Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 67:12

אמר רב אשי דכחש מחמת מכה דא"ל קרנא דתורך קבירא ביה:

The Master has said: 'Where it was the ox which did the damage that [subsequently] improved, the compensation will still be made as at the time of the damage.' This ruling is in accordance with R. Ishmael, who maintains that the plaintiff is a creditor and he has a pecuniary claim against him [the defendant]. Read now the concluding clause: 'Where it [on the other hand] depreciated, the compensation will be made in accordance with the value at the time of the case being brought into Court'. This ruling, on the other hand, follows the view of R. Akiba, that they both [plaintiff and defendant] become the owners in common [of the ox that did the damage]. [Is it possible that] the first clause should follow the view of R. Ishmael and the second clause follow that of R. Akiba? — No; the whole teaching follows the view of R. Akiba, for we deal here with a case where the improvement was due to the defendant having fattened the ox.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is only reasonable that the plaintiff should not be entitled to any share in the improvement that resulted from the fattening carried out by the defendant. ');">¹¹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 67:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.