Bava Kamma 77

שלא יהא חוטא נשכר

[No exception was made in this case] so that the sinner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seducer. ');">¹</span>

ונתביה לעניים אמר רב מרי משום דהוי ממון שאין לו תובעים:

should not profit thereby. But let him pay the amount of the fine to the poor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the sinner should not benefit, but why pay the money to the Cuthean if R. Meir was inclined to impose a disability upon Cutheans? ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שור של פקח שנגח שור של חרש שוטה וקטן חייב ושל חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח שור של פקח פטור

— R. Mari said: It would [in that case have remained] a pecuniary obligation without definite claimants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any poor man claiming the money could be put off by the plea that he (the seducer) wished to give it to another poor man. ');">³</span>

שור של חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח בית דין מעמידין להן אפוטרופוס ומעידין להן בפני אפוטרופוס

[and would thus never have been discharged].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the Cuthean would not have been entitled to claim it. ');">⁴</span>

נתפקח החרש נשתפה השוטה והגדיל הקטן חזר לתמותו דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר הרי הוא בחזקתו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF AN OX OF AN OWNER WITH UNIMPAIRED FACULTIES GORES AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Usually up to the age of thirteen. These three form a category for themselves as they are not subject to the obligations of either civil or criminal law. ');">⁵</span>

שור האצטדין אינו חייב מיתה שנאמר (שמות כא, כח) כי יגח ולא שיגיחוהו:

THE OWNER IS LIABLE. WHERE, HOWEVER, AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR HAS GORED AN OX OF AN OWNER WHOSE FACULTIES ARE UNIMPAIRED, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Tam: v. the discussion in Gemara. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא גופא קשיא אמרת שור של חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח שור של פקח פטור אלמא אין מעמידין אפוטרופוס לתם לגבות מגופו אימא סיפא שור של חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח ב"ד מעמידין להם אפוטרופוס ומעידין להם בפני אפוטרופוס אלמא מעמידין להם אפוטרופוס לתם לגבות מגופו

IF AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE AN IDIOT OR A MINOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By evidence having been delivered in the presence of the appointed guardian. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבא הכי קתני ואם הוחזקו נגחנין מעמידין להם אפוטרופוס ומעידין להן בפני אפוטרופוס ומשוינן להו מועד דכי הדר ונגח לשלם מעלייה

HAS GORED, THE COURT OF LAW APPOINT A GUARDIAN, IN WHOSE PRESENCE WITNESSES WILL BE ABLE TO TESTIFY [THAT THE OX HAS GORED SO THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DECLARED <i>MU'AD</i>]. IF THE DEAF-MUTE RECOVERS HIS HEARING [OR SPEECH], OR IF THE IDIOT BECOMES SANE, OR IF THE MINOR COMES OF AGE, THE OX PREVIOUSLY DECLARED <i>MU'AD</i> WILL RETURN TO THE STATE OF <i>TAM</i>: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT THE OX WILL REMAIN IN STATUS QUO. IN THE CASE OF A STADIUM OX<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [G], the arena used for wild beast hunts and gladiatorial contests, v. Krauss, op. cit. III, 119.] ');">⁸</span>

מעליית מאן רבי יוחנן אמר מעליית יתומין רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר מעליית אפוטרופוס

[KILLING A PERSON], THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSED [UPON THE OX], AS IT IS WRITTEN: IF AN OX GORE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 28. ');">⁹</span>

ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומין אלא א"כ רבית אוכלת בהן

EXCLUDING CASES WHERE IT IS GOADED TO GORE.

ורבי יוחנן אמר או לשטר שיש בו רבית או לכתובת אשה משום מזוני

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Is not the text in contradiction with itself? [In the first clause] you state, IF AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR GORES AN OX BELONGING TO ONE WHOSE FACULTIES ARE UNIMPAIRED THERE IS NO LIABILITY, implying that a guardian is not appointed in the case of <i>Tam</i> to collect [the payment of half-damages] out of its body.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf.supra p. 73. ');">¹⁰</span>

איפוך רבי יוחנן אמר מעליית אפוטרופסין רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר מעליית יתומין

But read the following clause: IF AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR HAS GORED, THE COURT OF LAW APPOINT A GUARDIAN IN WHOSE PRESENCE WITNESSES WILL BE ABLE TO TESTIFY [SO THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DECLARED <i>MU'AD</i>]. Now, does this not prove that a guardian is appointed in the case of <i>Tam</i> to collect [the payment of half-damages] out of its body? — Raba replied [that the text of the concluding clause] should be understood thus: If the oxen are presumed to be gorers, then a guardian is appointed and witnesses will give evidence for the purpose of having the cattle declared <i>Mu'ad</i>, so that should another goring take place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no payment will be made for damage done while the ox was Tam. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא משום דקשיא דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן משוית ליה לרבי יוסי בר חנינא טועה והא רבי יוסי בר חנינא דיינא הוא ונחית לעומקיה דדינא

the payment would have to come from the best [of the general estate].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 219, n. 6. ');">¹²</span>

אלא לעולם לא תיפוך ומזיק שאני רבי יוחנן אמר מעליית יתומים דאי אמרת מעליית אפוטרופוס

From the best of whose estate [would the payment have to come]? — R. Johanan said: From the best [of the estate] of the orphans;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were minors. ');">¹³</span> R. Jose b. Hanina said: From the best [of the estate] of the guardian. But did R. Johanan really say so? [Has it not been stated that] R. Judah said in the name of R. Assi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 22a. ');">¹⁴</span> The estate of the orphans<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were minors. ');">¹³</span> must not be distrained upon unless where usury is consuming it, and R.. Johanan said: [Unless there is a liability] either for a bond bearing interest or to a woman for her <i>kethubah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., marriage settlement; v. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span> [so as to save from further payment] on account of [her] maintenance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as long as the widow does not collect her kethubah, she receives her maintenance from the property of the orphans, v. Keth. XI, 1. ');">¹⁶</span> — You must therefore reverse names [to read as follows]: R. Johanan said: From the best [of the estate] of the guardian, whereas R. Jose b. Hanina said: From the best [of the estate] of the orphans. Raba, however, objected, saying: Because there is a contradiction between R. Johanan in one place and R. Johanan in another place, are you to ascribe to R. Jose b. Hanina an erroneous view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Raba regarded it as an adopted ruling not to distrain upon the estate of orphans. V. Asheri, a.l.] ');">¹⁷</span> Was not R. Jose b. Hanina a judge, able to penetrate to the innermost intention of the Law? — We must therefore not reverse the names, [and the contradiction between the two views of R. Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., here and in 'Ar. 22a. ');">¹⁸</span> can be reconciled by the consideration that] a case of damage is altogether different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably on account of public safety and public interest it is more expedient not to postpone payment until the orphans come of age. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Johanan stated that the payment must be made out of the best [of the estate] of the orphans, because if you were to say that it is to be out of the best [of the estate] of the guardians