Bava Kamma 39a — the Talmud in English

He explained:

Abaye

answered:

Rabbi Meir indeed imposes a penalty on the Cutheans from their property, and therefore their status is like that of gentiles with regard to liability for damages. However, with regard to one who rapes or seduces a Cuthean woman, Rabbi Meir did not impose a penalty on the Cutheans, so that the rapist or seducer would not be exempt from paying the penalty,

so that the sinner should not profit.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Why not give the penalty to the poor!?

Rabbi Meir could say that one who rapes or seduces them should give the penalty to the poor, so that the sinner should not profit!?

He explained

Rabbi Mari

answered:

Rabbi Meir did not say that the penalty should be given to the poor

because it would be property that has no specific claimant.

No individual poor person would be able to claim it, since to each one he could say: “I will not give it to you; I will give it to another poor person.”

Mishna:

If an ox belonging to a competent person gored an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,

it

is liable

to pay them.

But

if an ox

belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored an ox belonging to a competent person, it is exempt

from paying from its own body when it is innocuous.

If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian for them, and testimony concerning it is given before the

guardian.

The Gemara will explain whether testimony is given concerning the ox when it is still innocuous, in order to collect from it, or only in order to make it forewarned.

If the deaf-mute regains his faculties

after the ox was declared forewarned through testimony given before a guardian, or if

the imbecile is cured

[that is, recovers] and

the minor comes of age, the ox returns

to being

innocuous.

The reason is that “a change of authority changes the status”: An ox that was forewarned while under the authority of one owner and then came into the possession of other owners has its status changed by the transfer of authority, and testimony must be given concerning it again under the authority in which it now is—

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: It retains its previous status:

It remains forewarned as it was, since in his view “a change of authority does not change its status.”

An arena ox,

an ox designated for goring and trained to do so, that killed a person

is not liable to be put to death

like other oxen that kill a person. This is because

it is stated: “And if an ox gores [which means that it gored on its own] a man or a woman, and he or she dies, the ox shall surely be stoned.” And we expound

the words

“if it gores”

and not if it is made to gore

[that is, if others trained it to gore].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “And if an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored an ox belonging to a competent person, it is exempt. If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian for them, and testimony concerning it is given before the guardian”:

It might have been understood that what we learned, “and testimony concerning it is given before the guardian,” means that testimony is given concerning the goring while the ox is still innocuous, in order to collect half the damages from it. Therefore, the Gemara raises a contradiction between the beginning and the end of the Mishna:

This itself—

of our Mishna—

is difficult:

For

you said

at the beginning: “

If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored an ox belonging to a competent person, it is exempt,”

apparently

[this proves]:

the

court

does not appoint a guardian for an innocuous ox

in order

to collect from its own body

of the innocuous ox—

That is, the court does not appoint a guardian so that testimony can be given before him concerning the ox’s damage, in order to collect from the ox’s own body. And this is the meaning of what we learned: “If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored an ox belonging to a competent person, it is exempt”—when it is still innocuous.

come, hear the end,

which implies that this is not so, for we learned in the latter clause:

If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian for them, and testimony concerning it is given before the guardian

concerning the goring, in order to collect from it when it is innocuous—

apparently: The court appoints a guardian for them for an innocuous ox, in order to collect from its own body!?

He explained

answered

Rava:

It is not as you thought, that the latter clause of our Mishna is discussing testimony given before the guardian in order to collect from the ox when it is innocuous. Rather,

this is what it teaches: And if they have acquired an established status as goring oxen—

the oxen belonging to the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the minor—

the court appoints a guardian for them and testimony concerning them is given before the guardian, and they are made forewarned,

[the oxen are made forewarned], so that

when it subsequently gores, payment is made from the estate

if it gores after it has been declared forewarned by the court, the damages are paid from the estate, but payment is not collected from the ox’s own body.

The Gemara explains:

From whose estate

[is the payment collected if the ox gored after being declared forewarned by the court?]

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The damages are collected

from the orphans’ estate

[from the orphans’ property].

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: From the guardian’s estate,

[from his private property].

We raise a difficulty:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this

that the payment for damages should be collected from the property of minor orphans!?

But Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said:

The court does not deal with the property of minor orphans

to collect any debt from them

unless interest is accruing on it

[when the debt continually increases because payment is delayed].

And Rabbi Yohanan said: either for a document containing interest, or for the

payment

of a woman’s ketubah, because of

loss of

mezonot,

for the woman is supported from the property of the orphans until she has collected her ketubah.

Behold, according to Rabbi Yohanan himself, one does not have recourse to the property of minor orphans; so how did Rabbi Yohanan say that the minor orphans must pay from their property in order to pay the injured party his damages!? And we answer:

Reverse

the positions of the amoraim one with the other, and thus you will teach:

Rabbi Yohanan said: from the resources of the guardian

and not from the property of the orphans, and according to his position, that he holds that one does not have recourse to the property of minor orphans;

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: from the resources of the orphans.

Said

in astonishment

Rava:

But is it so that

because Rabbi Yohanan’s statement is difficult against Rabbi Yohanan’s statement [

because you wish to reconcile the contradiction between Rabbi Yohanan’s statements]

you make Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina mistaken, [

you make Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina mistaken], so that he would hold that one has recourse to the property of minor orphans,

but Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina is a judge and descends into the depth of the law [

he is a judge who descends into the depth of the law], and he would not err in saying that one has recourse to them]!?

Rather,

by force of this difficulty, the Gemara reconciles the contradiction between Rabbi Yohanan’s statements in another manner:

Never reverse,

and indeed Rabbi Yohanan holds that here one does have recourse to the property of orphans,

and

because

a damager is different,

for it is the good of the world that he not increase in causing damage; therefore, one has recourse to their property even when they are minors, according to Rabbi Yohanan.