Bava Kamma 19

Chapter 19

א חומר בשור מבאש חומר באש מבשור
1 There is an excess in [the liability for] Ox over [that for] Fire and there is [on the other hand] an excess in [the liability for] Fire over [that for] Ox. The excess in [the liability for] Ox over [that for] Fire is that Ox involves payment of <i>kofer</i> and the liability of thirty [<i>shekels</i>] for the killing of a slave; when judgment [for manslaughter] is entered against Ox it becomes vitiated for any use;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra P. 3, nn 6-7. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב חומר בשור מבאש שהשור משלם כופר וחייב בשלשים של עבד נגמר דינו אסור בהנאה מסרו לחרש שוטה וקטן חייב מה שאין כן באש חומר באש מבשור שהאש מועדת מתחילתה מה שאין כן בשור
2 if the owner handed it over to the care of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor he is still responsible [for any damage that may result];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 37, n. 6. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג חומר באש מבבור וחומר בבור מבאש
3 whereas all this is not so in the case of Fire. The excess in [the liability for] Fire over [that for] Ox is that Fire is <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio which is not so in the case of Ox.
ד חומר בבור מבאש שתחילת עשייתו לנזק מסרו לחרש שוטה וקטן חייב משא"כ באש חומר באש מבבור שהאש דרכה לילך ולהזיק ומועדת לאכול בין דבר הראוי לה ובין דבר שאינו ראוי לה מה שאין כן בבור
4 There is an excess in [the liability for] Fire over [that for] Pit, and there is [on the other hand] an excess in [the liability for] Pit over [that for] Fire. The excess in [the liability for] Pit over [that for] Fire is that Pit is from its very inception a source of injury; if its owner handed it over to the care of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, he is still responsible [for any damage that may result],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 37, n. 6. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה וליתני חומר בשור מבבור שהשור חייב בו את הכלים מה שאין כן בבור
5 whereas all this is not so in the case of Fire. The excess in [the liability for] Fire over [that for] Pit is that the nature of Fire is to spread and do damage and it is apt to consume both things fit for it and things unfit for it, whereas all this is not so in the case of Pit.
ו הא מני ר' יהודה היא דמחייב על נזקי כלים בבור
6 Why not include in the excess of [liability for] Ox over [that for] Pit [the fact] that Ox is [also] liable for damage done to inanimate objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 36. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ז אי רבי יהודה אימא סיפא חומר באש מבבור שהאש דרכה לילך ולהזיק ומועד לאכול בין דבר הראוי לה ובין דבר שאינו ראוי לה מה שאין כן בבור דבר הראוי לה מאי נינהו עצים דבר שאין ראוי לה מאי נינהו כלים מה שאין כן בבור אי ר' יהודה הא אמרת מחייב היה ר' יהודה על נזקי כלים בבור
7 which is not so in the case of Pit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'utensils'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ח אלא לעולם רבנן היא ותנא ושייר מאי שייר דהאי שייר שייר טמון
8 — The above [Baraitha] is in accordance with R. Judah who enjoins payment for damage to inanimate objects [also] in the case of Pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra pp. 17 and 18. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ט איבעית אימא לעולם ר' יהודה ודבר שאין ראוי לה לאו לאתויי כלים אלא לאתויי ליחכה נירו וסכסכה אבניו
9 If it is in accordance with R. Judah, look at the concluding clause, 'The excess in [the liability for] Fire over [that for] Pit is that the nature of Fire is to spread and do damage, and it is apt to consume both things fit for it and things unfit for it; whereas all this is not so in the case of Pit.' 'Things fit for it:' are they not 'of wood'? 'Things unfit for it: are they not 'utensils'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 18 and infra 53b. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
י מתקיף לה רב אשי ליתני חומר בשור מבבור שהשור חייב בו שור פסולי המוקדשין מה שאין כן בבור
10 Now 'all this is not so in the case of Pit'. But if the statement is in accordance with R. Judah, did you not say that R. Judah enjoins payment for damage to inanimate objects [also] in the case of Pit? The Baraitha is, therefore, indeed in accordance with the Rabbis, but it mentions [some points] and omits [others].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Metal or earthenware. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יא אי אמרת בשלמא רבנן היא איידי דשייר הך שייר נמי הך אלא אי אמרת ר' יהודה מאי שייר דהאי שייר
11 What else does it omit that it omits that [particular] point?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the distinction between Ox and Pit with reference to inanimate objects ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יב שייר דש בנירו אי משום דש בנירו לאו שיורא הוא דהתנא שכן דרכו לילך ולהזיק:
12 — It also omits the law of hidden goods.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a Tanna would not, in enumeration, just stop short at one point. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יג הכשרתי במקצת נזקו:
