Bava Kamma 71

ראוי ליטול ואין לו והתניא הרי זה משתלם לקטן מן המועד ולגדול מן התם דתפס:

The plaintiff is entitled to get paid [only where he produces evidence to substantiate the claim] but [failing that he] will have nothing at all. But has it not been taught: He will be paid for [the injury done to] the little one in accordance with the regulations applying to <i>Mu'ad</i> and for [the injury done to] the big one out of the body of the <i>Tam</i>? — Only where he had already seized them.

היו שניהם של איש אחד שניהם חייבים: א"ל רבא מפרזיקא לרב אשי ש"מ שוורים תמים שהזיקו רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה

BUT WHERE BOTH OF THE [PURSUING] OXEN BELONGED TO THE SAME OWNER, LIABILITY WILL ATTACH TO BOTH OF THEM. Raba of Parazika<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Identified with Faransag, near Bagdad, v. Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 269.] ');">¹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן במועדין

said to R. Ashi: It can be concluded from this that where oxen in the state of <i>Tam</i> [belonging to the same owner] did damage, the plaintiff has the option to distrain either on the one or the other! — [No, replied R. Ashi, for] we are dealing here [in the Mishnah] with a case where they were <i>Mu'ad</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the whole estate of the defendant can be distrained upon for the payment of damages; supra p. 73. ');">²</span>

אי במועדין אימא סיפא היה אחד גדול ואחד קטן הניזק אומר גדול הזיק והמזיק אומר לא כי אלא קטן הזיק המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אי במועדין מאי נפקא ליה מיניה סוף סוף דמי תורא מעליא בעי לשלומי

If where they were <i>Mu'ad</i> how do you explain the concluding clause: WHERE, HOWEVER, ONE [OF THE OXEN] WAS BIG AND THE OTHER LITTLE AND THE CLAIMANT MAINTAINS THAT THE BIG ONE DID THE DAMAGE WHILE THE DEFENDANT PLEADS 'NOT SO, FOR IT WAS THE LITTLE ONE THAT DID THE DAMAGE' THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE CLAIMANT. For indeed where they were <i>Mu'ad</i> what difference could there be [whether the big one or the little one did the damage] since at all events he has to pay the full value of the ox? — He thereupon said to him: The concluding clause presents a case where they were <i>Tam</i>, though the opening clause deals with a case where the oxen were <i>Mu'ad</i>. Said R. Aha the Elder to R. Ashi: If the commencing clause deals with a case where the oxen were <i>Mu'ad</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the whole estate of the defendant can be distrained upon for the payment of damages; supra p. 73. ');">²</span>

א"ל סיפא בתמין ורישא במועדין

what is the meaning of 'LIABILITY WILL ATTACH TO BOTH OF THEM'? Should not the text run, 'The owner will be liable'? Again, what is the meaning of 'BOTH OF THEM'? — [The commencing clause also] must therefore deal with a case where the oxen were <i>Tam</i>, and the ruling stated follows the view of R. Akiba, that plaintiff and defendant become the owners in common [of the attacking ox].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p 181. ');">³</span>

א"ל רב אחא סבא לרב אשי אי במועדין חייבים חייב גברא מיבעי ליה ותו מאי שניהם

Now this is so where 'BOTH OF THEM' [the oxen] are with the owner, in which case he cannot possibly shift the claim [from one to the other].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no warrant for Raba of Parazika's inference. ');">⁴</span>

אלא לעולם בתמין ורבי עקיבא היא דאמר שותפין נינהו וטעמא דאיתנהו לתרוייהו דלא מצי מדחי ליה אבל ליתנהו לתרוייהו מצי אמר ליה זיל אייתי ראיה דהאי תורא אזקך ואשלם לך:

But if 'BOTH OF THEM' are not with him he may plead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the plaintiff. ');">⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך המניח</strong></big><br><br>

'Go and produce evidence that it was this ox [which is still with me]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not the other ox that has been lost. ');">⁶</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>שור</strong></big> שנגח ארבעה וחמשה שוורים זה אחר זה ישלם לאחרון שבהם ואם יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפניו ואם יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפני פניו והאחרון אחרון נשכר דברי ר"מ

that did the damage, and then I will pay you.'

רבי שמעון אומר שור שוה מאתים שנגח לשור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום זה נוטל מנה וזה נוטל מנה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A [<i>TAM</i>] OX HAS GORED FOUR OR FIVE OXEN ONE AFTER THE OTHER, COMPENSATION SHOULD IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BE MADE [OUT OF THE BODY OF THE OX] FOR THE LAST OFFENCE. SHOULD THERE BE A SURPLUS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the body of the ox. ');">⁷</span>

חזר ונגח שור אחר שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו זה נוטל חמשים זוז וזה נוטל חמשים זוז

COMPENSATION IS TO BE PAID ALSO FOR THE PENULTIMATE OFFENCE; SHOULD THERE STILL BE A SURPLUS, COMPENSATION IS TO BE MADE TO THE ONE BEFORE; THE LATER THE LIABILITY THE PRIOR THE CLAIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the later always profits' as it is he who has the right of priority. ');">⁸</span>

חזר ונגח שור אחר שוה מאתים האחרון נוטל מנה ושלפניו חמשים זוז ושנים הראשונים דינר זהב:

THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR. R. SIMEON SAYS: IF AN OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] HAS GORED AN OX OF THE SAME VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE CARCASS HAS NO VALUE AT ALL, THE PLAINTIFF WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> AND THE DEFENDANT WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> [OUT OF THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra pp. 187-8. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתניתין מני דלא כר' ישמעאל ודלא כר' עקיבא

SHOULD THE SAME OX HAVE GORED ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE SECOND CLAIMANT WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, WHILE THE FORMER CLAIMANT WILL GET ONLY FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason v. Gemara, infra p. 203. ');">¹⁰</span>

אי כר' ישמעאל דאמר בעלי חובות נינהו האי אחרון אחרון נשכר ראשון ראשון נשכר מבעי ליה אי כר' עקיבא דאמר תורא דשותפי הוא האי יש בו מותר

AND THE DEFENDANT WILL HAVE FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i> [IN THE BODY OF HIS OX].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the defendant and the first claimant became the owners of the ox in common. ');">¹¹</span> SHOULD THE OX HAVE GORED YET ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE THIRD CLAIMANT WILL GET A HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] WHILE THE SECOND WILL GET ONLY FIFTY [<i>ZUZ</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason v. Gemara, infra p. 203. ');">¹⁰</span> AND THE FIRST TWO PARTIES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the defendant and the first claimant. ');">¹²</span> WILL HAVE A GOLD <i>DENAR</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., twenty-five zuz. ');">¹³</span> [EACH IN THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the defendant and the first claimant became the owners of the ox in common. ');">¹¹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is the author of our Mishnah? It is in accordance neither with the view of R. Ishmael nor with that of R. Akiba!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. supra p. 181. ');">¹⁴</span> For if it is in accordance with R. Ishmael, who maintains that they [the claimants of damages] are like any other creditors, how can it be said that THE LATER THE LIABILITY THE PRIOR THE CLAIM? Should it not be, the earlier the liability the prior the claim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is usually the case with other creditors: v. p. 185. ');">¹⁵</span> If, on the other hand, it is in accordance with R. Akiba who maintains that the ox becomes the common property [of the plaintiff and the defendant], how can it be said that, IN THE CASE OF THERE BEING A SURPLUS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.p. 201, n. 1. ');">¹⁶</span>