Bava Kamma 72

יחזיר לשלפניו לכולם מבעי ליה

COMPENSATION WILL BE MADE FOR THE PENULTIMATE OFFENCE? Should it not be 'Compensation will be made [proportionately] for each offence'? — Raba replied: The Mishnah is indeed in accordance with R. Ishmael, who holds that claimants [of damages] are like any other creditors; and as to your objection to the statement 'THE LATER THE LIABILITY THE PRIOR THE CLAIM', which you contend should be 'The earlier the liability the prior the claim', [it can be argued] that we deal here with a case where each plaintiff has [in turn] seized the goring ox for the purpose of getting paid [the amount due to him] out of its body, in which case each has in turn acquired [in respect of the ox] the status of a paid bailee, liable for subsequent damages done by it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra p. 57, and infra p. 255. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא לעולם כר' ישמעאל דאמר בעלי חובות נינהו ודקשיא לך אחרון אחרון נשכר ראשון ראשון נשכר מבעי ליה הב"ע כגון שתפסו ניזק לגבות הימנו ונעשה עליו כשומר שכר לנזקין

But if so, why does it say. SHOULD THERE BE A SURPLUS COMPENSATION IS TO BE PAID ALSO FOR THE PENULTIMATE OFFENCE? Should it not be: 'The surplus will revert to the owner'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not the owner but the claimant in regard to the penultimate offence who has to he liable in respect of the last offence. ');">²</span>

אי הכי יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפניו יחזיר לבעלים מבעי ליה

— Rabina therefore said: The meaning is this: Should there be an excess in the damage done to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the penultimate plaintiff. ');">³</span>

אמר רבינא הכי קתני אם יש בו מותר בנזקיו יחזיר לשלפניו

over that done to the subsequent plaintiff, the amount of the difference will revert to the plaintiff in respect of the preceding damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As e.g. where an ox of the value of a hundred zuz gored successively the ox of A the ox of B and the ox of C, and the damages amount to fifty, thirty and twenty zuz respectively, C will be paid the sum of twenty, B only ten, which is the difference between the compensation due to him and that due from him to C, and A will get twenty, which again is the difference between the compensation due to him from the owner (of the ox that did the damage) and that owing from him to B. All the payments together, which are twenty to A, ten to B and twenty to C, make only fifty, so that the balance of the value of the ox will go to its owner. ');">⁴</span>

וכן כי אתא רבין אמר ר' יוחנן משום פשיעת שומרין נגעו בה

So too, when Rabin returned [from Eretz Yisrael] he stated on behalf of R. Johanan that it was for the failure [to carry out their duty] as bailees that liability was incurred [by the earlier plaintiffs to the later].

במאי אוקימתא כר' ישמעאל אי הכי אימא סיפא ר' שמעון אומר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום זה נוטל מנה וזה נוטל מנה

How then have you explained the Mishnah? As being in accordance with R. Ishmael! If so, what of the next clause: R. SIMEON SAYS: WHERE AN OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] HAS GORED AN OX OF THE SAME VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE CARCASS HAD NO VALUE AT ALL, THE PLAINTIFF WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> AND THE DEFENDANT WILL SIMILARLY GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> [OUT OF THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE]. SHOULD THE SAME OX HAVE GORED ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE SECOND CLAIMANT WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, WHILE THE FORMER CLAIMANT WILL GET ONLY FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i>, AND THE DEFENDANT WILL HAVE FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i> [IN THE BODY OF THE OX]. SHOULD THE OX HAVE GORED YET ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE THIRD PLAINTIFF WILL GET A HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], WHILE THE SECOND PLAINTIFF WILL GET FIFTY [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE FIRST TWO PARTIES WILL HAVE A GOLD <i>DENAR</i> [EACH IN THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE]. This brings us back [does it not] to the view of R. Akiba, who maintains that the ox becomes the common property [of the plaintiff and the defendant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if otherwise, why should the first two parties (the owner and the first claimant) always be treated alike? ');">⁵</span>

חזר ונגח שור אחר שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו זה נוטל חמשים זוז וזה נוטל חמשים זוז חזר ונגח שור שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו נוטל חמשים זוז ושנים הראשונים דינר זהב

