Bava Kamma 30

המית שורי את פלוני או שורו של פלוני הרי זה משלם על פי עצמו

'My ox committed manslaughter on A'; or 'killed A's ox' '[in either case] a liability to compensate is established by this admission.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 41a. ');">¹</span>

מאי לאו בתם

Now does this Mishnah not deal with the case of <i>Tam</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if the liability is created by admission it proves that it is not penal but civil. ');">²</span>

לא במועד אבל תם מאי הכי נמי דאין משלם על פי עצמו אי הכי אדתני סיפא המית שורי את עבדו של פלוני אין משלם על פי עצמו לפלוג וליתני בדידיה

— No, only with <i>Mu'ad</i>. But what is the law in the case of <i>Tam</i>? Would it really be the fact that no liability is established by admission?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of its being penal. ');">³</span>

בד"א במועד אבל בתם אינו משלם על פי עצמו

If this be the case, why state in the concluding clause, 'My ox killed A's slave,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the fine of thirty shekels has to he imposed; v, Ex. XXI, 32. ');">⁴</span>

כולה במועד קמיירי

no liability is created by this admission?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 41a. ');">⁵</span>

תא שמע זה הכלל כל המשלם יותר על מה שהזיק אינו משלם על פי עצמו מאי לאו הא פחות ממה שהזיק משלם

Why indeed not indicate the distinction in the very same case by stating: 'the rule that liability is established by mere admission is confined to <i>Mu'ad</i>, whereas in the case of <i>Tam</i> no liability is created by mere admission'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is considered penal. ');">⁶</span>

לא הא כמה שהזיק משלם

— The Mishnah all through deals with <i>Mu'ad</i>.

אבל פחות מאי הכי נמי דלא משלם אי הכי אדתני זה הכלל כל המשלם יותר על מה שהזיק אינו משלם על פי עצמו ליתני זה הכלל כל שאינו משלם כמה שהזיק דמשמע פחות ומשמע יותר תיובתא

Come and hear: This is the general rule: In all cases where the payment is more than the actual damage done, no liability is created by mere admission.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 41a. ');">⁵</span>

והלכתא פלגא נזקא קנסא

Now does this not indicate that in cases where the payment is less than the damage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such, e.g., as in the case of Tam. ');">⁷</span>

תיובתא והלכתא

the liability will be established even by mere admission?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the penalty is not penal but civil, and this refutes R. Huna b. R. Joshua. ');">⁸</span>

אין טעמא מאי הויא תיובתא משום דלא קתני כמו שהזיק

— No, this is so only when the payment corresponds exactly to the amount of the damages. But what is the law in a case where the payment is less than the damage? Would it really be the fact that no liability is established by admission? If this be the case, why state: 'This is the general rule: In all cases where the payment is more than the actual damage done, no liability is created by mere admission'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 41a. ');">⁹</span>

לא פסיקא ליה כיון דאיכא חצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירא לה דממונא הוא משום הכי לא קתני

Why not state simply: 'This is the general rule: In all cases where the payment does not correspond exactly to the amount of the damages&nbsp;…' which would [both] imply 'less' and imply 'more'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to be civil. ');">¹⁰</span>

והשתא דאמרת פלגא נזקא קנסא האי כלבא דאכל אימרי ושונרא דאכלה תרנגולא משונה הוא ולא מגבינן בבבל

This is indeed a refutation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the view maintaining the liability of Tam to be penal. ');">¹¹</span>

והני מילי ברברבי אבל בזוטרי אורחיה הוא

Still the law is definite that the liability of half-damages is penal. But if this opinion was refuted, how could it stand as a fixed law? — Yes! The sole basis of the refutation is in the fact that the Mishnaic text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 41a. ');">⁹</span>

ואי תפס לא מפקינן מיניה

does not run '… where the payment does not correspond exactly to the amount of the damages'. This wording would, however, be not altogether accurate, as there is the liability of half-damages in the case of pebbles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kicked from under an animal's feet and doing damage; cf. supra p. 8. ');">¹²</span>

ואי אמר קבעו לי זימנא דאזלינא לארעא דישראל קבעינן ליה ואי לא אזיל משמתינן ליה

which is, in accordance with a halachic tradition, held to be civil. On account of this fact the suggested text has not been adopted.

