Bava Kamma 51

מידי כוליה קאמרינן פלגא קאמרינן

But have we ever suggested payment in full? It was only half payment that we were arguing for!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the analogy to Horn where the liability is only for half damages in the case of Tam. The Scriptural text may have been intended to exclude only full compensation. ');">¹</span> — Scripture further says, And they shall divide the money of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 35. ');">²</span>

אמר קרא (שמות כא, לה) וחצו את כספו כספו של זה ולא כספו של אחר

[to indicate that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the division of compensation. ');">³</span> is confined to] 'the money of it' [i.e.. the goring ox] but does not extend to compensation [for damage caused] by another ox.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the exception of course of damage done by Pebbles according to the Rabbis, who by the authority of a special Mosaic tradition order the payment of half damages; cf. supra p. 80. ');">⁴</span>

ולא תהא שן ורגל חייבת ברשות הניזק אלא חצי נזק מק"ו מקרן ומה קרן שברה"ר חייבת ברשות הניזק אינה משלמת אלא חצי נזק שן ורגל שברשות הרבים פטורה אינו דין שברשות הניזק משלם חצי נזק

But should we not let Tooth and Foot doing damage on the plaintiff's premises involve the liability for half damages only because of the following <i>a fortiori</i>: If in the case of Horn, where there is liability for damage done even on public ground, there is yet no more than half payment for damage done on the plaintiff's premises,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the Rabbis who differ from R. Tarfon; v. supra p. 125. ');">⁵</span> does it not follow that, in the case of Tooth and Foot where there is exemption for damage done on public ground,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 132. ');">⁶</span>

אמר קרא ישלם תשלומין מעליא

the liability regarding damage done on the plaintiff's premises should be for half compensation only? — Scripture says, He shall make restitution,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">⁷</span> meaning full<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'good', 'perfect'. ');">⁸</span>

ולא תהא קרן ברה"ר חייב מק"ו ומה שן ורגל שברשות הניזק נזק שלם ברה"ר פטורה קרן שברשות הניזק חצי נזק אינו דין שברה"ר פטורה

compensation. But should we not [on the other hand] let Horn doing damage on public ground involve no liability at all, because of the following <i>a fortiori</i>: If in the case of Tooth and Foot where the payment for damage done on the plaintiff's premises is in full there is exemption for damage done on public ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 132. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן אמר קרא יחצון אין חצי נזק חלוק לא ברה"ר ולא ברה"י

does it not follow that, in the case of Horn where the payment for damage done on the plaintiff's premises, is only half, there should be exemption for damage done on public ground? — Said R. Johanan: Scripture says. [And the dead also] they shall divide,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Ex. XXI, 35; the phrase being superfluous, as the text could have read, They shall divide the money of it and the dead.] ');">⁹</span> to emphasise that in respect of half payment there is no distinction between public ground and private premises.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 92. ');">¹⁰</span>

ויהא אדם חייב בכופר מק"ו ומה שור שאינו חייב בארבעה דברים חייב בכופר אדם שחייב בארבעה דברים אינו דין שיהא חייב בכופר

But should we not let [also] in the case of Man ransom be paid [for manslaughter]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 12. ');">¹¹</span> because of the following <i>a fortiori</i>: If in the case of Ox where there is no liability to pay the [additional] Four Items,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Pain, Medical Expenses, Loss of Time and Degradation, in addition to Depreciation, when injuring a human being; v. supra ibid. ');">¹²</span>

אמר קרא (שמות כא, ל) ככל אשר יושת עליו עליו ולא על אדם

there is yet the liability to pay ransom [for manslaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 30. ');">¹³</span> does it not follow that in the case of Man who is liable for the [additional] Four Items,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Pain, Medical Expenses, Loss of Time and Degradation, in addition to Depreciation, when injuring a human being; v. supra ibid. ');">¹²</span>

ויהא שור חייב בארבעה דברים מק"ו ומה אדם שאינו חייב בכופר חייב בארבעה דברים שור שחייב בכופר אינו דין שיהא חייב בארבעה דברים

there should be ransom [for manslaughter]? — But Scripture states, Whatsoever is laid upon him: upon him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 30. ');">¹³</span> excludes [the payment of ransom] in the case of Man [committing manslaughter].

אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, יט) איש בעמיתו ולא שור בעמיתו

But should we not [on the other hand] let Ox involve the liability of the [additional] Four Items because of the following <i>a fortiori</i>: If Man who by killing man incurs no liability to pay ransom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 12. ');">¹⁴</span> has, when injuring man, to pay [additional] Four Items,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 133, n. 8. ');">¹⁵</span>

איבעיא להו רגל שדרסה על גבי תינוק בחצר הניזק מהו שתשלם כופר מי אמרינן מידי דהוה אקרן קרן כיון דעבד תרי ותלתא זמני אורחיה הוא ומשלם כופר ה"נ לא שנא

does it not follow that, in the case of Ox where there is a liability to pay ransom [for killing man],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 30. ');">¹⁶</span> there should similarly be a liability to pay the [additional] Four Items when injuring [man]? — Scripture states, <i>If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 19. ');">¹⁷</span>

או דלמא קרן כוונתו להזיק האי אין כוונתו להזיק

thus excluding Ox injuring the [owner's] neighbour. It has been asked: In the case of Foot treading upon a child [and killing it] in the plaintiff's premises, what should be the law regarding ransom? Shall we say that this comes under the law applicable to Horn, on the ground that just as with Horn in the case of manslaughter being repeated twice and thrice it becomes habitual with the animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which becomes Mu'ad; v. supra p. 119. ');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ש הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ונגחו לבעל הבית ומת השור בסקילה ובעליו בין תם בין מועד משלם כופר שלם דברי ר' טרפון

involving thus the payment of ransom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 30. ');">¹⁹</span> so also seems to be the case here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With Foot, which is always considered Mu'ad; v. supra p. 11. ');">²⁰</span>

כופר שלם בתם לרבי טרפון מנא ליה לאו משום דסבר ליה כרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר תם משלם חצי כופר ברה"ר ומייתי לה מק"ו מרגל אלמא איכא כופר ברגל

with hardly any distinction; or shall it perhaps be argued that in the case of Horn there was on the part of the animal a determination to injure, whereas in this case the act was not prompted by a determination to injure? — Come and hear: In the case of an ox having been allowed [by its owner] to trespass upon somebody else's ground and there goring to death the owner of the premises, the ox will be stoned, while its owner must pay full ransom whether [the ox was] <i>Tam</i> or <i>Mu'ad</i>. This is the view of R. Tarfon. Now, whence could R. Tarfon infer the payment of full ransom in the case of <i>Tam</i>, unless he shared the view of R. Jose the Galilean maintaining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 66 and infra 48b. ');">²¹</span> that <i>Tam</i> involves the payment of half ransom for manslaughter committed on public ground, in which case he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Tarfon. ');">²²</span>

אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא תנא מניזקין דרגל מייתי לה

could rightly have inferred ransom in full [for manslaughter on the plaintiff's premises] by means of the <i>a fortiori</i> from the law applicable to Foot?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same way as he derived compensation in full for damage done by Horn on the plaintiff's premises, as argued by him, supra p. 125. [Thus: If in the case of Tooth and Foot, where there is no liability at all involved on public ground, there is liability to pay full ransom on the plaintiff's premises, does it not follow that Horn, which does involve at least payment of half ransom on public ground, should on the plaintiff's premises be liable to pay full ransom.] ');">²³</span> This thus proves that ransom has to be paid for [manslaughter committed by] Foot. R. Shimi of Nehardea, however, said that the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 134, n. 9. ');">²⁴</span>

ולפרוך מה לניזקין דרגל שכן ישנן באש מטמון

might have inferred it from the law applicable to [mere] damage done by Foot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not from the law applicable to manslaughter committed by Foot, in which case there may be no ransom at all. [Thus: If in the case of Foot, which involves no liability for damage on public ground, there is liability to pay in full in the plaintiff's premises, does it not follow that, in the case of Horn, involving as it does payment of half ransom on public ground, there should be payment of full ransom in plaintiff's premises.] ');">²⁵</span> But [if so] cannot the inference be refuted? For indeed what analogy could be drawn to damage done by Foot, the liability for which is common also with Fire [whereas ransom does not apply to Fire]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the person liable for arson may, in such a case, be indicted for manslaughter; cf. supra pp. 37-38 and p. 113. ');">²⁶</span>

