Bava Kamma 93

Chapter 93

א ליתא לפרה משתלם רביע נזק מולד

1 But where the cow is not available, quarter damages will be paid out of the body of the calf.1

ב טעמא דלא ידעינן אי הוה ולד בהדה כי נגחה אי לא הוה אבל אי פשיטא לן דהוה ולד בהדה כי נגחה משתלם כוליה חצי נזק מולד

2 Now this is so only where it is not known whether the calf was still part of the cow at the time she gored or whether it was not so, but were we certain that the calf was still part of the cow at the time of the goring2

ג רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא פרה שהזיקה גובה מולדה מאי טעמא גופה היא תרנגולת שהזיקה אינו גובה מביצתה מ"ט פירשא בעלמא הוא

3 the whole payment of the half damages would be made from the body of the calf. Raba here adopts the same line of reasoning [as in another place], as Raba has indeed stated: Where a cow has done damage, payment can be collected out of the body of its calf, the reason being that the latter is a part of the body of the former, whereas in the case of a chicken doing damage, no payment will be made out of its eggs, the reason being that they are a separate [body].3

ד ואמר רבא אין שמין לפרה בפני עצמה ולולד בפני עצמו אלא שמין לולד על גב פרה שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אתה מכחיש את המזיק

4 Raba further said: [Where an ox has gored a cow and caused miscarriage] the valuation will not be made for the cow separately and for the calf separately, but the valuation will be made for the calf as at the time when it formed a part of the cow; for if you do not adopt this rule,4

ה וכן אתה מוצא בקוטע יד עבדו של חבירו וכן אתה מוצא במזיק שדה של חבירו

5 you will be found to be making the defendant suffer unduly. The same method is followed in the case of the cutting off the hand of a neighbour's slave;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [You do not value the hand separately, viz., what price a master would in the first instance be willing to take for depriving his slave of the use of his hand; but the difference in the value of a slave who had his hand cut off — a much smaller price.] ');">5

ו א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ואי דינא הוא ליכחוש מזיק

6 and the same method is followed in the case of damage done to a neighbour's field.6

ז משום דאמר ליה פרה מעברתא אזיקתך פרה מעברתא שיימנא לך

7 Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: If justice demands, why should not the defendant suffer? — Because he is entitled to say to him: 'Since it was a pregnant cow that I deprived you of, it is a pregnant cow which should be taken into valuation.'

ח פשיטא פרה דחד וולד דחד פיטמא לבעל פרה נפחא מאי רב פפא אמר לבעל פרה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר חולקין והלכתא חולקין:

8 There is no question that where the cow belonged to one owner and the calf to another owner, the value of the fat condition of the cow will go to the owner of the cow.7

ט <big>מתני׳</big> הקדר שהכניס קדרותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ושברה בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הקדרות חייב ואם הכניס ברשות בעל החצר חייב

9 But what of the value of its bulky appearance? — R. Papa said: It will go to the owner of the cow. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: It will be shared [by the two owners].8

י הכניס פירותיו לחצר בעה"ב שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הפירות חייב ואם הכניס ברשות בעל החצר חייב

10 The law is that it will be shared [by the two owners].

יא הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא

11 MISHNAH.IF A POTTER BRINGS HIS WARES INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND THE CATTLE OF THE OWNER OF THE COURTYARD BREAKS THEM, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.9 MOREOVER, SHOULD THE ANIMAL BE INJURED BY THEM, THE OWNER OF THE POTTERY IS LIABLE [TO PAY DAMAGES]. IF, HOWEVER, HE BROUGHT [THEM] IN WITH PERMISSION,10 THE OWNER OF THE COURTYARD IS LIABLE. SIMILARLY IF [A MAN] BRINGS HIS PRODUCE INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT PERMISSION AND THE ANIMAL OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES CONSUMES IT, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.11 IF IT WAS HARMED BY IT THE OWNER WOULD BE LIABLE. IF, HOWEVER, HE BROUGHT THEM IN WITH PERMISSION,10 THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES WOULD BE LIABLE. SO ALSO IF [A MAN] BRINGS HIS OX INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER WITHOUT

Previous Chapter Next Chapter