Bava Kamma 106

שור ושור פסולי המוקדשין שנגחו (מאי ניהו שור בכור דלא פריק ליה) אביי אמר משלם ח"נ רבינא אמר משלם רביע נזק

Where an ox [of a private owner] together with an ox that was sacred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not subject to the law of damage; cf. supra pp. 50ff. ');">¹</span> but became disqualified<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through a blemish. [As long as such an ox had not been redeemed, it is regarded as an ox of the sanctuary, v. supra 36b. Cur. edd. add in brackets, 'e.g., a first-born ox which cannot be redeemed.' It is however questionable whether such an ox is not to be considered a common animal, having regard to the fact that being blemished it is entirely the priests, no share thereof being offered up on the altar. MS.M. omits these words.] ');">²</span>

הא והא בתם הא כרבנן והא כרבי נתן

[for the altar], gored [an animal]. Abaye said that the private owner would have to pay half damages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the remaining part will be lost to the plaintiff. ');">³</span> whereas Rabina said that he would have to pay quarter damages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the remaining part will be lost to the plaintiff. ');">³</span>

איבעית אימא הא והא כרבנן הא בתם הא במועד

Both the one and the other are speaking of <i>Tam</i>, but while Rabina followed the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that each defendant is only liable for himself. ');">⁴</span> Abaye followed that of R. Nathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated that if no payment can be enforced from a defendant, his co-defendant has to make it up. ');">⁵</span>

איכא דאמרי אביי אמר ח"נ רבינא אמר כוליה נזק הא והא במועד הא כרבנן והא כר' נתן

Or if you wish you may say that both the one and the other followed the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that each defendant is only liable for himself. ');">⁴</span> but while Rabina was speaking of <i>Tam</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where quarter damages is half of the maximum payment. ');">⁶</span>

איבעית אימא הא והא כרבי נתן הא במועד והא בתם

Abaye was speaking of <i>Mu'ad</i>. Some report that Abaye stated half damages and Rabina full damages. The one ruling like the other would refer to the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>, but while one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');">⁷</span> followed the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 309, n. 6. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא שור ואדם שדחפו לבור לענין נזקין כולן חייבין לענין ארבעה דברים ודמי ולדות אדם חייב ושור ובור פטור

the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabina. ');">⁹</span> followed the view of R. Nathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 309, n. 7. ');">¹⁰</span>

לענין כופר ושלשים של עבד שור חייב אדם ובור פטורים לענין כלים ושור פסולי המוקדשין אדם ושור חייבין ובור פטור

If you wish you may say that the one ruling like the other followed the view of R. Nathan, but while ones was speaking of <i>Mu'ad</i>, the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');">⁷</span> was speaking of <i>Tam</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where half damages is the maximum payment. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי טעמא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לד) והמת יהיה לו במי שהמת שלו יצא זה שאין המת שלו

Raba said: If an ox along with a man pushes [certain things] into a pit, on account of Depreciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 26a. ');">¹²</span> they would all [three]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the man, the owner of the pit and the owner of the ox. ');">¹³</span>

למימרא דפשיטא ליה לרבא והא מיבעיא בעי ליה לרבא דבעי רבא שור פסולי המוקדשין שנפל לבור מהו האי והמת יהיה לו במי שהמת שלו יצא זה שאין המת שלו או דילמא והמת יהיה לו לבעלים מטפלין בנבילה הוא דאתא

be liable, but on account of the four [additional] items<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 26a. ');">¹²</span> or with respect to compensation for the value of [lost] embryos.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 49a. ');">¹⁴</span>

בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה

Man would be liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 22. ');">¹⁵</span> but Cattle and Pit exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 49a. ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא בעלים מטפלין בנבילה מנא ליה נפקא ליה מן והמת יהיה לו דשור מאי חזית דוהמת יהיה לו דשור מפקת ליה לבעלים מטפלין בנבילה והמת יהיה לו דבור מפקת ליה למי שהמת שלו איפוך אנא

in respect of <i>kofer</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 29-30. ');">¹⁶</span> or the thirty <i>shekels</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 32. ');">¹⁷</span>

מסתברא פטור גבי בור הואיל ופטר בו את הכלים אדרבה פטור גבי שור שכן פטר בו חצי נזק כוליה נזק מיהת לא אשכחן:

for [the killing of] a slave, Cattle would be liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 28-32. ');">¹⁸</span> but Man and Pit exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 28b and 35a ');">¹⁹</span>

נפל לתוכו שור וכליו ונשתברו כו': מתניתין דלא כר' יהודה דתניא ר"י מחייב על נזקי כלים בבור

in respect of damage done to inanimate objects or to a sacred ox which had become disqualified [for the altar], Man and Cattle would be liable but Pit exempt, the reason being that Scripture says, And the dead beast shall be his,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">²⁰</span> [implying that it was only] in the case of an ox whose carcass could be his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., could be used by him as food for dogs and like purposes. ');">²¹</span>

מאי טעמא דרבנן דאמר קרא (שמות כא, לג) ונפל שמה שור או חמור שור ולא אדם חמור ולא כלים ורבי יהודה או לרבות את הכלים ורבנן

[that there would be liability], excluding thus the case of this [ox] whose carcass could not be his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As no use could lawfully be made of a carcass of a sacred animal that died. ');">²²</span> Does this mean that this last point was quite certain to Raba? Did not Raba put it as a query? For Raba asked; If a sacred ox which had become disqualified<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through a blemish. ');">²³</span> [for the altar] fell into a pit, what would be the legal position? Shall we say that this [verse], And the beast shall be his, [confines liability to the case of] an ox whose carcass could be his, thus excluding the case of this ox whose carcass could never be his,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As no use could lawfully be made of a carcass of a sacred animal that died. ');">²²</span> or shall we say that the words And the dead beast shall be his are intended only to lay down that the owners [plaintiffs] have to retain the carcass as part payment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 10b. ');">²⁴</span> [The fact is that] after raising the question he himself solved it. But whence [then] would he derive the law that the owners [plaintiffs] have to retain the carcass as part payment? — He would derive it from the clause and the dead shall be his own<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 36. ');">²⁵</span> [inserted in the case] of Cattle. What reason have you for rising [the clause] And the dead shall be his own [in the context dealing] with Cattle to derive from it the law that the owners [plaintiffs] have to retain the carcass as part payment, while you rise [the clause] And the dead beast shall be his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 310. n. 14. ');">²⁶</span> [in the context dealing] with Pit [to confine liability] to an animal whose carcass could be his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 310. n. 15. ');">²⁷</span> Why should I not reverse [the implications of the clauses]? — It stands to reason that the exemption should be connected with Pit, since there is in Pit exemption also in the case of inanimate objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 302, n. 2. ');">²⁸</span> On the contrary, should not the exemption be connected with Cattle, since in Cattle there is exemption from half damages [in the case of <i>Tam</i>]? — In any case, exemption from the whole payment is not found [in the case of cattle]. WHERE THERE FELL INTO IT AN OX TOGETHER WITH ITS IMPLEMENTS WHICH THEREBY BROKE etc. This Mishnaic ruling is not in accordance with R. Judah. For it was taught: R. Judah imposes liability for damage to inanimate objects done by Pit. But what was the reason of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For maintaining exemption. ');">²⁹</span> — Because Scripture says, And an ox or an ass fall therein,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33. ');">³⁰</span> [implying] 'ox' but not 'man',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dying through falling into a pit. ');">³¹</span> 'ass' but not 'inanimate objects'. R. Judah, [however, maintained that the word] 'or' [was intended] to describe inanimate objects while the [other] Rabbis