Bava Kamma 78

ממנעי ולא עבדי רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר מעליית אפוטרופוס וחוזרין ונפרעין מן היתומים לכי גדלי

people would certainly refrain from accepting this office and would do nothing at all [in the matter]. R. Jose b. Hanina, however, said that the payment should be made out of the best [of the estate] of the guardians. and that these should be reimbursed out of the estate of the orphans when the latter will have come of age.

ומעמידים להן אפוטרופין לתם לגבות מגופו תנאי היא

Whether [or not] guardians could be appointed in the case of <i>Tam</i> to collect payment out of its body, is a point at issue between the following Tannaim: In the case of an ox whose owner has become a deaf-mute, or whose owner became insane or whose owner has gone abroad,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Province of the Sea'. ');">¹</span>

דתניא שור שנתחרשו בעליו ושנשתטו בעליו ושהלכו בעליו למדינת הים יהודה בן נקוסא אמר סומכוס הרי הוא בתמותו עד שיעידו בו בפני הבעלים וחכ"א מעמידין להן אפוטרופין ומעידין בהן בפני אפוטרופין

Judah b. Nakosa said on behalf of Symmachus that it would have to remain <i>Tam</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">²</span>

נתפקח החרש נשתפה השוטה והגדיל הקטן ובאו בעליו ממדינת הים יהודה בן נקוסא אמר סומכוס חזר לתמותו עד שיעידו בו בפני בעלים רבי יוסי אמר הרי הוא בחזקתו

until witnesses could give evidence in the presence of the owner. The Sages, however, say that a guardian should be appointed in whose presence the evidence may be given. Should the deaf-mute recover his faculty [of hearing or speech], or the idiot become sane, or the minor come of age, or the owner return from abroad, Judah b. Nakosa said on behalf of Symmachus that the ox would revert to the state of <i>Tam</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion which follows. ');">³</span>

אמרו מאי הרי הוא בתמותו דקאמר סומכוס אילימא דלא מייעד כלל הא מדקתני סיפא חזר לתמותו מכלל דאייעד

until evidence is given in the presence of the owner, whereas R. Jose said that it would retain its status quo. Now, we have here to ask, what is the meaning of 'it would have to remain Tam'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the commencing clause. ');">⁴</span>

אלא מאי הרי הוא בתמותו הרי הוא בתמימותו דלא מחסרינן ליה אלמא אין מעמידין אפוטרופוס לתם לגבות מגופו וחכמים אומרים מעמידין להן אפוטרופוס ומעידין להן בפני אפוטרופוס אלמא מעמידין אפוטרופוס לתם לגבות מגופו

in the dictum of Symmachus? It could hardly mean that the ox cannot become <i>Mu'ad</i> at all, for since it is stated in the concluding clause, 'The ox would revert to the state of Tam', it is implied that it had formerly been <i>Mu'ad</i>. What then is the meaning of, 'it would have to remain Tam'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the commencing clause. ');">⁴</span>

וסיפא במאי קמיפלגי רשות משנה איכא בינייהו סומכוס סבר רשות משנה ור' יוסי סבר רשות אינה משנה

We must say, 'It would remain <i>Tam</i> [complete],'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading [H] instead of [H]. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ר שור חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח רבי יעקב משלם ח"נ

that is, we do nothing to diminish its value, which would, of course, show that [Symmachus holds] no guardian is appointed in the case of <i>Tam</i> to collect payment out of its body. 'The Sages, however, say that a guardian should be appointed in whose presence evidence may be given', from which it follows that [they hold] a guardian may be appointed in the case of <i>Tam</i> to collect payment out of its body.

ר' יעקב מאי עבידתיה אלא אימא רבי יעקב אומר משלם ח"נ

And what is the point at issue in the concluding clause? The point at issue there is [whether or not a change of] control<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as from guardian to owner. ');">⁶</span>

במאי עסקינן אי בתם פשיטא דכ"ע נמי ח"נ הוא דמשלם ואי במועד אי דעבדי ליה שמירה כלל כלל לא בעי לשלומי ואי דלא עבדי ליה שמירה כוליה נזק בעי שלומי

should cause a change [in the state of the ox].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the state of Mu'ad to that of Tam. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבא לעולם במועד והכא במאי עסקינן דעבדי שמירה פחותה ולא עבדי ליה שמירה מעולה

Symmachus maintains that [a change in] control causes a change [in the state of the ox],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the state of Mu'ad to that of Tam. ');">⁷</span>

ורבי יעקב סבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר צד תמות במקומה עומדת וסבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר מועד סגי ליה בשמירה פחותה

whereas R. Jose holds that [a change of] control causes no change [in the state of the ox].

