Bava Kamma 68

תם חמור ממועד

[injury by] <i>Tam</i> would involve a more severe penalty than [injury by] <i>Mu'ad</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of Mu'ad it is certainly the plaintiff who has to bear the whole loss occasioned by a decrease in the value of the carcass; cf. supra p. 65. ');">¹</span> And should you maintain that this indeed is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Tam will indeed involve a penalty more severe than that involved by Mu'ad. ');">²</span>

וכי תימא הכי נמי כדתנן ר' יהודה אומר תם חייב ומועד פטור אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה לענין שמירה דכתיבי קראי לענין תשלומין מי שמעת ליה

as we have learned: R. Judah says: In the case of <i>Tam</i> there is liability [where the precaution taken to control the ox has not been adequate] whereas in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> there is no liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. IV, 9. ');">³</span> it may be contended that you only heard R. Judah maintaining this with reference to precaution, which is specified in Scripture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. infra, p. 259. ');">⁴</span>

והתניא רבי יהודה אומר יכול שור שוה מנה שנגח שור שוה חמש סלעים והנבילה יפה סלע זה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת

but did you ever hear him say this regarding compensation? Moreover, it has been taught: R. Judah says: One might say that where an ox of the value of a <i>maneh</i> [a hundred <i>zuz</i>] gored an ox of the value of five <i>sela'</i> [i.e., twenty <i>zuz</i>] and the carcass was worth a <i>sela'</i> [i.e., four <i>zuz</i>], one party should get half of the living ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amounting to fifty zuz. ');">⁵</span> together with half of the dead ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That would amount to another ten zuz. ');">⁶</span>

אמרת וכי מועד למה יוצא להחמיר עליו או להקל עליו הוי אומר להחמיר עליו ומה מועד אינו משלם אלא מה שהזיק תם הקל לא כ"ש

and the other party should similarly get half of the living ox and half of the dead ox?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The result would be that the plaintiff whose injured ox had altogether been worth twenty zuz would get damages amounting to sixty zuz. ');">⁷</span> [This cannot be so]; for we reason thus: Has <i>Mu'ad</i> been singled out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Scripture; cf. Ex. XXI, 36. ');">⁸</span>

אלא א"ר יוחנן שבח נבילה איכא בינייהו דמ"ס דניזק הוי ומ"ס פלגא

to entail a more severe penalty or a more lenient one? You must surely say: [to entail] a more severe penalty. Now, if in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> no payment is made but for the amount of the damage, should this not the more so be true in the case of <i>Tam</i> the [penalty in respect of which is] less severe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should then the defendant in the case of Tam share the loss occasioned by a decrease in the value of the carcass which he would not have to do in the case of Mu'ad? ');">⁹</span> — R. Johanan therefore said: The practical difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and R. Judah. ');">¹⁰</span>

והיינו דקא קשיא ליה לר"י השתא דאמרת חס רחמנא עילויה דמזיק דשקיל בשבחא יכול שור שוה חמש סלעים שנגח שור שוה מנה והנבילה יפה חמשים זוז זה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת

arises where there has been an increase in the value of the carcass, one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir, according to whom the defendant has no interest in the carcass. ');">¹¹</span> maintaining that it will accrue to the plaintiff whereas the other Master holds that it will be shared equally [by the two parties].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 189, n. 7. ');">¹²</span>

אמרת היכן מצינו מזיק נשכר שזה נשכר ואומר (שמות כא, לו) שלם ישלם בעלים משלמין ואין בעלים נוטלין

And it is just on account of this view that a difficulty was felt by R. Judah: Now that you say that the Divine Law is lenient to the defendant, allowing him to share in the increase [of the value of the carcass], you might then presume that where an ox of the value of five <i>sela'</i> [i.e. twenty <i>zuz</i>] gored an ox of the value of a <i>maneh</i> [a hundred <i>zuz</i>] and the carcass was valued at fifty <i>zuz</i>, one party would take half of the living ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amounting to ten zuz. ');">¹³</span> together with half of the dead ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That would amount to another twenty-five zuz. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי ואומר וכי תימא הני מילי היכא דאיכא פסידא לניזק אבל היכא דליכא פסידא לניזק כגון שור שוה חמש סלעים שנגח שור שוה חמש סלעים והנבילה יפה שלשים זוז שקיל נמי מזיק בשבחא

and the other party would similarly take half of the living ox and half of the dead ox?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The result would be that the defendant instead of paying compensation would make a profit out of the offence, as in lieu of his ox which did the damage and which was worth twenty zuz he would get a total of thirty-five zuz. ');">¹⁵</span> Say [this cannot be so, for] where could it elsewhere be found that an offender should [by order of the Court] be made to benefit as you would have the offender here in this case to benefit? It is moreover stated, He shall surely make restitution,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 36. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואומר שלם ישלם בעלים משלמין ואין בעלים נוטלין

