Bava Kamma 40a — the Talmud in English

If according to Rabbi Judah:

That is, since Rabbi Yaakov holds like Rabbi Judah, who holds that an innocuous ox does not suffice with lesser guarding, let us explain Rabbi Yaakov’s words as referring to a case

where he provided it with lesser guarding but did not provide it with superior guarding

[they guarded it with lesser guarding but did not guard it with superior guarding], and he pays as an ordinary innocuous ox does —

If according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

That is, if Rabbi Yaakov holds like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who holds that even an innocuous ox suffices with lesser guarding, let us explain Rabbi Yaakov’s words as referring to a case

where he did not provide it with any guarding at all

[they did not guard it at all], and therefore he pays half-damages.

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox for which they provided lesser guarding are exempt.

And perhaps you will say: If he is dealing with an innocuous ox, why did he say, “He pays half-damages”? He should have said, “Rabbi Yaakov obligates”! This is not difficult. For this reason he said, “He pays half-damages,” to teach us that the discussion concerns an innocuous ox,

and Rabbi Yaakov teaches us this: they appoint a guardian for an innocuous ox in order to collect from its body.

He said to him—

Ravina replied to Rav Aḥa bar Abba:

This is what he is saying: One statement that contains two reasons!

That is, Rava explained it this way so that two laws would be understood from Rabbi Yaakov’s single statement. For according to Rava’s explanation, Rabbi Yaakov made one statement, and we learned two laws from his words.

For we learned from his words that Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Judah agree concerning the law that they appoint a guardian for an innocuous ox in order to collect from its body, and they also agree that the aspect of innocuousness remains in its place, and that a forewarned ox suffices with lesser guarding, like Rabbi Judah.

Ravina said

as Abaye: Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Judah in the beraita disagree concerning the law, but he explains it in another manner:

Authority

[a change made in the ownership of the ox], does it

change

the law of its becoming forewarned? That is what

distinguishes them

[between Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Judah].

And with what case are we dealing here? With

a case where it was

the ox

forewarned, and the deaf-mute became capable, and the mentally incompetent became sane, and the minor came of age.

Rabbi Judah holds: It remains in its presumption,

and a change of authority does not change its status as forewarned. This is what we learned: “An ox belonging to a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person, or a minor that gored—Rabbi Judah obligates.” That is, he obligates it in everything for which it had been liable until now.

But

Rabbi Yaakov holds: authority changes. This is what we learned: “And Rabbi Yaakov says: He pays half-damages.”

This is what we learned: “And Rabbi Yaakov says: He pays half the damages.”

The Sages taught:

a. A forewarned ox that caused damage pays the value of the damage from the superior property.

b. A forewarned ox that was forewarned to kill a person, which killed a person—its owners pay ransom. As it is stated [Exodus 21:29]: “But if the ox was accustomed to goring from yesterday and the day before, and its owner was warned but did not guard it, and it killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death [by Heaven]. If [this is an expression of obligation] ransom shall be imposed upon him, and he shall give the redemption of his life according to whatever is imposed upon him [by the court].”

And in our sugya it is explained what the measure of the ransom is, and why it is paid.

Guardians

whose forewarned ox caused damage while in their possession

pay from the superior property,

and the amoraim disputed above whether they pay from their superior property or from the superior property of the orphans.

And they do not pay ransom,

if the ox in their responsibility killed a person, as its reason is explained and proceeds.

And we explain:

Who is the tan­​nay,

who is the tan­​nay of the beraita who holds that

the ransom

[the ransom that the owners pay when their ox killed a person, because of]

atonement

for the owners, to atone for themselves, since they are liable for death at the hands of Heaven, as it is stated, “and its owner shall also be put to death”

and

therefore the guardians do not pay ransom, for

the orphans—

who are minors—

are not subject to atonement.

Rav Ḥisda said:

The beraita follows the method of

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka,

who holds: “The ransom is atonement.”

For it was taught:

It is written: “If ransom shall be imposed upon him [upon the owners of the ox that killed a person],

and he shall give the redemption of his life,”

and the tannaim disputed how much he pays:

According to the Sages,

the value of the injured party,

he pays the value of the deceased injured party.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: The value of the injurer.

The owner of the ox pays his own value.

But

is it not

that

they disagree about this:

The Sages hold that the ransom

which the owners pay

is monetary compensation,

because it damaged the body of this person and became liable to his heirs for the value of the slain person, and if so, he pays according to the value of the injured party.

And

whereas

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds

that

the ransom is atonement,

and since it comes to atone for himself, he gives his own value.

It is thus explained that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds that the ransom is atonement, and the tan­​nay of the beraita, who exempts the guardians from paying ransom, agrees with him.

Rav Pappa said: No,

it is not as you think—that according to the first tan­​nay the ransom is not for atonement, and therefore the tan­​nay of the beraita necessarily follows Rabbi Yishmael.

Rather,

everyone holds that the ransom is atonement,

and according to everyone the guardians do not pay, even according to the Sages.

And here—

in the beraita in which the tannaim dispute whether he pays the value of the injurer or the value of the injured party—

they disagree about this:

The Sages hold that

the measure of the injurer’s atonement

is assessed according to the injured party,

for he has atonement through paying the value of the injured party.

And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds that the measure of the injurer’s atonement

according to

the value of the injurer

himself

is assessed,

since it comes to atone for himself.

And the Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

What is the reason of the Sages?

Surely Rabbi Yishmael’s words appear more reasonable: since the ransom is atonement, he must give his own value!?

Because

the expression

“

imposition” [“

shall be imposed upon him”] was stated

below

with regard to ransom.

And

the expression

“imposition” [“

he shall impose upon him”] was stated

above,

with regard to a person who strikes a pregnant woman and her children emerge, as it is written [Exodus 21:22]: “And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her children emerge, and there is no calamity [to the woman], he shall surely be fined, as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him, and he shall give it through the judges.”