מה לטמון שכן ישנו בבור מכלים

— [The inference might have been] from damage done to hidden goods [in which case the liability is not common with Fire].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Thus: If in the case of Foot, which involves no liability at all on public ground, there is full liability for hidden goods on the plaintiff's premises, does it not follow that, in the case of Horn, which involves liability to pay half damages on public ground, there should be payment of full ransom in plaintiff's premises?] Cf. supra p. 18. ');">²⁷</span> Still what analogy is there to hidden goods, the liability for which is common with Pit [whereas ransom for manslaughter does not apply to Pit]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra p. 37. ');">²⁸</span>

מה לכלים שישנן באש מכלים טמונים מה לכלים טמונים שישנן באדם

— The inference might have been from damage done to inanimate objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. notes 2 and 4. ');">²⁹</span> [for which there is no liability in the case of Pit].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 18. ');">³⁰</span>

אלא לאו ש"מ מכופר דרגל מייתי לה אלמא איכא כופר ברגל ש"מ

Still what analogy is there to inanimate objects, the liability for which is again common with Fire? — The inference might therefore have been from damage done to inanimate objects that were hidden [for which neither Fire nor Pit involve liability]. But still what comparison is there to hidden inanimate objects, the liability for which is common at least with Man [whereas ransom is not common with Man]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all civil complaints are merged in the capital accusation of manslaughter; cf. supra, p. 113 and Num. XXXV, 32. ');">³¹</span> — Does this therefore not prove that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Tarfon. ');">³²</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא ה"נ מסתברא דאיכא כופר ברגל דאי ס"ד ליכא כופר ברגל ותנא מניזקין דרגל מייתי לה לפרוך מה לניזקין דרגל שכן ישנן ברגל

must have made the inference from ransom [for manslaughter] in the case of Foot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. 134, n. 10. ');">³³</span> proving thus that ransom has to be paid for manslaughter committed by Foot? — This certainly is proved.

אלא לאו ש"מ מכופר דרגל מייתי לה אלמא איכא כופר ברגל שמע מינה:

R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: It even stands to reason that ransom has to be paid in the case of Foot. For if you say that in the case of Foot there is no ransom, and that the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Tarfon ');">³⁴</span> might have made the inference from the law applicable to mere damage done by Foot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 135, n. 2. ');">³⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אדם מועד לעולם בין שוגג בין מזיד בין ער בין ישן סימא את עין חבירו ושיבר את הכלים משלם נזק שלם:

his reasoning could easily be refuted. For what analogy could be drawn to damage done by Foot for which there is liability in the case of Foot [whereas this is not the case with ransom]? Does this [by itself] not show that the inference could only have been made from ransom in the case of Foot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, supra p. 134, n. 10. ');">³⁶</span> proving thus that ransom has to be paid for [manslaughter conmitted by] Foot? — It certainly does show this.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> קתני סימא את עין חבירו דומיא דשיבר את הכלים מה התם נזק אין ארבעה דברים לא אף סימא את עין חבירו נזק אין ארבעה דברים לא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. MAN IS ALWAYS <i>MU'AD</i> WHETHER [HE ACTS] INADVERTENTLY OR WILFULLY, WHETHER AWAKE OR ASLEFP.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 8. ');">³⁷</span> IF HE BLINDED HIS NEIGHBOUR'S EYE OR BROKE HIS ARTICLES, FULL COMPENSATION MUST [THEREFORE] BE MADE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Blinding a neighbour's eye is placed here in juxtaposition to breaking his articles [to indicate that] just as in the latter case only Depreciation will be indemnified, whereas the [additional] Four Items [of liability]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Pain, Medical Expenses, Loss of Time and Degradation; cf. supra p. 133 n. 8. ');">³⁸</span> do not apply, so also in the case of inadvertently blinding his neighbour's eye only Depreciation will be indemnified, whereas the [additional] Four Items do not apply.