[emphasising that] the offender could only have to pay but never to receive payment. Why that additional quotation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why is not the first objection sufficient? ');">¹⁷</span> — [Otherwise] you might have thought this principle to be confined only to a case where the plaintiff was the loser,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the ten zuz that make the carcass worth more than the ox while alive. ');">¹⁸</span>

א"ל רב אחא בר תחליפא לרבא א"כ מצינו לרבי יהודה תם משלם יותר מחצי נזק והתורה אמרה (שמות כא, לה) ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו

and that where no loss would be incurred to the plaintiff — as e.g. where an ox of the value of five <i>sela'</i> gored an ox similarly of the value of five <i>sela'</i> [i.e. twenty <i>zuz</i>] and it so happened that the carcass [increased in value and] reached the amount of thirty <i>zuz</i> — the defendant should indeed be entitled to share in the profit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the ten zuz that make the carcass worth more than the ox while alive. ');">¹⁸</span> hence the verse, He shall surely make full restitution, is adduced [to emphasise that in all cases] an offender could only have to pay but never to receive payment.

אית ליה לר"י פחת שפחתה מיתה מחצין בחי

But R. Aha b. Tahlifa said to Raba: If so [that the principle to compensate by half for the decrease in value brought about by the death is maintained only by R. Meir], will it not be found that according to R. Judah <i>Tam</i> will involve the payment of more than half damages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As e.g.. where an ox of the value of fifty zuz gored another's ox of the value of forty zuz and the carcass was worth twenty zuz, in which case the actual damage amounted to twenty zuz, half of which would be ten zuz, whereas if the plaintiff will get half of the living ox and half of the dead ox he shall be in receipt for damages, in addition to the value of the carcass, not of ten but of fifteen zuz. ');">¹⁹</span> whereas the Torah [emphatically] stated, <i>And they shall sell the live ox and divide the money of it</i>? — [No;] R. Judah also holds that the decrease in value brought about by the death will be [compensated] by half in the body of the living ox.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sum total received by the plaintiff will therefore never be more than half of the actual loss sustained by him after allowing him, of course, the full value of the carcass of his ox. ');">²⁰</span>

מנא ליה (שמות כא, לה) מוגם את המת יחצון והא אפקיה ר' יהודה לזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת

Whence could he derive this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is in disagreement with R. Meir as to the implication of the last clause of Ex. XXI, 35. ');">²¹</span> — From [the verse], <i>And the dead ox also they shall divide</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 35. ');">²²</span>

א"כ נכתוב קרא ואת המת מאי וגם ש"מ תרתי:

But did not R. Judah derive from this verse that one party will take half of the living ox together with half of the dead ox and the other party will similarly take half of the living ox and half of the dead ox?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the decrease in value brought about by the death will be compensated for by half in the body of the living ox. V. Supra p. 189. ');">²³</span> — If that were all, the text could have run, 'And the dead ox [they shall divide].' Why insert <i>'also'</i>? It shows that two lessons are to be derived from the verse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the principle laid down in the preceding note and the principle maintained by R. Judah, that the defendant as well as the plaintiff has an interest in the carcass and will share the profits of any increase in its value. ');">²⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> יש חייב על מעשה שורו ופטור על מעשה עצמו פטור על מעשה שורו וחייב על מעשה עצמו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE IS LIABILITY FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ONE'S CATTLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ox'. ');">²⁵</span> THOUGH THERE WOULD BE NO LIABILITY SHOULD THESE OFFENCES BE COMMITTED BY ONESELF. THERE ARE, AGAIN, CASES WHERE THERE IS NO LIABILITY FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ONE'S CATTLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ox'. ');">²⁵</span>

כיצד שורו שבייש פטור והוא שבייש חייב שורו שסימא את עין עבדו והפיל את שינו פטור והוא שסימא את עין עבדו והפיל את שינו חייב

THOUGH THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY WERE THESE OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ONESELF. FOR INSTANCE, IF CATTLE HAS BROUGHT INDIGNITY [UPON A HUMAN BEING] THERE IS NO LIABILITY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra p. 134. ');">²⁶</span> WHEREAS IF THE OWNER CAUSES THE INDIGNITY THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B. K. VIII 1-2. ');">²⁷</span>

שורו שחבל באביו ובאמו חייב והוא שחבל באביו ואמו פטור שורו שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת חייב והוא שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת פטור מפני שהוא מתחייב בנפשו:

SO ALSO IF AN OX PUTS OUT THE EYE OF THE OWNER'S SLAVE OR KNOCKS OUT HIS TOOTH THERE IS NO LIABILITY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the law laid down in Ex. XXI, 26-27. ');">²⁸</span> WHEREAS IF THE OWNER HIMSELF HAS PUT OUT THE EYE OF HIS SLAVE OR KNOCKED OUT HIS TOOTH HE WOULD BE LIABLE [TO LET HIM GO FREE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with ibid, cf. also supra p. 137. ');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תני רבי אבהו קמיה דרבי יוחנן כל המקלקלין פטורין חוץ מחובל ומבעיר א"ל פוק תני לברא חובל ומבעיר אינה משנה ואם תימצי לומר משנה חובל בצריך לכלבו מבעיר בצריך לאפרו

AGAIN, IF AN OX HAS INJURED THE FATHER OR MOTHER OF THE OWNER THERE IS LIABILITY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For damages. ');">³⁰</span> THOUGH WERE THE OWNER HIMSELF TO INJURE HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Involving thus a capital charge, for which cf Ex. XXI, 15. ');">³¹</span>

תנן שורו שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת חייב והוא שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת פטור וקתני הוא דומיא דשורו מה שורו דלא קבעי ליה

THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As wherever a capital charge is involved by an offence, all civil liabilities that may otherwise have resulted from that offence merge in the capital charge; cf. supra p. 113. ');">³²</span> SO ALSO WHERE CATTLE HAS CAUSED FIRE TO BE SET TO A BARN ON THE DAY OF SABBATH THERE IS LIABILITY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For damages. ');">³⁰</span> WHEREAS WERE THE OWNER TO SET FIRE TO A BARN ON SABBATH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. Ex. XXXI, 14-15; but v. also ibid. XXXV, 2-3, Mekilta a.l. and Yeb. 7b, 33b and Shab. 70a. ');">³³</span> THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY, AS HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CAPITAL CHARGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As wherever a capital charge is involved by an offence, all civil liabilities that may otherwise have resulted from that offence merge in the capital charge; cf. supra p. 113. ');">³²</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Abbahu recited in the presence of R. Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shab. 106a. ');">³⁴</span> Any work [on the Sabbath] that has a destructive purpose entails no penalty [for the violation of the Sabbath], with the exception, however, of the act of inflicting a bodily injury, as also of the act of setting on fire. Said R. Johanan to him: Go and recite this outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., your teaching is fit only for outside and not to be admitted within the Beth Hamidrash; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 425.] ');">³⁵</span> [for the exception made of] the act of inflicting a bodily injury and of setting on fire is not part of the teaching; and should you find grounds for maintaining that it is,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shab. 75a; v. also B.K. VIII, 5. ');">³⁶</span> [you may say that] the infliction of a bodily injury refers to where the blood was required to feed a dog;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which case involves the violation of the Sabbath because the purpose has not been altogether destructive. ');">³⁷</span> and in the case of setting on fire, where there was some need of the ashes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which case involves the violation of the Sabbath because the purpose has not been altogether destructive. ');">³⁷</span> We have learnt: WHERE CATTLE HAS CAUSED FIRE TO BE SET TO A BARN ON THE DAY OF SABBATH THERE IS LIABILITY, WHEREAS WERE THE OWNER TO HAVE SET FIRE TO A BARN ON SABBATH THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY. Now, the act of the owner is here placed on a level with that of Cattle; which would show, would it not, that just as in the act of Cattle there was certainly no intention to satisfy any need,