Bava Kamma 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

how did we learn: “He shall pay the last of them, and if

“and if there is a surplus in it,

He said

he answered

Ravina: This is how it is taught

in our Mishna. That is, regarding what we learned: “And if there is surplus in it, he shall return it to the one before him”—the intention is not that if anything remains in the ox after the last injured party has collected, the injured party before him collects it. Rather, this is the intention of the Mishna:

If there is surplus in it beyond his damages, he shall return it to the one before him.

That is, if the value of all the damages was not equal, but the injured party before the last injured party had damages of greater value than those of the last injured party, then he is entitled to collect the remainder of his damages after the last injured party collects. For just as the last injured party is entitled first to the entire share belonging to all those before him, because those before him became liable to one another by virtue of their taking possession of the ox, and each earlier one became liable to the one after him, so too, with regard to the remainder of the damages—which the last injured party has no right to, since it exceeds the value of his damages—the last among the injured parties is entitled to it. And similarly, regarding what we learned: “And if there is surplus in it, he shall return it to the one before the one before him,” this means that if the value of the damages of the one before the one before him was greater than those of the parties after him, he collects it.

And this is what we learned: “The last last one profits.” If there were several injured parties whose damages were greater in value than those of the last one, the later one will always be entitled to the payment. For the one before him became liable to pay him his rights in the ox, because he was a paid bailee liable for damages.

And similarly, when Ravin came, Rabbi Yoḥanan said

to explain Rabbi Meir’s position:

They addressed the matter on account of the negligence of bailees

to obligate the earlier injured parties to suffer a loss for the benefit of the last injured party.

And we challenge this:

In what way have you established

this statement of Rabbi Meir

as following Rabbi Yishmael!?

If so, say the latter clause: Rabbi Shimon says: An ox worth two hundred that gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass was worth nothing—the one takes a maneh and the other takes a maneh; it then went and gored another ox worth two hundred, the last one takes a maneh, and the one before him, this one takes fifty

zuz, and this one takes fifty zuz; it then went and gored an ox worth two hundred, the last one takes a maneh, the one before him takes fifty zuz, and the first two take a golden dinar—

but this law

comes according to Rabbi Akiva, who says: It is an ox owned in partnership!

And if so, this is difficult: Is the

first clause

Rabbi Yishmael

’s position,

and the latter clause Rabbi Akiva

’s position!?

They said

the members of the academy:

Yes,

that is indeed the case.

For Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Great-toothed one!

Abandon the Mishna and come after me [

leave the Mishna and come after me], meaning: Leave the Mishna and do not trouble yourself to attribute it to a single tanna; rather, say as I do:

The first clause is Rabbi Yishmael

’s position,

and the latter clause is Rabbi Akiva

’s position.

We learned there,

as we learned below, on page 90a:

One who strikes his fellow

who strikes his fellow on the ear,

gives him a sela

as compensation for his humiliation, which is the standard measure of humiliation for an average person.

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: A maneh [

one hundred zuz],

he gives him as compensation for his humiliation. An incident involving

a certain man who struck his fellow [

an incident involving a man who struck his fellow],

Rav Tuvya bar Mattana sent him before Rav Yosef,

so that he could be questioned:

There are two types of coins:

Tyrian coins and provincial coins, and the difference between them was the quantity of silver they contained: a Tyrian sela contained eight times as much silver as provincial coins, and therefore its value was also eight times greater. All types of coins [ma’ot, zuz, and dinars, and manehs] mentioned in the Shas undoubtedly refer to Tyrian coins, but with regard to sela’im and shekels [half-sela’im] mentioned in the Torah and in the Shas, the Gemara here discusses whether the reference is to Tyrian sela’im or provincial sela’im.

A Tyrian sela was worth four Tyrian dinars, while a provincial sela was worth four provincial dinars, or half a Tyrian dinar.

Is it

a Tyrian sela [

which is four Tyrian zuz] that

we learned,

that he gives him as compensation for his humiliation, according to the first tanna, whose view is the halakha—

or

perhaps

a provincial sela [

which is half a Tyrian zuz] that

we learned?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef:

You have learned it:

It can be derived from our Mishna that the tanna teaches only a Tyrian sela, and not a provincial sela:

For we learned in our Mishna:

And the two first ones

take each

a golden dinar,

which is twenty-five silver zuz. The tanna could have taught an additional damage that occurred, in which case it would emerge that each of the two first parties would take twelve and a half zuz. Rather, it is certainly because of this that the tanna did not teach such a case: he does not wish to teach half-units—

And

however,

if it enters your mind that the tanna stated a country sela

[that it is the tanna’s practice to state a country sela], if so, since half a zuz is a complete country sela, the difficulty still remains:

let him divide it and state: until twelve and a sela,

the tanna should add one more category of damage, so that the first injured party and the owner would each be left with twelve Tyrian zuz and an additional country sela [which is half a Tyrian zuz], since the sela is a complete unit—!?

Rather, certainly the tanna does not state a country sela at all; and as for zuz, these are halves, which the tanna does not state.

He said

he rejected

it

the proof:

But is it so that

a tanna must state every detail like a peddler and continue on

[is it the tanna’s practice to enumerate every possibility, like a peddler who describes his wares in every detail]? In other words, the tanna indeed could have stated this, but what he said was sufficient, and he did not need to add another category of damage and the division of the ox after this damage.

The Gemara asks: Since Rav Yosef’s proof that wherever a sela is mentioned we learned of a Tyrian sela has been rejected, then

what ultimately emerges from it

[what is the resolution of the question], whether with regard to one who struck another we learned of a Tyrian sela, or whether it is a country sela that we learned?

They resolved it

the members of the academy

from that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

All silver mentioned in the Torah is Tyrian silver

and likewise, when the Sages mention a measure prescribed by the Torah [such as the fifty sela of the seducer and the rapist], they refer to Tyrian silver; whereas a measure

of rabbinic ordinance,

such as the sela for humiliation, whose measure was established by the Sages, is measured in

country silver.

Since Rav Yosef ruled for them that the one who struck another need pay only a country sela, which is half a Tyrian zuz,

that man said

[the injured party] to Rav Yosef:

Since

it is only

half a zuz, I do not want it

; rather,

let him give it to the poor

[Since he is required to pay me only half a zuz, I am embarrassed to take it; let the one who struck me give the half-zuz to the poor]!

He then said to him again,

the injured party changed his mind and said to Rav Yosef again:

Let him give it to me; I will go and sustain myself with it

[Let him give me the half-zuz, and I will go and sustain myself with it], meaning: I will buy something with which to taste.

Rav Yosef said to him

the injured party:

You cannot retract, for

the poor have already acquired it; and although there are no poor here

[and although there are no poor people before us],

we

—since I am a collector of charity—

are the hand of the poor,

as though the poor had already acquired it.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Although the Sabbatical year cancels a debt unless a prozbul was written, namely: “I transfer to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, the judges in such-and-such a place [my promissory notes, so that you may collect them, while I will not collect them], so that I may collect any debt that I have whenever I wish,” and the judges or witnesses sign it, nevertheless: