Bava Kamma 89

Chapter 89

א מכור הקדישו מוקדש שחטו בשרו מותר החזירו שומר לבית בעליו מוחזר
1 the sale holds good; if he declares it sacred, it is sacred; if it is slaughtered, its flesh is permitted [for food]; if a bailee returns it to the house of its owner, it is an effective restoration. But if after its sentence had already been pronounced the owner sold it, the sale would not be valid; if he consecrates it, it is not consecrated; if it is slaughtered its flesh is forbidden [for any use]; if a bailee returns it to the house of its owner, it is not an effective restoration. R. Jacob, however, says: Even if after the sentence had already been pronounced the bailee returned it to its owner, it would be an effective restoration. Shall we say that the point at issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. between R. Jacob and the Rabbis. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב משנגמר דינו מכרו אינו מכור הקדישו אינו מוקדש שחטו בשרו אסור החזירו שומר לבית בעליו אינו מוחזר ר' יעקב אומר אף משנגמר דינו החזירו שומר לבעליו מוחזר
2 is that in the view of the Rabbis it is of no avail to plead<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against a depositor or against a person who was robbed of an article, before it became prohibited for any use. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג לימא בהא קמיפלגי דרבנן סברי אין אומרין באיסורי הנאה הרי שלך לפניך ורבי יעקב סבר אומרין באיסורי הנאה הרי שלך לפניך
3 regarding things which became forbidden for any use, 'Here is your property before you',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is that, by becoming forbidden for any use, the things, though not undergoing any change in their external size and appearance, do not remain (in the eyes of the law) the same things as were previously deposited with the bailee or misappropriated by the robber, their status then having been different. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אמר רבה דכולי עלמא אומרין באיסורי הנאה הרי שלך לפניך דא"כ נפלוג לענין חמץ בפסח
4 whereas in the view of R. Jacob it can be pleaded even regarding things forbidden for any use, 'Here is your property before you'? — Rabba said: Both parties in fact agree that even regarding things forbidden for any use, the plea, 'Here is your property before you' can be advanced, for if it is as you said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Jacob and the Rabbis differ on this point. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אלא הכא בגומרין דינו של שור שלא בפניו קמיפלגי דרבנן סברי אין גומרין דינו של שור אלא בפניו דאמר ליה אי אהדרתיה ניהלי הוה מערקנא ליה לאגמא השתא אתפשתיה לתוראי בידא דלא יכילנא לאשתעויי דינא בהדיה
5 why did they not differ in the case of leaven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stolen before the eve of Passover. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ור' יעקב סבר גומרין דינו של שור שלא בפניו דאמר ליה סוף סוף מיגמר הוו גמרי ליה לדינא
6 on Passover?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. whether the leaven might be returned by the robber after the approach of Passover when it became forbidden for any use; cf. infra pp. 561, 572. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז מאי טעמא דרבנן (שמות כא, כט) השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור מה בעלים בפניהם אף שור בפניו
7 But the point at issue here [in the case before us] must therefore be whether [or not] sentence may be pronounced over an ox in its absence. The Rabbis maintain that no sentence can be pronounced over an ox in its absence, and the owner may accordingly plead against the bailee: 'If you would have returned it to me [before the passing of the sentence], I would have caused it to escape to the pastures, whereas you have allowed my ox to fall into the hands of those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the Court of Law. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח ור' יעקב בשלמא בעלים בני טענה נינהו אלא שור בר טענתא הוא:
8 against whom I am unable to bring any action'. R. Jacob, however, maintains that the sentence can be pronounced over the ox even in its absence, and the bailee may accordingly retort to the owner: 'In any case the sentence would have been passed on the ox.' What is the reason of the Rabbis? — [Scripture says]: The ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט מסרו לשומר חנם ולשואל כו': תנו רבנן ארבעה נכנסו תחת הבעלים ואלו הן שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר הרגו תמין נהרגין ופטורין מן הכופר מועדין נהרגין ומשלמין את הכופר וחייבין להחזיר דמי שור לבעליו חוץ משומר חנם
9 [implying that] the conditions under which the owner would be subject to be put to death [were he to have committed murder], are also the conditions under which the ox would be subject to be put to death; just as in the case of the owner [committing murder, the sentence could be passed only] in his presence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. Num. XXXV, 12. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י אמרי היכי דמי אי דנטריה אפילו כולהו נמי ליפטרו ואי דלא נטריה אפילו שומר חנם ניחייב
10 so also [the sentence] in the case of an ox [could be passed only] in its presence. But R. Jacob [argues]: That applies well enough to the case of the owner [committing murder], as he is able to submit pleas, but is the ox also able to submit pleas?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That its presence should be required. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא אמרי הכא במאי עסקינן דנטריה שמירה פחותה ולא נטריה שמירה מעולה שומר חנם כלתה לו שמירתו הנך לא כלתה שמירתן
11 WHERE AN OWNER HAS HANDED OVER HIS CATTLE TO AN UNPAID BAILEE OR TO A BORROWER etc. Our Rabbis taught: The following four [categories of persons] enter into all liabilities in lieu of the owner, viz., Unpaid Bailee and Borrower, Paid Bailee and Hirer. [If cattle so transferred] kill [a person] if they are <i>Tam</i>, they would be stoned to death, but there would be exemption from <i>kofer</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 28. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב אמרי כמאן אי כרבי מאיר
12 whereas in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>, they would be stoned and the bailees in charge would be liable to pay <i>kofer</i>. In all cases, however, the value of the ox would have to be reimbursed to the owner by all of the bailees with the exception of the Unpaid Bailee. I would here ask with what circumstances are we dealing? If where the ox [was well] guarded, why should all of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the exception, however, of the borrower who is liable even for accidents. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> not be exempt [from having to reimburse the owner]? If on the other hand it was not guarded well, why should even the Unpaid Bailee not be liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he also is liable for carelessness. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> — It might be said that we are dealing here with a case where inferior precautions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as e.g. a door which would withstand only an ordinary wind. V. infra 55b ');"><sup>14</sup></span> were taken to control the ox but not really adequate precautions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to withstand a wind of even unusual force. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> In the case of an Unpaid Bailee his obligation to control was thereby fulfilled, whereas the others did thereby not yet fulfil their obligation to control. Still I would ask, whose view is here followed? If that of R. Meir
Previous ChapterNext Chapter