Will then the first clause be in accordance with R. Ishmael and the second clause in accordance with R. Akiba? — That is so, since even Samuel said to Rab Judah, 'Shinena,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 60, n. 2. ');">⁶</span>

אתאן לר' עקיבא דאמר תורא דשותפי הוא רישא ר' ישמעאל וסיפא ר' עקיבא

leave this Mishnah alone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And do not try to make it self-consistent. ');">⁷</span>

אמרי אין דהא אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא שבוק מתניתין ותא בתראי רישא ר' ישמעאל וסיפא ר' עקיבא

and accept my explanation. that its first clause is [in accordance with] R. Ishmael and its second clause [in accordance with] R. Akiba.' (It was also stated that R. Johanan said: An actual case in which they would differ is where the plaintiff consecrates the goring ox [to the Temple].)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 181. [This bracketed passage is to be deleted with Rashi, v. D.S. a.l.] ');">⁸</span>

(אתמר נמי אמר ר' יוחנן הקדישו ניזק איכא בינייהו)

We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 520 ');">⁹</span>

תנן התם התוקע לחבירו נותן לו סלע ר' יהודה אומר משום ר"י הגלילי מנה

If a man boxes another man's ear, he has to give him a <i>sela'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Palestinian coin, v. Glos. ');">¹⁰</span>

ההוא גברא דתקע לחבריה שלחיה רב טוביה בר מתנה לקמיה דרב יוסף סלע צורי תנן או סלע מדינה תנן

[in compensation]. R. Judah in the name of R. Jose the Galilean says: A hundred <i>zuz</i>. A certain man having [been summoned for] boxing another man's ear, R. Tobiah b. Mattena sent an inquiry to R. Joseph, as to whether a Tyrian <i>sela'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Four zuz, v. infra p. 521, n. 6. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה תניתוה ושנים הראשונים דינר זהב ואי סלקא דעתך תני תנא סלע מדינה נפלוג ונתני עד תריסר וסלע

is meant in the Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated by the anonymous view. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל תנא כי רוכלא ליתני וליזיל

or merely a <i>sela'</i> of [this] country.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Half a zuz. ');">¹³</span>

מאי הוי עלה פשטוה מהא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה

He sent back a reply: You have learnt it: AND THE FIRST TWO PARTIES WILL HAVE A GOLD <i>DENAR</i> [EACH]. Now, should you assume that the Tanna is calculating by the <i>sela'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Half a zuz. ');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה ההוא גברא הואיל ופלגא דזוזא הוא לא בעינא נתביה לעניים הדר אמר ליה נתביה ניהלי איזיל ואברי ביה נפשאי

of [this] country, [we may ask,] why does he not continue the division by introducing a further case where the amount [left for the first two] will come down to twelve [<i>zuz</i>] and one <i>sela'</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. where the last claimant will have a maneh, the next fifty zuz, the rest one gold denar, and the first claimant and the owner 12 zuz and one sela' each. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ל רב יוסף כבר זכו ביה עניים ואף על גב דליכא עניים הכא אנן יד עניים אנן דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל יתומים

To which R. Tobiah replied: Has then the Tanna to string out cases like a peddler?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who cries the whole list of his wares. Cf. Git. 33a. ');">¹⁵</span> What, however, is the solution?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the exact meaning of sela'. ');">¹⁶</span> — The solution was gathered from the statement made by Rab Judah on behalf of Rab:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 11b and Bek. 50b. ');">¹⁷</span> 'Wherever money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit., 'silver'. The market value of silver coinage was determined by Tyre, v. Krauss, op. cit., II, 405] ');">¹⁸</span> is mentioned in the Torah, the reference is to Tyrian money, but wherever it occurs in the words of the Rabbis it means local<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the country'. ');">¹⁹</span> money.' The plaintiff upon hearing that said to the judge: 'Since it will [only] amount to half a <i>zuz</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated by the anonymous view. ');">¹²</span> I do not want it; let him give it to the poor.' Later, however, he said; 'Let him give it to me, as I will go and obtain a cure for myself with it.' But R. Joseph said to him: The poor have already acquired a title to it, for though the poor were not present here, we [in the Court, always] act as the agents<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hand'. ');">²⁰</span> of the poor, as Rab Judah said on behalf of Samuel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 37a. ');">²¹</span> Orphans