וסבר לה כרבנן דאמרי מעמידין אפוטרופוס לתם לגבות מגופו

Our Rabbis taught: Where an ox of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor has gored, R. Jacob pays half-damages. What has R. Jacob to do with it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he personally should have to pay compensation. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל אביי ולא פליגי והתניא שור של חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח ר' יהודה מחייב ור' יעקב אומר ח"נ הוא דמשלם אמר רבה בר עולאמה שמחייב ר' יהודה פירש ר' יעקב

— But read, 'R. Jacob orders the payment of half-damages.' With what case are we here dealing? If with a <i>Tam</i>, is this not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then state this at all? ');">⁹</span>

ולאביי דאמר פליגי במאי פליגי

For does not any other owner similarly pay half-damages? If [on the other] hand we are dealing with a <i>Mu'ad</i>, then where proper precautions were taken to control it, why should any payment be made at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since so far as the owner was concerned the damage occurred by accident. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר לך הב"ע במועד ולא נטריה כלל

And if no precautions were taken to control it, why should not damages be paid in full? — Raba thereupon said: We are in fact dealing with a <i>Mu'ad</i>, and with a case where precautions of some inferior sort<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the various degrees of precaution cf. infra 55b. ');">¹¹</span>

ר' יעקב סבר לה כר' יהודה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא סבר כר' יהודה בחדא דאילו ר' יהודה סבר צד תמות במקומה עומדת ופליג עליה בחדא דאילו רבי יהודה סבר מעמידין להן אפוטרופוס לתם לגבות מגופו ור' יעקב סבר אין מעמידין ולא משלם אלא פלגא דמועד

were taken to control the ox, but not really adequate precautions. R. Jacob concurred with R. Judah who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 84 and infra p. 260. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בר אביי לרבינא בשלמא לאביי דאמר פליגי שפיר אלא לרבא דאמר לא פליגי אדמוקי לה במועד נוקמא בתם

that [even in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>, half of the payment, i.e.] the part due from <i>Tam</i> remains unaffected [being still subject to the law of <i>Tam</i>]; he also concurred with R. Judah in holding<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 259. ');">¹³</span> that to procure exemption from the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> even inadequate precautions are sufficient;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this would not be sufficient in the case of Tam. Where therefore such a precaution has been taken to control a Mu'ad, the half-damages for which the Tam is liable would be enforced, but not the additional damages for which the Mu'ad is liable. ');">¹⁴</span> and he furthermore followed the view of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages, whose view was explained supra. ');">¹⁵</span> who said that a guardian could be appointed in the case of <i>Tam</i> to collect payment out of its body.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence R. Jacob's ruling for the payment of half-damages. ');">¹⁶</span> Said Abaye to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to Raba. ');">¹⁷</span> Do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jacob and R. Judah. ');">¹⁸</span> really not differ? Has it not been taught: 'Where the ox of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor has gored, R. Judah maintains that there is liability to pay and R. Jacob says that the payment will be only for half the damage'? — Rabbah b. 'Ulla thereupon said: The 'liability to pay' mentioned by R. Judah is here defined [as to its amount] by R. Jacob.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who thus makes precise what R. Judah left unspecified. ');">¹⁹</span> But according to Abaye who maintained that they did differ, what was the point at issue between them? — He may tell you that they were dealing with a case of <i>Mu'ad</i> that had not been guarded at all, in regard to which R. Jacob would concur with R. Judah on one point but differ from him on another point. He would concur with him on one point, in that R. Judah lays down that [even with <i>Mu'ad</i> half of the payment, i.e.] the part due from <i>Tam</i> remains unaffected; but he would differ from him on another point, in that R. Judah lays down that a guardian should be appointed in the case of <i>Tam</i> to collect payment out of its body, whereas R. Jacob is of the opinion that a guardian could not be appointed and there could therefore be no payment except the half [which should be subject to the law] of <i>Mu'ad</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is paid out of the general estate. ');">²⁰</span> Said R. Aha b. Abaye to Rabina: All would be very well according to Abaye who maintained that they differ;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that R. Jacob maintained that no guardian could be appointed in the case of Tam, and R. Judah that he could. ');">²¹</span> he is quite right [in explaining the earlier statement of R. Jacob<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the view of R. Judah was not mentioned at all. ');">²²</span> to apply only to <i>Mu'ad</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where no precaution to control the ox has been taken. ');">²³</span> But according to Raba who maintained that they do not differ, why should the former statement [of R. Jacob] be referred only to <i>Mu'ad</i>? Why not also to <i>Tam</i>,