ובין כך ובין כך משמתינן ליה עד דמסלק הזיקא

Now that you maintain the liability of half-damages to be penal. the case of a dog devouring lambs, or a cat devouring hens is an unusual occurrence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Falling thus under the category of Horn; as supra p. 4. ');">¹³</span>

מדרבי נתן דתניא רבי נתן אומר מניין שלא יגדל אדם כלב רע בתוך ביתו ואל יעמיד סולם רעוע בתוך ביתו ת"ל (דברים כב, ח) לא תשים דמים בביתך

and no distress will be executed in Babylon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As penal liabilities could be dealt with only in the Land of Israel where the judges were specially ordained for the purpose; Mumhin, v. Glos. s. v. Mumhe; cf. infra. 27b, 84a-b. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חמשה תמין וחמשה מועדין

— provided, however, the lambs and hens were big; for if they were small, the occurrence would be usual?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would come within the category of Tooth, the payment for which is civil. ');">¹⁵</span>

הבהמה אינה מועדת לא ליגח ולא ליגוף ולא לשוך ולא לרבוץ ולא לבעוט

Should, however, the plaintiff<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in Babylon. ');">¹⁶</span>

השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה הרגל מועדת לשבור בדרך הילוכה ושור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק והאדם

seize chattels belonging to the defendant, it would not be possible for us to dispossess him of them. So also were the plaintiff to plead 'fix me a definite time for bringing my case to be heard in the Land of Israel,' we would have to fix it for him; were the other party to refuse to obey that order, we should have to excommunicate him. But in any case, we have to excommunicate him until he abates the nuisance, in accordance with the dictum of R. Nathan. For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 46a and Keth. 41b. ');">¹⁷</span>

הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש הרי אלו מועדין רבי אלעזר אומר בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדין והנחש מועד לעולם

R. Nathan says: Whence is it derived that nobody should breed a bad dog in his house, or keep an impaired ladder in his house? [We learn it] from the text, Thou bring not blood upon thine house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 8. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מדקתני השן מועדת לאכול מכלל דבחצר הניזק עסקינן וקתני בהמה אינה מועדת לשלם כוליה אבל חצי נזק משלמת

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THERE ARE FIVE CASES OF <i>TAM</i> AND FIVE CASES OF <i>MU'AD</i>. ANIMAL IS <i>MU'AD</i> NEITHER TO GORE, NOR TO COLLIDE, NOR TO BITE, NOR TO FALL DOWN NOR TO KICK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are the five cases of Tam, v. supra p. 3. ');">¹⁹</span>

מני רבנן היא דאמרי משונה קרן בחצר הניזק חצי נזק הוא דמשלם

TOOTH, HOWEVER, IS <i>MU'AD</i> TO CONSUME WHATEVER IS FIT FOR IT; FOOT IS <i>MU'AD</i> TO BREAK [THINGS] IN THE COURSE OF WALKING; OX AFTER BECOMING <i>MU'AD</i>; OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES; AND MAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are the five cases of Mu'ad, v. Glos. ');">²⁰</span>

אימא סיפא שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק והאדם אתאן לרבי טרפון דאמר משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם הוא דמשלם

SO ALSO THE WOLF, THE LION, THE BEAR, THE LEOPARD, THE BARDALIS [PANTHER] AND THE SNAKE ARE <i>MU'AD</i>. R. ELEAZAR SAYS: IF THEY HAVE BEEN TAMED, THEY ARE NOT <i>MU'AD</i>; THE SNAKE, HOWEVER, IS ALWAYS <i>MU'AD</i>.

רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי טרפון

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Considering that it is stated TOOTH IS <i>MU'AD</i> TO CONSUME&nbsp;… it must be assumed that we are dealing with a case where the damage has been done on the plaintiff's premises.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if otherwise there is no liability in the case of Tooth; cf. Ex. XXII, 4, and supra, 5b. ');">²¹</span>

אין דהאמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא שבוק מתני' ותא אבתראי רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי טרפון

It is also stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the commencing clause of the Mishnah. ');">²²</span>

רבי אלעזר משמיה דרב אמר

ANIMAL IS <i>MU'AD</i> NEITHER TO GORE&nbsp;… meaning that the compensation will not be in full, but only half-damages will be paid, which is in accordance with the Rabbis who say that for the unusual damage done by Horn [even] on the plaintiff's premises only half-damages will be paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 14a; infra 24b. ');">²³</span> Read now the concluding clause: OX AFTER HAVING BECOME <i>MU'AD</i>, OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES, AND MAN, which is in accordance with R. Tarfon who said that for the unusual damage done by Horn on the plaintiff's premises full compensation must be paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 14a; infra 24b. ');">²³</span> Is the commencing clause according to the Rabbis and the concluding clause according to R. Tarfon? — Yes, since Samuel said to Rab Judah, 'Shinena,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 60, n. 2. ');">²⁴</span> leave the Mishnah alone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 60, n. 3. ');">²⁵</span> and follow my view: the commencing clause is in accordance with the Rabbis, and the concluding clause is in accordance with R. Tarfon.' R. Eleazar in the name of Rab, however, said: