Bava Kamma 39a (לט.) — the Talmud in English

He said:

Abaye

answered:

In fact, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty on Samaritans with regard to 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 Samaritan girl, Rabbi Meir did not impose a penalty on Samaritans, in order that the rapist or seducer should not be exempt from paying the fine,

so that the sinner should not profit.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Then let him give it to the poor!?

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

He said:

Rabbi Mari

Rav Mari

answered: Rabbi Meir did not say that he should give the fine to the poor

because it would be money without claimants.

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 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 is given concerning it in the presence of

the guardian.

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

If the deaf-mute regained competence

after the warning had been given in the presence of a guardian, or if

the imbecile recovered

and

the minor came of age, the ox returned

to

its status as innocuous.

The reason is that “a change of authority changes the status”: that is, when a forewarned ox leaves the authority of one owner and comes into the possession of other owners, the change of authority changes the legal status of its warning, and it must be warned again under the authority in which it now is —

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: It retains its presumptive status

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

An arena ox,

one designated for goring and trained for that purpose, if it 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 implies that it gored on its own] a man or a woman, and he dies, the ox shall surely be stoned.” And we expound:

the words

“If it gores,”

but not if it is made to gore

[if others train it to gore].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And in the case of an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor that 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 is given concerning it in the presence of a guardian:

The initial assumption is that what we learned, “and testimony is given concerning it in the presence of a guardian,” means that testimony is given concerning the goring when the ox is innocuous, in order to collect half the damages from it. Accordingly, the Gemara raises a contradiction within the Mishna, between its beginning and its end:

This matter 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 body

of the innocuous ox —

That is, the court does not appoint a guardian so that testimony may be given in his presence concerning the ox’s damage, in order to collect from its body. And this is the circumstance in which we learned: “An ox belonging to a deaf-mute is exempt” — when it is innocuous.

f.

Come and hear the latter clause,

which implies otherwise, 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 is given concerning it in the presence of a 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 body!?

He said:

answered

Rava

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

this is what it teaches: And if they have become established

— the oxen of the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the minor —

as goring oxen, the court appoints a guardian for them and testimony is given concerning them in the presence of a guardian, and we render them forewarned,

[we make the oxen forewarned], with regard to

when it subsequently gores, payment is made from the estate

so that if it gores after becoming forewarned in court, the damages will be paid from the estate. However, payment is not collected from its body.

The Gemara explains:

From whose estate

[from whose property are the damages collected if the ox gored after becoming forewarned in court?]:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The damages are collected

from the estate of the orphans

[from the orphans’ property].

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: From the estate of the guardian,

[from his private property].

We challenge this:

Did Rabbi Yohanan really say this

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

But Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said:

The court does not attend to the property of orphans

minors in order to collect any debt from them,

unless interest is consuming 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.