Bava Kamma 18

אילימא שליש ביתו אלא מעתה אי איתרמי ליה תלתא מצותא ליתיב לכוליה ביתיה

You could hardly suggest 'a third of one's possessions,' for if so when one chanced to have three commandments [to perform at one and the same time] would one have to give up the whole of one's possessions? — R. Zera therefore said: For [performing a commandment in] an exemplary manner one should go up to a third of [the ordinary expense involved in] the observance thereof.

אלא אמר ר' זירא בהידור מצוה עד שליש במצוה

R. Ashi queried: Is it a third from within [the ordinary expense]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 33-1/3 per cent. of the cost of ordinary performance, the cost of the ordinary performance and that of the exemplary performance would thus stand to each other as 3 to 4. ');">¹</span>

בעי רב אשי שליש מלגיו או שליש מלבר תיקו

or is it a third from the aggregate amount?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 50 per cent. of the cost of the ordinary performance; the cost of the ordinary performance and that of the exemplary performance would thus stand to each other as 2 to 3. ');">²</span>

במערבא אמרי משמיה דרבי זירא עד שליש משלו מכאן ואילך משל הקב"ה

This stands undecided.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל שחבתי בשמירתו הכשרתי את נזקו הכשרתי במקצת נזקו חבתי בתשלומי נזקו כהכשר כל נזקו

In the West<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Palestine. ');">³</span>

נכסים שאין בהן מעילה נכסים שהן של בני ברית נכסים המיוחדים

they said in the name of R. Zera: Up to a third, a man must perform it out of his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether he possesses much or little. ');">⁴</span>

ובכל מקום חוץ מרשות המיוחדת למזיק

but from a third onwards he should perform it in accordance with the special portion the Holy One, blessed be He, has bestowed upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shittah Mekubezeth and Nimmuke Joseph a.l. According to Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.: 'The cost up to a third remains man's loss in this world (as the reward for that will he paid only in the world to come); but the cost from a third onwards (if any) will he refunded by the Holy One, blessed be He, in man's lifetime.' ');">⁵</span>

ורשות הניזק והמזיק

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHENEVER I AM UNDER AN OBLIGATION OF CONTROLLING [ANYTHING IN MY POSSESSION], I AM CONSIDERED TO HAVE PERPETRATED ANY DAMAGE THAT MAY RESULT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From neglecting the obligation to control. ');">⁶</span>

כשהזיק חב המזיק לשלם תשלומי נזק במיטב הארץ

WHEN I AM TO BLAME FOR A PART OF THE DAMAGE I AM LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE AS IF I HAD PERPETRATED THE WHOLE OF THE DAMAGE.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר כל שחבתי בשמירתו הכשרתי את נזקו כיצד שור ובור שמסרן לחרש שוטה וקטן והזיקו חייב לשלם מה שאין כן באש

THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY MUST BE OF A KIND TO WHICH THE LAW OF SACRILEGE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of consecrated things. cf. Lev. V, 15-16. ');">⁷</span>

במאי עסקינן אילימא בשור קשור ובור מכוסה דכוותה גבי אש גחלת מאי שנא הכא ומאי שנא הכא

HAS NO APPLICATION. THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY SHOULD BELONG TO PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER [THE JURISDICTION OF] THE LAW.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sons of the Covenant', excluding heathens who do not respect the covenant of the law; v. infra p. 211, n. 6. ');">⁸</span>

אלא בשור מותר ובור מגולה דכוותה גבי אש שלהבת מה שאין כן באש דפטור והא אמר ריש לקיש משמיה דחזקיה לא שנו אלא שמסר לו גחלת וליבה אבל שלהבת חייב מ"ט דהא ברי הזיקא

THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE OWNED. THE PLACE [OF THE DAMAGE] IS IMMATERIAL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PREMISES OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT OR PREMISES OWNED [JOINTLY] BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT. WHENEVER DAMAGE HAS OCCURRED, THE OFFENDER IS LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY WITH THE BEST OF HIS ESTATE.

לעולם בשור קשור ובור מכוסה ודכוותה גבי אש גחלת ודקא אמרת מאי שנא הכא ומ"ש הכא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: 'WHENEVER I AM UNDER AN OBLIGATION OF CONTROLLING [ANYTHING IN MY POSSESSION], I AM CONSIDERED TO HAVE PERPETRATED ANY DAMAGE [THAT MAY RESULT]. How is that? When an ox or pit which was left with a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, does damage, the owner is liable to indemnify. This, however, is not so with a fire.' With what kind of case are we here dealing? If you say that the ox was chained and the pit covered, which corresponds in the case of fire to a hot coal, what difference is there between the one and the other? If on the other hand the ox was loose and the pit uncovered which corresponds in the case of fire to a flame, the statement 'This, however, is not so with a fire,' would here indicate exemption, but surely Resh Lakish said in the name of Hezekiah: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Rabbis of the Mishnah, v. infra 59b. ');">⁹</span>

שור דרכיה לנתוקי בור דרכיה לנתורי גחלת כמה דשביק לה מעמיא עמיא ואזלא

have not laid down the law of exemption unless there was handed over to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor. ');">¹⁰</span>

ולר' יוחנן דאמר אפילו מסר לו שלהבת נמי פטור דכוותה הכא בשור מותר ובור מגולה מ"ש הכא ומ"ש הכא

a coal which he has blown up, but in the case of a flame there will be full liability, the reason being that the danger is clear!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 59b. ');">¹¹</span>

התם צבתא דחרש קא גרים הכא לא צבתא דחרש קא גרים

— Still, the ox may have been chained and the pit covered and the fire likewise in a coal, yet your contention, 'Why should we make a difference between the one and the other?' could be answered thus: An ox is in the habit of loosening itself; so also a pit is in the nature of getting uncovered; but a hot coal, the longer you leave it alone, the more it will get cooler and cooler. According to R. Johanan, however, who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 59b. ');">¹¹</span>

ת"ר חומר בשור מבבור חומר בבור מבשור

that even when there has been handed over to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor. ');">¹⁰</span>

חומר בשור מבבור שהשור משלם את הכופר וחייב בשלשים של עבד נגמר דינו אסור בהנאה ודרכו לילך ולהזיק מה שאין כן בבור חומר בבור מבשור שהבור תחילת עשייתו לנזק ומועד מתחילתו מה שאין כן בשור

a flame the law of exemption applies, the ox here would likewise be loose and the pit uncovered; but why should we make a difference between the one and the other? — There, in the case of the fire, it is the handling of the deaf-mute that causes the damage, whereas here, in the case of the ox and the pit, it is not the handling of the deaf-mute that causes the damage. Our Rabbis taught: There is an excess in [the liability for] Ox over [that for] Pit, and there is [on the other hand] an excess in [the liability for] Pit over [that for] Ox. The excess in [the liability for] Ox over [that for] Pit is that Ox involves payment of <i>kofer</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXI, 29-30; v. Glos. ');">¹²</span> and the liability of thirty [<i>shekels</i>] for the killing of a slave;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXI, 32. ');">¹³</span> when judgment [for manslaughter] is entered [against Ox] it becomes vitiated for any use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 255. ');">¹⁴</span> and it is in its habit to move about and do damage, whereas all this is not so in the case of Pit. The excess in [the liability for] Pit over [that for] Ox is that Pit is from its very inception a source of injury and is <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio which is not so in the case of Ox.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 3, nn. 6-7. ');">¹⁵</span>