛讗 住转诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讞爪专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讚讘住转诪讗 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Gemara infers: The reason that the owner of the ox is liable and the owner of the courtyard is exempt is specifically that the owner of the courtyard said to the owner of the ox: Safeguard it. One can infer that if he granted permission for the ox to enter without specifying that the owner of the animal safeguard it, the owner of the courtyard is liable if the ox was injured, and the owner of the ox is exempt if it caused damage. The reason the owner of the courtyard is liable is that the tanna of this baraita holds that in an unspecified case, where the obligation to safeguard the animal was not mentioned, the owner of the courtyard implicitly accepts upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the ox.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻谞讜住 砖讜专讱 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜 讛讜讝拽 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: Say the latter clause: If he said to him: Bring your ox in and I will safeguard it, then if the ox was injured, the owner of the courtyard is liable; if the ox caused damage, its owner is exempt.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讛讗 住转诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜驻讟讜专 讘注诇 讞爪专 讚讘住转诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Gemara infers: The reason that the owner of the courtyard is liable and the owner of the ox is exempt is specifically that the homeowner said to the owner of the ox: And I will safeguard it. One can infer that if the owner of the courtyard granted permission for the ox to enter without specifying that the owner of the animal safeguard it, the owner of the ox is liable if it damages the property of the owner of the courtyard, and the owner of the courtyard is exempt if the ox is damaged. The reason the owner of the courtyard is not liable is that the tanna of this baraita holds that in an unspecified case, where the obligation to safeguard the animal was not mentioned, the owner of the courtyard does not accept upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the ox.

讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬

The Gemara concludes its analysis: We come to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that unless the homeowner explicitly accepts upon himself responsibility for safeguarding, he is not liable. Based on this understanding, the first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 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 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 砖诪专讜 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗谞讬 讗砖诪专谞讜

Rabbi Elazar said: Indeed, the baraita is disjointed, and the one who taught this clause did not teach that clause. Rava said: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and no inference should be drawn from the extra words: And I will safeguard it, in the latter clause. Since the first clause mentions that the owner of the courtyard instructed: Safeguard it, the latter clause also teaches that he said: And I will safeguard it, to maintain symmetry. The same halakha applies even when granting permission to enter without specification, since, according to the Rabbis, granting permission to enter includes an implicit acceptance of responsibility for safeguarding.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐

Rav Pappa said: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that if no specification was made, the owner of the courtyard does not accept responsibility, as inferred from the latter clause of the baraita. And as for the inference drawn from the first clause, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: For damage categorized as Goring that is carried out by an innocuous ox in the courtyard of the injured party, the ox鈥檚 owner pays the full cost of the damage.

讛诇讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪专讜 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讘讞爪专 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

Therefore, if the owner of the courtyard said to the owner of the ox: Safeguard it, he is clearly not transferring the rights to any portion of the courtyard to him, as evident from the fact that the owner of the ox must safeguard it and may not treat the courtyard as if it were his own. Consequently, if the ox gored, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party, and one responsible for damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party pays the full cost of the damage.

诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪专讜 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讘讞爪专 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

By contrast, if the owner of the courtyard did not say to the owner of the ox: Safeguard it, then by granting him permission to bring the ox onto his courtyard, he effectively transfers rights to an area within the courtyard. Therefore, with regard to damages, it becomes a courtyard of partners, and the one responsible for damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of partners pays only half the cost of the damage.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讻讛 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讬诇讚讬讛 驻讟讜专 诪讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 讜讗讚诐 砖讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讻讛 讛讗砖讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讬诇讚讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转

MISHNA: In the case of an ox that was intending to gore another ox but struck a pregnant woman, and her offspring, i.e., the fetuses, emerged due to miscarriage, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. But in the case of a person who was intending to injure another but struck a pregnant woman instead, and her offspring emerged due to miscarriage, he pays compensation for miscarried offspring.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 砖诪讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 诪砖讬诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

How does he pay compensation for miscarried offspring, i.e., how is their value assessed? The court appraises the value of the woman by calculating how much she would be worth if sold as a maidservant before giving birth, and how much she would be worth after giving birth. He then pays the difference in value to the woman鈥檚 husband. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:

Scroll To Top