Bava Kamma 67

ואפילו הזיק עד שלא חב בעל חוב קדים ש"מ ב"ח מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה לא גבה

Moreover, even where the goring had taken place before the debt was contracted, was not the creditor actually first [in taking possession of the ox]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should then the plaintiff for damages override the right of another creditor who had already taken possession of the ox? ');">¹</span>

לא לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה גבה ושאני התם דא"ל אילו גבך הוה לא מינך הוה גבי ליה דהאי תורא דאזקן מיניה משתלמנא:

Can it be concluded from this that where a creditor of a subsequent date has preceded a creditor of an earlier date in distraining on [the property of the debtor], the distraint is of no legal avail?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas this is a point on which opinions differ; cf. Keth. 94a. ');">²</span>

ת"ר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים וחבל בו בחמשים זוז ושבח ועמד על ארבע מאות זוז שאלמלא (לא) הזיקו היה עומד על שמנה מאות זוז נותן כשעת הנזק

— No; I may still maintain that [in this case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with two creditors for loans. ');">³</span>

כחש כשעת העמדה בדין

the distraint holds good, whereas in the case there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one of the creditors was a plaintiff for damages. ');">⁴</span>

שבח מזיק נותן לו כשעת הנזק כחש כשעת העמדה בדין

it is altogether different; as the plaintiff [for damages] may argue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the other creditor. ');">⁵</span>

אמר מר שבח מזיק נותן כשעת הנזק מני ר' ישמעאל היא דאמר בעל חוב הוא וזוזי הוא דמסיק ליה

'Had the ox already been with you [before it gored], would I not have been entitled to distrain on it while in your hands? For surely out of the ox that did the damage I am to be compensated.'

אימא סיפא כחש כשעת העמדה בדין אתאן לר"ע דאמר שותפי נינהו רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא ר"ע

Our Rabbis taught: Where an ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the state of Tam. ');">⁶</span>

לא כולה ר"ע היא והכא במאי עסקינן כשפיטמו

of the value of two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] gored an ox of the same value of two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and injured it to the amount of fifty <i>zuz</i>, but it so happened that the injured ox [subsequently] improved and reached the value of four hundred <i>zuz</i>, since it can be contended that but for the injury it would have reached the value of eight hundred <i>zuz</i>, compensation will be [still] paid as at the time of the damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the defendant cannot put up the increase in the value of the injured ox as a defence, for but for the injury the ox might have reached the value of even eight hundred zuz. ');">⁷</span>

אי כשפיטמו אימא רישא שבח ועמד על ד' מאות זוז נותן לו כשעת הנזק אי כשפיטמו צריכא למימר

Where it has depreciated, the compensation will be paid in accordance with the value at the time of the case being brought into Court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the detriment of the defendant. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב פפא רישא משכחת לה בין דפטמה פטומי בין דשבחא ממילא ואצטריך לאשמועינן דהיכא דשבחא ממילא נותן לו כשעת הנזק סיפא לא משכחת לה אלא כשפטמו

Where it was the ox which did the damage that [subsequently] improved, the compensation will still be made in accordance with the value at the time of the damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This view apparently maintains that the plaintiff does not become an owner of a definite portion in the ox that did the damage, but becomes entitled merely to a certain sum of money to be collected out of the body of that ox. ');">⁹</span>

כחש כשעת העמדה בדין כחש מחמת מאי אילימא דכחשא מחמת מלאכה לימא ליה את מכחשת ואנא יהיבנא

Where it has [on the other hand] depreciated, the compensation will be made in accordance with the value at the time of the case being brought into Court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seemingly because the plaintiff is according to this ruling regarded as having become at the time the goring took place an owner of a definite portion in the ox which has subsequently depreciated. For if he became entitled to a certain sum of money in the body of that ox, why should he suffer on account of depreciation? ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב אשי דכחש מחמת מכה דא"ל קרנא דתורך קבירא ביה:

The Master has said: 'Where it was the ox which did the damage that [subsequently] improved, the compensation will still be made as at the time of the damage.' This ruling is in accordance with R. Ishmael, who maintains that the plaintiff is a creditor and he has a pecuniary claim against him [the defendant]. Read now the concluding clause: 'Where it [on the other hand] depreciated, the compensation will be made in accordance with the value at the time of the case being brought into Court'. This ruling, on the other hand, follows the view of R. Akiba, that they both [plaintiff and defendant] become the owners in common [of the ox that did the damage]. [Is it possible that] the first clause should follow the view of R. Ishmael and the second clause follow that of R. Akiba? — No; the whole teaching follows the view of R. Akiba, for we deal here with a case where the improvement was due to the defendant having fattened the ox.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is only reasonable that the plaintiff should not be entitled to any share in the improvement that resulted from the fattening carried out by the defendant. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבילה יפה כלום אמר ר"מ על זה נאמר (שמות כא, לה) ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו

If the improvement was due to fattening, how could you explain the opening clause, 'where&nbsp;… the injured ox [subsequently] improved and reached the value of four hundred <i>zuz</i>&nbsp;… compensation will be paid as at the time of the damage'? For where the improvement was due to the act of fattening [by the owner], what need could there have been to state [that compensation for the original damage has still to be paid]? — R. Papa thereupon said: The ruling in the opening clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with the case where it was the injured ox that improved and increased in value. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל רבי יהודה וכן הלכה קיימת ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו ולא קיימת וגם המת יחצון ואיזה זה שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים והנבילה יפה חמשים זוז שזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת:

applies to all cases, whether where the ox improved by special fattening or where it improved by itself: the statement of the rule was required for the case where the ox improved by itself — even then compensation will be paid as at time of the damage. The ruling in the concluding clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Giving the law where the ox that had done the damage improved. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים והנבילה יפה חמשים זוז זה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזהו שור האמור בתורה דברי רבי יהודה

however, could apply only to a case where the improvement was due to special fattening.

רבי מאיר אומר אין זהו שור האמור בתורה אלא שור שוה מאתים שנגח לשור שוה מאתים ואין הנבילה יפה כלום על זה נאמר ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו אלא מה אני מקיים וגם את המת יחצון פחת שפחתו מיתה מחצין בחי

'Where it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ox that had been injured, dealt with in the opening clause. ');">¹⁴</span>

מכדי בין ר"מ בין רבי יהודה האי מאה ועשרים וחמשה שקיל והאי מאה ועשרים וחמשה שקיל מאי בינייהו

has depreciated, the compensation will be made in accordance with the value at the time of the case being brought into Court.' Through what can it have depreciated? Shall I say that it has depreciated through hard work? In that case [surely] the defendant can say, 'You cause it to depreciate!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By hard work. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבא פחת נבילה איכא בינייהו רבי מאיר סבר פחת נבילה דניזק הוי ורבי יהודה סבר פחת נבילה דמזיק הוי פלגא

Could you expect me to pay for it?' — R. Ashi thereupon said: The depreciation [referred to] is due to the injury, in which case the plaintiff is entitled to contend, '[The evil effect of] the horn of your ox is still buried within the suffering animal.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The depreciation is thus a direct result of the injury for which the defendant is responsible. ');">¹⁶</span>

א"ל אביי אם כן מצינו לרבי יהודה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHERE AN OX<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the state of Tam. ');">¹⁷</span> OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] GORED AN OX OF THE SAME VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE CARCASS HAD NO VALUE AT ALL, R. MEIR SAID THAT IT WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THIS CASE THAT IT IS WRITTEN, AND THEY SHALL SELL THE LIVE OX AND DIVIDE THE MONEY OF IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 35. ');">¹⁸</span> R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAID: THIS IS CERTAINLY THE <i>HALACHAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That half-damages should be paid in the case of Tam. ');">¹⁹</span> BUT WHILE YOU FULFIL [BY THIS RULING THE INJUNCTION], 'AND THEY SHALL SELL THE LIVE OX AND DIVIDE THE MONEY OF IT,' YOU DO NOT FULFIL [THE NEXT INJUNCTION], 'AND THE DEAD OX ALSO THEY SHALL DIVIDE.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case specified by R. Meir the carcass had no value at all. ');">²⁰</span> THE CASE DEALT WITH BY SCRIPTURE IS THEREFORE WHERE AN OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] GORED AN OX OF THE SAME VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE CARCASS WAS WORTH FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i>: ONE PARTY WOULD HERE GET HALF OF THE LIVING OX TOGETHER WITH HALF OF THE DEAD OX<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amounting altogether to one hundred and twenty-five zuz. The plaintiff would thus get seventy-five zuz in respect of the damage that amounted to one hundred and fifty zuz. Together with the fifty of the carcass of his ox the sum total will be one hundred and twenty-five zuz. ');">²¹</span> AND THE OTHER PARTY WOULD SIMILARLY GET HALF OF THE LIVING OX TOGETHER WITH HALF OF THE DEAD OX. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Where an ox of the value of two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] gored an ox of the same value of two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and the carcass was worth fifty <i>zuz</i>, one party would get half of the living ox together with half of the dead ox and the other party would similarly get half of the living ox together with half of the dead ox. This is the [case of the goring] ox dealt with in the Torah, according to the view of R. Judah. R. Meir, however, says; This is not the [case of the goring] ox dealt with in the Torah, but where an ox of the value of two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] gored an ox of the same value of two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and the carcass was of no value at all — this is the case regarding which it is laid down, <i>'And they shall sell the live ox and divide the money of it</i>.' But how could I [in this case] carry out [the other direction], <i>'And the dead ox also they shall divide'</i>? [This only means that] the diminution [in value] brought about by the death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the animal attacked resulting from the injuries inflicted upon it. ');">²²</span> has to be [compensated] to the extent of one-half out of the body of the living ox. Now, since [in the former case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Specified by R. Judah, where the carcass was worth fifty zuz. ');">²³</span> according to both R. Meir and R. Judah one party will get a hundred and twenty-five [<i>zuz</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., half of the value of the living ox and half of the value of the carcass. ');">²⁴</span> and the other party will similarly get a hundred and twenty-five [<i>zuz</i>], what is the [practical] difference between them? — Raba thereupon said: The difference arises where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the death of the attacked ox. ');">²⁵</span> there has been a decrease in the value of the carcass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it has been sold. ');">²⁶</span> R. Meir maintains that the loss in the value of the carcass has to be [wholly] sustained by the plaintiff,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As according to R. Meir, the defendant has no interest whatsoever in the carcass. ');">²⁷</span> whereas R. Judah is of the opinion that the loss in the value of the carcass will be borne by the defendant to the extent of a half.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to R. Judah, both the defendant and the plaintiff have to divide the value of the carcass. ');">²⁸</span> Said Abaye to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba. ');">²⁹</span> If this be the case, will it not turn out that according to R. Judah