Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 65:23

בעא מיניה רבא מר"נ מכרו מזיק לר' ישמעאל מהו כיון דא"ר ישמעאל בעל חוב הוא וזוזי הוא דמסיק ליה מכור או דלמא

[imply that] the judgement in the case of Ox damaging ox applies also in the case of Ox injuring man. Just as where Ox has damaged ox half-damages are paid in the case of <i>Tam</i> and full compensation in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>, so also where Ox has injured man only half damages will be paid in the case of <i>Tam</i> and full compensation in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>. R. Akiba, however, says: [The words,] 'According to this judgement' refer to [the ruling that would apply to the circumstances described in] the latter verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXI, 29 dealing with Mu'ad. ');">¹⁷</span> and not in the former verse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXI, 28 dealing with Tam. ');">¹⁸</span> Could this then mean that the [full] payment is to be made out of the best [of the estate]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of an injury done by Mu'ad. Cf. supra, p. 73. ');">¹⁹</span> [Not so; for] it is stated 'Shall it be done unto it [self],' to emphasise that payment will be made out of the body of <i>Tam</i>, but no payment is to be made out of any other source whatsoever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 15. ');">²⁰</span> According to the Rabbis then, what purpose is served by the word 'this'? — To exempt from liability for the four [additional] items.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 133. ');">²¹</span> Whence then does R. Akiba derive the exemption [in this case] from liability for the four [additional] items? — He derives it from the text, And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 19. ');">²²</span> [which indicates that there is liability only where] Man injures his neighbour but not where Ox injures the neighbour [of the owner]. And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Wherefore apply 'this' to deduce exemption from the four items, since that is already derived from this latter verse?] ');">²³</span> — Had the deduction been from that text we might have referred it exclusively to Pain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The liability for which is not in respect of an actual loss of value. ');">²⁴</span> but as to Medical Expenses and Loss of Time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The liability for which is in respect of an actual loss of money sustained. ');">²⁵</span> we might have held there is still a liability to pay. We are therefore told<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the expression 'this'. ');">²⁶</span> [that this is not the case]. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF AN OX [<i>TAM</i>] OF THE VALUE OF ONE HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> HAS GORED AN OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> AND THE CARCASS HAD NO VALUE AT ALL, THE PLAINTIFF WILL TAKE POSSESSION OF THE [DEFENDANT'S] OX [THAT DID THE DAMAGE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the full value of it corresponds in this case to the amount of half-damages. ');">²⁷</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is the author of our Mishnah? — It is R. Akiba, as it has been taught: The ox [that did the damage] has to be assessed by the Court of law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if its value is not less than the amount of the half-damages, the defendant will have to pay that amount in full, whereas where the value of the ox that did the damage is less than the amount of the half-damages, the defendant will have to pay no more than the actual value of the ox that did the damage. ');">²⁸</span> this is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba, however, says: The [body of the] ox becomes transferred [to the plaintiff]. What is the point at issue? — R. Ishmael maintains that he [the plaintiff] is but a creditor and that he has only a claim of money against him [the defendant], whereas R. Akiba is of the opinion that they both [the plaintiff and defendant] become the owners in common of the ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where its value is more than the amount of the half-damages. ');">²⁹</span> [that did the damage]. They [thus also] differ as to the interpretation of the verse, Then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 35. ');">³⁰</span> R. Ishmael maintains that it is the Court on which this injunction is laid by Divine Law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to sell the live ox which is still the property of the defendant. ');">³¹</span> whereas R. Akiba is of the opinion that it is the plaintiff and defendant on which it is laid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the live ox became their property in common where its value had been more than the amount of the half-damages. ');">³²</span> What is the practical difference between R. Ishmael and R. Akiba? — There is a practical difference between them where the plaintiff consecrated the ox [that did the damage].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [According to R. Ishmael the consecration is of no legal effect, whereas R. Akiba would declare it valid.] ');">³³</span> Raba put the following question to R. Nahman: Should the defendant meanwhile dispose of the ox, what would be the law according to R. Ishmael? [Shall we say that] since R. Ishmael considers the plaintiff to be a creditor whose claim [against the defendant] is only regarding money, the sale is valid, or that

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 65:23. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.