Bava Kamma 20

אי דבלאו איהו לא אזלא פשיטא אלא דבלאו איהו אזלא מאי קא עביד

If without his co-operation the fire would not have spread, is it not obvious [that he is totally to blame]? If [on the other hand] even without his co-operation the fire would have spread, what, if anything at all, has he perpetrated?

מתקיף לה רב פפא והא איכא הא דתניא ה' שישבו על ספסל אחד ולא שברוהו ובא אחד וישב עליו ושברו האחרון חייב ואמר רב פפא כגון פפא בר אבא

R. Papa demurred: Behold there is that case which is taught: 'Five persons were sitting upon one bench and did not break it; when, however, there came along one person more and sat upon it, it broke down; the latter is liable' — supposing him, added R. Papa, to have been as stout as Papa b. Abba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was very corpulent, cf. B.M. 84a. [According to Zacuto's Sefer ha-Yuhasin, the reference there is not to R. Papa but to Papa b. Abba] ');">¹</span>

היכי דמי אילימא דבלאו איהו לא איתבר פשיטא אלא דבלאו איהו נמי איתבר מאי קעביד

But under what circumstances? If without him the bench would not have broken, is it not obvious [that he is totally to blame]? If, on the other hand, without him it would also have broken, what, if anything at all, has he perpetrated? Be this as it may, how can the Baraitha be justified? — It could hold good when, without the newcomer, the bench would have broken after two hours, whereas now it broke in one hour. They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the five persons that had previously been sitting upon the bench. ');">²</span>

סוף סוף מתניתא היכא מתרצא

therefore can say to him: 'If not for you we would have remained sitting a little while longer and would then have got up.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he is to he regarded as having perpetrated the whole, and not merely a part, of the damage. ');">³</span>

לא צריכא דבלאו איהו הוי מיתבר בתרי שעי והשתא איתבר בחדא שעה דאמרי ליה אי לאו את הוי יתבינן טפי פורתא וקיימין

But why should he not say to them: 'Had you not been [sitting] there, through me the bench would not have broken'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And why should he alone be liable? ');">⁴</span>

ולימא להו אי לאו אתון בדידי לא הוה מיתבר

— No; it holds good when he [did not sit at all on the bench but] merely leaned upon them and the bench broke down. Is it not obvious [that he is liable]? — You might have argued '[Damage done by] a man's force is not comparable with [that done directly by] his body.'It is therefore made known to us that [a man is responsible for] his force [just as he] is [for] his body, for whenever his body breaks [anything] his force also participates in the damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra pp. 79-80. ');">⁵</span>

לא צריכא דבהדי דסמיך בהו תבר

Are there no other instances? Behold there is that which is taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra pp. 79-80. ');">⁵</span>

פשיטא

When ten persons beat a man with ten sticks, whether simultaneously or successively, so that he died, none of them is guilty of murder. R. Judah b. Bathyra says: If [they hit] successively, the last is liable, for he was the immediate cause of the death!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 78a and infra p. 139. [Why then was this ruling of R. Judah not taken as a further illustration of the Mishnaic principle?] ');">⁶</span>

מהו דתימא כחו לאו כגופו דמי קמ"ל דכחו כגופו דמי דכל היכא דגופו תבר כחו נמי תבר

— Cases of murder are not dealt with here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah before us (which presents the law of civil action and not that of murder). ');">⁷</span>

ותו ליכא והא איכא הא דתניא הכוהו עשרה בני אדם בעשר מקלות בין בבת אחת בין בזה אחר זה ומת כולן פטורין רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר בזה אחר זה האחרון חייב מפני שקירב את מיתתו

You may also say that controversial cases are not dealt with.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah before us (which presents the law of civil action and not that of murder). ');">⁷</span>

בקטלא לא קמיירי

Are they not? Did not we suggest that the Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 39. ');">⁸</span>

ואיבעית אימא בפלוגתא לא קמיירי ולא והא אוקימנן דלא כרבי דלא כר' וכרבנן מוקמינן כר' יהודה בן בתירא ולא כרבנן לא מוקמינן

— That the Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabbi but in accordance with the Rabbis, we may suggest;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is the view of the majority that prevails; Ex. XXIII, 2. ');">⁹</span>

חבתי בתשלומי נזקו חבתי בנזקו לא קתני אלא בתשלומי נזקו

whereas that it is in accordance with R. Judah b. Bathyra, and not in accordance with the Rabbis, we are not inclined to suggest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is the view of the majority that prevails; Ex. XXIII, 2. ');">⁹</span>

תנינא להא דתנו רבנן תשלומי נזק מלמד שהבעלים מטפלין בנבילה

I AM LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE. 'I become liable for the replacement of the damage' is not stated but '… TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE'. We have thus learnt here that which the Rabbis taught elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. I. 1. ');">¹⁰</span>

מנא הני מילי אמר ר' אמי דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, יח) מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה אל תקרי ישלמנה אלא ישלימנה

'"To compensate for damage" imports that the owners [plaintiffs] have to retain the carcass as part payment'. What is the authority for this ruling? — R. Ammi said: Scripture states, He that killeth a beast yeshallemennah [shall make it good];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lev. XXIV, 18. ');">¹¹</span>

רב כהנא אמר מהכא (שמות כב, יב) אם טרף יטרף יביאהו עד הטרפה לא ישלם עד טרפה ישלם טרפה עצמה לא ישלם

do not read yeshallemennah ['he shall pay for it'], but yashlimennah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Changing the vowels of the Hebrew verb; [H] into [H] ');">¹²</span>

חזקיה אמר מהכא (שמות כא, לד) והמת יהיה לו לניזק

['He shall complete its deficiency']. R. Kahana infers it from the following: If it be torn in pieces, let him bring compensation up to ['ad]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly by changing the vowel; the monosyllable [H] (witness) is read [H] 'up to'. ');">¹³</span>

וכן תנא דבי חזקיה והמת יהיה לו לניזק אתה אומר לניזק או אינו אלא למזיק אמרת לא כך היה

the value of the carcass,' he shall not make good that which was torn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 12. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי לא כך היה

'Up to' the value of the carcass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the amount required to make up the deficiency. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר אביי אי ס"ד נבילה דמזיק הויא ליכתוב רחמנא שור תחת השור ולישתוק והמת יהיה לו למה לי ש"מ לניזק

he must pay, but for the carcass itself he has not to pay. Hezekiah infers it from the following: And the dead shall be his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 36. ');">¹⁶</span>

וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא מכה בהמה ישלמנה משום דלא שכיחא אבל טרפה דשכיחא אימא לא צריכא

which refers to the plaintiff. It has similarly been taught in the school of Hezekiah: And the dead shall be his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 36. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואי אשמועינן טרפה משום דממילא אבל מכה בהמה דבידים אימא לא

refers to the plaintiff. You say 'the plaintiff'. Why not the defendant? You may safely assert: 'This is not the case.' Why is this not the case? — Abaye said: If you assume that the carcass must remain with the defendant, why did not the Divine law, stating He shall surely pay ox for ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 36. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואי אשמועינן הני תרתי הא משום דלא שכיחא והא משום דממילא אבל והמת יהיה לו דשכיחא ובידים אימא לא

stop at that? Why write at all And the dead shall be his own?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid; since it is self-evident that the defendant, having paid for the ox, claims the carcass. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואי אשמועינן המת יהיה לו משום דממונא קא מזיק אבל הכא דבגופא מזיק אימא לא צריכא

This shows that it refers to the plaintiff.

א"ל רב כהנא לרב אלא טעמא דכתב רחמנא והמת יהיה לו הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא נבילה דמזיק הויא

And all the quotations serve each its specific purpose. For if the Divine Law had laid down [this ruling only in] the verse 'He that killeth a beast shall make it good,' the reason of the ruling would have been assigned to the infrequency of the occurrence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a man to kill a beast with intent to cause damage to his neighbour. ');">¹⁹</span>

השתא אי אית ליה לדידיה כמה טריפות יהיב ליה דאמר מר (שמות כא, לד) ישיב לרבות שוה כסף ואפילו סובין דידיה מבעיא

whereas in the case of an animal torn in pieces [by wild beasts]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 12. ');">²⁰</span>

לא נצרכא אלא לפחת נבילה

which is [comparatively] of frequent occurrence, the opposite view might have been held;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the interest of the plaintiff. ');">²¹</span>

לימא פחת נבילה תנאי היא דתניא אם טרף יטרף יביאהו עד

hence special reference is essential.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 12. ');">²⁰</span> If [on the other hand] this ruling had been made known to us only in the case of an animal torn in pieces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 42, n. 11. ');">²²</span> it would have been explained by the fact that the damage there was done by an indirect agency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not by the bailee himself but by a wild beast. ');">²³</span> whereas in the case of a man killing a beast, where the damage was done by a direct agency, the opposite view might have been held. Again, were this ruling intimated in both cases, it would have been explained in the one case on account of its infrequency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., man killing an animal. ');">²⁴</span> and in the other account of the indirect agency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the animal in charge was torn by beasts. ');">²⁵</span> whereas in the damage to which 'And the dead shall be his own'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of a goring ox, Ex. XXI, 36. ');">²⁶</span> refers, which is both frequent and direct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox being his property, makes the owner responsible for the damage as if it were perpetrated by himself, ');">²⁷</span> an opposite view might have been taken. If [on the other hand] this ruling had been intimated only in the case referred to by 'And the dead shall be his own, it would have been explained by the fact of the damage having been done only by man's possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by his cattle. ');">²⁸</span> whereas in cases where the damage resulted from man's person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in Lev. XXIV, 18 and Ex. XXII, 12. ');">²⁹</span> an opposite view might have been taken. Hence all quotations are essential. R. Kahana said to Rab: The reason [for the ruling] is that the Divine Law says 'And the dead shall be his own', and but for this I might have thought that the carcass shall remain with the defendant [yet how can this be]? If, when there are with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with the defendant. ');">³⁰</span> several carcasses he is entitled to pay him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the plaintiff. ');">³¹</span> with them, for the Master stated: He shall return,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' EX.XXI, 34. ');">³²</span> includes payment in kind, even with bran,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 24. ');">³³</span> what question then about the carcass of his own animal? — No, the verse is required only for the law regarding the decrease of the value of the carcass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to he sustained by the plaintiff, since it becomes his from the moment of the goring. ');">³⁴</span> May we say that the decrease of the value of the carcass is a point at issue between Tannaitic authorities? For it has been taught: If it be torn in pieces, let him bring it for witness:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex.XXII, 12. ');">³⁵</span>