Bava Kamma 12

שור יוכיח

Ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which it is similarly lawful to keep, but which when doing damage creates nevertheless a liability to pay. ');">¹</span>

מה לשור שכן דרכו לילך ולהזיק

however, will refute [this reasoning]. But, you may ask, why [is liability attached] to Ox if not because of its nature to walk about and do damage? — Pit will refute [this reasoning]. The argument is [thus endlessly] reversible [and liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the cases referred to by R. Adda b. Ahabah. ');">²</span>

בור תוכיח וחזר הדין

can be deduced only from the Common Aspects].

רבינא אמר לאתויי הא דתנן הכותל והאילן שנפלו לרה"ר והזיקו פטור מלשלם נתנו לו זמן לקוץ את האילן ולסתור את הכותל ונפלו בתוך הזמן והזיקו פטור לאחר הזמן חייב

Rabina said: To include that which we have learnt: 'A wall or a tree which accidentally fell into a Public thoroughfare and did damage, involves no liability for compensation. If an order had been served [by the proper authorities] to fell the tree and pull down the wall within a specified time, and they fell within the specified time and did damage, the immunity holds goods, but if after the specified time, liability is incurred.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 117b. ');">³</span>

היכי דמי אי דאפקרה בין לרב בין לשמואל היינו בור מאי שנא בור דהזיקו מצוי ושמירתו עליך הני נמי הזיקן מצוי ושמירתן עליך

But what were the circumstances [of the wall and the tree]? If they were abandoned, then according to both Rab and Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b. ');">⁴</span>

אי דלא אפקרינהו לשמואל דאמר כולם מבורו למדנו היינו בור

they are equivalent to Pit! How is their case different? Just as Pit does frequent damage and is under your control, so also is the case with those which likewise do frequent damage and are under your control. Furthermore, even if they were not abandoned, according to Samuel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b. ');">⁴</span>

לעולם דאפקרינהו ולא דמי לבור מה לבור שכן תחילת עשייתו לנזק תאמר בהני שאין תחילת עשייתן לנזק

who maintains that we deduce [the law governing] all nuisances from Pit, they are [again] equivalent to Pit? — Indeed they were abandoned, still they are not equivalent to Pit: Why [is liability attached] to Pit if not because of its being from its very inception a source of injury? How then can you assert [the same] in the case of those which are not sources of injury from their inception? — Ox, however, will refute [this reasoning]. But [you may ask] why [is liability attached] to Ox if not because of its nature to walk about and do damage? — Pit will refute [this reasoning]. The argument is [thus endlessly] reversible [and liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of the wall and the tree. ');">⁵</span>

שור יוכיח

can be deduced only from Common Aspects].

מה לשור שכן דרכו לילך ולהזיק

WHENEVER ANYONE OF THEM DOES DAMAGE THE OFFENDER IS [HAB] LIABLE. 'The offender is HAB!' — 'The offender is HAYYAB'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A slight variation in the Hebrew text: a disyllable instead of a monosyllable. ');">⁶</span>

בור תוכיח וחזר הדין

should be the phrase? — Rab Judah, on behalf of Rab, said: This Tanna [of the Mishnaic text] was a Jerusalemite who employed an easier form.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Preferred a contracted form. ');">⁷</span>

כשהזיק חב המזיק חב המזיק חייב המזיק מיבעי ליה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב האי תנא ירושלמי הוא דתני לישנא קלילא

TO INDEMNIFY WITH THE BEST OF HIS ESTATE. Our Rabbis taught: Of the best of his field and of the best of his vineyard shall he make restitution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">⁸</span>

לשלם תשלומי נזק ת"ר (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי רבי ישמעאל

refers to the field of the plaintiff and to the vineyard of the plaintiff, this is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says: Scripture only intended that damages should be collected out of the best,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the defendant's estate. ');">⁹</span>

ר' עקיבא אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לנזקין מן העידית וק"ו להקדש

and this applies even more so to sacred property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., property dedicated to the purposes of the sanctuary. ');">¹⁰</span>

ור' ישמעאל אכל שמינה משלם שמינה אכל כחושה משלם שמינה

Would R. Ishmael maintain that the defendant, whether damaging the best or worst, is to pay for the best? — R. Idi b. Abin said: This is so where he damaged one of several furrows and it could not be ascertained whether the furrow he damaged was the worst or the best, in which case he must pay for the best. Raba, however, [demurred] saying: Since where we do know that he damaged the worst, he would only have to pay for the worst, now that we do not know whether the furrow damaged was the best or the worst, why pay for the best? It is the plaintiff who has the onus of proving his case by evidence. R. Aha b. Jacob therefore explained: We are dealing here with a case where the best of the plaintiff's estate equals in quality the worst of that of the defendant;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The amount of damages, however, would never be more than could be proved to have been actually sustained. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב אידי בר אבין הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכל ערוגה בין הערוגות ולא ידעינן אי כחושה אכל אי שמינה אכל דמשלם שמינה

and the point at issue is [as follows]: R. Ishmael maintains that the qualities are estimated in relation to those of the plaintiff's estate;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the quality of the field paid by the defendant as damages need not exceed the best quality of the plaintiff's estate. Hence, in the case in hand, the worst of the defendant's will suffice. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא ומה אילו ידעינן דכחושה אכל לא משלם אלא כחושה השתא דלא ידעינן אי כחושה אכל אי שמינה אכל משלם שמינה המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

but R. Akiba is of the opinion that it is the qualities of the defendant's possessions that have to be considered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The quality of the payment must therefore always he the best of the defendant's estate, ');">¹³</span>

אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה עידית דניזק כזיבורית דמזיק

What is the reason underlying R. Ishmael's view? — The term 'Field' occurs both in the latter clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the best of his field&nbsp;… Ex, XXII, 4. ');">¹⁴</span>

ובהא פליגי רבי ישמעאל סבר בדניזק שיימינן ורבי עקיבא סבר בדמזיק שיימינן

and the earlier clause of the verse;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man shall cause a field or a vineyard to be eaten, ibid. ');">¹⁵</span>

מ"ט דרבי ישמעאל נאמר שדה למטה ונאמר שדה למעלה מה שדה האמור למעלה דניזק אף שדה האמור למטה דניזק

now just as in the earlier clause it refers to the plaintiff's possessions, so also does it in the latter clause. R. Akiba, however, maintains that [the last clause,] Of the best of his field and of the best of his vineyard shall he make restitution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">¹⁶</span>

ורבי עקיבא מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם דהאיך דקא משלם

clearly refers to the possessions of the one who has to pay. R. Ishmael [on the other hand,] contends that both the textual analogy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The (Gezerah Shawah, v. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span>

ורבי ישמעאל אהני גזרה שוה ואהני קרא אהני גזרה שוה כדקאמינא

of the terms and the plain textual interpretation are complementary to each other. The analogy of the terms is helpful towards establishing the above statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'That the qualities are estimated in relation to those of the plaintiff's estate.' ');">¹⁸</span>

אהני קרא כגון דאית ליה למזיק עידית וזיבורית ועידית לניזק וזיבורית דמזיק לא שויא כעידית דניזק דמשלם ליה ממיטב דידיה

while the plain textual interpretation helps to qualify [the application of the above<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'That the qualities are estimated in relation to those of the plaintiff's estate.' ');">¹⁸</span>

דלא מצי אמר ליה תא את גבי מזיבורית אלא גבי ממיטב

in] a case where the defendant's estate consists of good and bad qualities, and the plaintiff's estate likewise comprises good quality, but the bad of the defendant's estate is not so good as the good quality of the estate of the plaintiff;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bad quality could not thus be tendered. ');">¹⁹</span>

ר' עקיבא אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לניזקין מן העידית וקל וחומר להקדש מאי קל וחומר להקדש

for in this case the defendant must pay out of the better quality of his estate, as he cannot say to him, 'Come and be paid out of the bad quality' [which is below the quality of the estate of the plaintiff], but he is entitled to the better quality [of the defendant].

אילימא דנגח תורא דידן לתורא דהקדש (שמות כא, לה) שור רעהו אמר רחמנא ולא שור של הקדש

R. Akiba said: Scripture only intended that damages be collected out of the best, and this applies even more so to sacred property.' What is the import of the last clause? It could hardly be suggested that it refers to a case where a private ox gored an ox consecrated [to the Sanctuary], for does not the Divine Law distinctly say, <i>The ox of one's neighbour</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 35. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא לאומר הרי עלי מנה לבדק הבית דאתי גזבר ושקיל מעידית

excluding thus [any liability for damage done to] consecrated chattel? Again, it could hardly deal with a personal undertaking by one to pay a <i>maneh</i> to the Treasury of the Temple, thus authorising the treasurer to collect from the best; for surely he should not be in a better position than a private creditor

לא יהא אלא בעל חוב