Just as there

[above]

according to the injured party

is assessed, according to the value of the damaged fetuses that the husband imposes upon him,

so too here,

with regard to ransom,

according to the injured party

is assessed.

And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds: “

And he shall give the redemption of his life”

is written,

and this implies according to the value of the life of the giver.

And the Sages

say to you:

No,

indeed “

the redemption of his life”

is written, but when it is assessed, it is assessed according to the injured party.

For the verse does not say that he should give according to the value of his life, but that he should give [whatever he gives] in order to redeem his life from death at the hands of Heaven. If so, we can say, by means of the gezera shava, that the value of the payment is according to the value of the injured party.

And the Gemara relates that

Rava praised Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov to Rav Naḥman, saying that he was a great man

[Rava praised Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov before Rav Naḥman, saying that he was a great man].

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rava:

When

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov

comes to you, bring him to me

[to me].

When he came to him, he said to him: Ask me a matter.

When Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov came to Rav Naḥman, Rav Aḥa said to him: Ask me some matter of halakha.

He asked him

Rav Naḥman asked Rav Aḥa:

An ox

that is

owned by two partners,

which killed a person—

how do

the partner-owners

pay the ransom!?

For if you say

this one pays a ransom and this one pays a ransom,

each partner pays a full ransom, this cannot be said, because

one ransom is what

the Merciful One said, and not two ransoms.

not two payments of atonement.

Perhaps you will say:

this one

[the one partner]

pays half a ransom, and this one

[the second partner]

pays half a ransom.

This too cannot be said, because

the Merciful One said a full ransom, and not half a ransom.

And if so, how will they pay the ransom!?

While he was sitting,

while Rav Aḥa was sitting

and examining it

[the first question],

he said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Aḥa:

We learned

in tractate Arakhin 21a:

Those liable for valuations

[one who says, “My valuation,” or “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” meaning that he pays to the Temple treasury the fixed amount prescribed in the Torah, according to the age and sex of the person valued], who do not wish to pay their debt to the Temple treasury—

they are seized as security.

But

those liable for sin-offerings and guilt-offerings,

which come to atone for a sin,

are not seized as security,

for ultimately he will bring it, even if at present he says that he is not amenable to atonement.

And Rav Naḥman was uncertain:

Those liable for ransoms—what is the law?

Are they seized as security?

And the sides of his uncertainty are: Shall we say

since it is atonement

[as the one who says, “The ransom is atonement”],

it is like a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

and

the matter is very severe for him, and there is no need to seize his property as security

[the matter is severe in his eyes, and there is no need to seize him as security], because ultimately he will bring it on his own?

Or perhaps: Since he needs to give it to his fellow, it is monetary property

[since he must give the money of the atonement to his fellow]

and it is not for the Most High,

and it is not severe for him, and they must seize his property as security

[if so, it is not severe for him, and they must seize him as security]—

Alternatively,

another reason may be given not to seize his property as security:

Since he did not sin, but his property caused the damage, the matter is not severe for him, and they must seize his property as security

[since he himself is not the injurer, but his property caused the damage, the matter is not so severe for him, and they must seize his property as security].

He said to him,

Rav Aḥa said to Rav Naḥman:

Leave me; I have been silenced by the first one

[leave me, for I have already been confounded and silenced by your first question].

One who borrows the ox is liable for guarding it against damage and for paying damages to the injured party,

And if it was an innocuous ox, the injured party is paid from the body of the ox, which belongs to the owners, and the borrower pays the owners for their loss.

The Sages taught: They asked

one who borrows an ox

on the presumption

that the ox is

a tam

and if it causes damage, they collect only half the damage, and from the body of the ox,

and it was found

that the ox was

a muad

and it pays full damage and from the superior property: therefore the

owners pay half the damage, and

the

borrower pays half the damage,

according to what he would have paid had the ox indeed been a tam. And this will be explained further in the continuation of the sugya. If the ox was a tam and

it was declared muad in the borrower’s house, and he returned it

the borrower

to the owners:

The owners pay half the damage

alone, because “a change of domain changes the ox’s legal status”

; and

if the

borrower is exempt from anything,

since he returned the ox and was freed from his payments.

The Master said: They asked [for] it on the presumption [that it was] a tam, and it was found [to be] a muad; the owners pay half the damage, and the borrower half the damage:

And we raise an objection to it:

And why

does the borrower pay even half the damage?

Let him say to him

the borrower to the owners: “You pay all of its damage, because I

borrowed an ox; I did not borrow a predatory lion

[I borrowed an ox, and not a predatory lion]!”?

He said

he answered:

Rav: What are we dealing with here? [With a case] in which he recognized

it

the borrower

as one that gores,

but he did not know that it had already been declared muad in court.

And we still raise a difficulty:

Let him say to him

the borrower to the owners: “

I borrowed a tam; I did not borrow a muad

[I borrowed a tam and not a muad]]!”?

And we answer:

Because he said to him

the owners to the borrower: Behold,

in the end,

even

if it had been a tam, half the damage

at least

you would have been required to pay

[behold, even if the ox had been a tam, you would have had to pay half the damage],

now too, go and pay half the damage

[and now too, go and pay half the damage].

And we still raise a difficulty:

Let him say to him

the borrower to the lender:

If [it had been] a tam

the ox

would have been collected from its body,

which is yours, and I would not have needed to take money out of my own [pocket]!?

And we answer:

Because he said to him

the lender to the borrower: Behold,

in the end—

even if it had been a tam—and would

you not have been required to pay me for the loss of the ox

[and would you not have had to pay me for the loss of the ox]!?

And we still raise a difficulty:

Let him say to him

the borrower to the lender: