Bava Kamma 21

יביא עדים שנטרפה באונס ופטור אבא שאול אומר יביא עדודה לב"ד

Let him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the paid bailee who is defending himself against the depositor. ');">¹</span>

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר פחת נבילה דניזק הוי ומר סבר דמזיק הוי

bring witnesses that it had been torn by sheer accident and free himself. Abba Saul says: Let him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p 43 n. 15. ');">²</span>

לא דכ"ע דניזק והכא בטורח נבילה קמיפלגי

[in all cases] bring the torn animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H]: [H] being an unaugmented passive participle from the root [H], v. Halpern, B. ZAW, XXX, p. 57.] ');">³</span>

והתניא אחרים אומרים מניין שעל בעל הבור להעלות שור מבורו ת"ל (שמות כא, לד) כסף ישיב לבעליו והמת

to the Court. Now is not the following the point at issue: The latter maintains that a decrease in value of the carcass will be sustained by the plaintiff,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the deposited animal has been torn not by accident, in which case the paid bailee has to indemnify. The torn animal is thus brought at once to the Court to ascertain its value at the time of the mishap. ');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרבא האי טורח נבילה ה"ד

whereas the former view takes it to be sustained by the defendant? — No, it is unanimously held that the decrease will be sustained by the plaintiff. Here, however, the trouble of [providing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the expenses involved. ');">⁵</span>

אילימא דבבירא שויא זוזא ואגודא שויא ארבע כי טרח בדנפשיה טרח

for bringing up] the carcass [from the pit] is the point at issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abba Saul maintains that the defendant has to do it, whereas the other view releases him from this. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל לא צריכא דבבירא שויא זוזא ואגודא נמי שויא זוזא

as [indeed] taught: Others say, Whence [could it be derived] that it is upon the owner of the pit to bring up the [damaged] ox from his pit? We derive it from the text, 'Money shall he return unto to the owner. And the dead beast'…<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34; the subject of the last clause is thus joined to the former sentence as a second object. ');">⁷</span>

ומי איכא כה"ג אין דהא אמרי אינשי כשורא במתא בזוזא כשורא בדברא בזוזא

Abaye said to Raba: What does this trouble about the carcass mean? If the value of the carcass in the pit is one <i>zuz</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A coin; V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

אמר שמואל אין שמין לא לגנב ולא לגזלן אלא לנזקין ואני אומר אף לשואל ואבא מודה לי

whereas on the banks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the pit. ');">⁹</span>

איבעיא להו ה"ק אף לשואל שמין ואבא מודה לי או דלמא ה"ק ואני אומר אף לשואל אין שמין ואבא מודה לי

its value will be four [<i>zuz</i>], is he not taking the trouble [of bringing up the carcass] solely in his own interests? — He [Raba], however, said: No, it applies when in the pit its value is one <i>zuz</i>, and on the banks its value is similarly one <i>zuz</i>. But is such a thing possible? Yes, as the popular adage has it, 'A beam in town costs a <i>zuz</i> and a beam in a field costs a zuz'.

ת"ש דההוא גברא דשאיל נרגא מחבריה תברה אתא לקמיה דרב א"ל זיל שלים ליה נרגא מעליא ש"מ אין שמין

Samuel said: No assessment is made in theft and robbery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case payment must b e made in full for the original value of the damaged article. ');">¹⁰</span>

אדרבה מדאמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב דינא הכי ושתיק ש"מ שמין

but in cases of damage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the carcass may he returned to the plaintiff. ');">¹¹</span>

איתמר אמר עולא א"ר אלעזר שמין לגנב ולגזלן רב פפי אמר אין שמין הלכתא אין שמין לא לגנב ולא לגזלן אבל לשואל שמין כדרב כהנא ורב אסי

I, however, maintain that the same applies to borrowing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Treated in Ex. XXII, 13. ');">¹²</span>

ואמר עולא א"ר אלעזר שליא שיצתה מקצתה ביום ראשון ומקצתה ביום שני מונין לה מן הראשון

and Abba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., Rab whose full name was Abba]. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל רבא מה דעתך לחומרא

agrees with me. It was therefore asked: Did he mean to say that 'to borrowing the law of assessment does apply and Abba agrees with me,' Or did he perhaps mean to say that 'to borrowing the law of assessment does not apply and Abba agrees with me'? — Come and hear: A certain person borrowed an axe from his neighbour and broke it. He came before Rab, who said to him, 'Go and pay [the lender] for his sound axe.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 96b. ');">¹⁴</span>

חומרא דאתי לידי קולא הוא דקא מטהרת לה מראשון

Now, can you not prove hence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the value of the broken axe vas not taken into account, but full payment for the axe in its original condition was ordered. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא אמר רבא לחוש חוששת מימנא לא ממניא אלא לשני

that [the law of] assessment does not apply [to borrowing]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Rab ordered the borrower to pay in full for the original value of the axe. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי קמ"ל דאין מקצת שליא בלא ולד תנינא שליא שיצתה מקצתה אסורה באכילה סימן ולד באשה סימן ולד בבהמה

— On the contrary, for since R. Kahana and R. Assi [interposed and] said to Rab, 'Is this really the law?' and no reply followed, we can conclude that assessment is made. It has been stated: 'Ulla said on behalf of R. Eleazar: Assessment is [also] made in case of theft and robbery; but R. Papi said that no assessment is made [in these cases]. The law is: No assessment is made in theft and robbery, but assessment is made in cases of borrowing, in accordance with R. Kahana and R. Assi.

אי ממתני' הוה אמינא

'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: When a placenta comes out [from a woman] partly on one day and partly on the next day, the counting of the days of impurity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are seven for a male child and fourteen for a girl; cf. Lev. XII. 2 and 5. ');">¹⁷</span> commences with the first day [of the emergence]. Raba, however, said to him: What is in your mind? To take the stricter course? Is not this a strictness that will lead to lenience, since you will have to declare her pure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after the expiration of the 7 or 14 days for a male or female child respectively, when there commence 33 or 66 days of purity for a boy or girl respectively; cf. Lev. ibid. 4-5. ');">¹⁸</span> by reckoning from the first day? Raba therefore said: 'Out of mere apprehension, notice is taken of the first day [to be considered impure], but actual counting commences only with the second day.' What is the new point made known to us? That even a part of an [emerging] placenta contains a fetus. But have we not learnt this elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 68a. ');">¹⁹</span> 'A placenta coming partly out of an animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the animal was slaughtered. ');">²⁰</span> renders [the whole of] it unfit for consumption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is considered to contain a fetus which when born is subject to the law of slaughtering on its own accord. ');">²¹</span> as that, which is a sign of a fetus in humankind is similarly a sign of a fetus in an animal'? — As to this Mishnaic statement I might still have argued