13 On the other hand you may also say that the Baraitha can still be reconciled with R. Judah, for 'things unfit for it' do not include utensils,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For damage to which, according to the Rabbis, there is no liability in the case of Fire; cf. supra p. 18 and infra 61b. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יד תנו רבנן הכשרתי מקצת נזקו חבתי בתשלומי נזקו כהכשר כל נזקו כיצד החופר בור תשעה ובא אחר והשלימו לעשרה האחרון חייב
14 but do include [damage done by fire] lapping his neighbour's ploughed field and grazing his stones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 38, n. 6. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
טו ודלא כרבי דתניא החופר בור תשעה ובא אחר והשלימו לעשרה אחרון חייב רבי אומר אחר אחרון למיתה אחר שניהם לנזקין
15 R. Ashi demurred: Why not include, in the excess of liability for Ox Over [that for] Pit, [the fact] that Ox is [also] liable for damage done to consecrated animals that have become unfit [for the altar],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 18. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טז רב פפא אמר למיתה ודברי הכל
16 whereas this is not so in the case of Pit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of a blemish, cf, Lev. XXII, 20 and Deut. XV, 21-22; such animals have to be redeemed, in accordance with Lev. XXVII, 11-13 and 27. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יז איכא דאמרי לימא דלא כרבי אמר רב פפא למיתה ודברי הכל
17 No difficulty arises if you assume that the Baraitha is in accordance with the Rabbis; just as it had omitted that point,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 53b. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יח מתקיף לה רבי זירא ותו ליכא והא איכא מסר שורו לחמשה בני אדם ופשע בו אחד מהן והזיק חייב
18 it omitted this point too. But if you maintain that the Baraitha is in accordance with R. Judah, what else did it omit that it omits this [one] point? — It omitted [Ox] trampling upon newly broken land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with reference to inanimate objects. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יט היכי דמי אילימא דבלאו איהו לא הוה מינטר פשיטא דאיהו קעביד אלא דבלאו איהו נמי מינטר מאי קעביד
19 [No! this is no argument,] for as to [Ox] trampling upon newly broken land there is no omission there, for this [is included in that which] has already been stated, 'It is in its habit to move about and do damage.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is impossible in the case of Pit. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כ מתקיף לה רב ששת והא איכא מרבה בחבילה
20 WHEN I HAVE PERPETRATED A PART OF THE DAMAGE. Our Rabbis taught: 'When I have perpetrated a part of the damage I become liable for the compensation for the damage as if I had perpetrated the whole of the damage. How is that? If one had dug a Pit nine handbreadths deep and another came along and completed it to a depth of ten handbreadths, the latter person is liable.' Now this ruling is not in accordance with Rabbi; for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore, if the Baraitha were in accordance with R. Judah, the question, 'What else did it omit etc.', would remain unanswered. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כא היכי דמי
21 If one had dug a pit nine handbreadths deep and another came along and completed it to a depth of ten handbreadths, the latter person is liable. Rabbi says: The latter person is liable in cases of death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosaf, B.K. VI, 3 and infra 51a. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> but both of them in cases of injury!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As without the additional handbreadth done by him the pit would have been nine handbreadths deep which could not occasion any fatal accident; cf, supra p. 7. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> — R. Papa said: The Mishnaic ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even a pit nine handbreadths deep could occasion injuries. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> deals with cases of death and is unanimous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which declares the latter person 'who perpetrated part of the damage' liable. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Some read: May we say that the Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabba? — R. Papa thereupon said: It deals with cases of death and is unanimous. R. Zera demurred: Are there no other instances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is even in accordance with Rabbi. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Behold there is [the case] where an ox was handed over to the care of five persons and one of them was careless, so that the ox did damage; that one is liable! — But in what circumstances? If without the care of that one, the ox could not be controlled, is it not obvious that it is that one who perpetrated the whole of the damage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To illustrate the perpetration of a part of the damage involving liability for the whole of the damage. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> If, [on the other hand] even without the care of that one, the ox could be controlled, what, if anything at all, has that one perpetrated? R. Shesheth, however, demurred: Behold there is [the case] where a man adds a bundle [of dry twigs to an existing fire]! — But in what circumstances?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter