Bava Kamma 45b — the Talmud in English

Togda zadaetsya vopros o zaklyuchitelnoi chasti baraitы,

d

e

skazal

sam Rabbi Meir o drugom raznoglasii, v kotorom razoshlis Rabbi Meir i Rabbi Yehuda:

Naemnyi khraniteli podobен besplatnomu khranitelyu,

i dlya nego dostatochno «slaboi okhrany» dlya «okhrany tela» — i togda

pust skazhet

v zaklyuchitelnoi chasti baraitы: «I obyazany vozvratit stoimost byka ego vladeltсу,

krome besplatnogo khranitelya i naemnogo khranitelya»?!

Ved podobno tomu kak ty osvobozhdaesh besplatnogo khranitelya ot vozmeshcheniya stoimosti byka ego vladeltсу, potomu chto v otnoshenii «okhrany tela», iz-za kotoroi na nego vozlagaetsya obyazannost vozmestit stoimost byka vladeltсу, dlya nego dostatochno «slaboi okhrany», kotoruyu on ustanovil dlya byka, tak zhe i naemnyi khraniteli dolzhen byt osvobozhden.

A esli

baraita iskhodit iz mneniya

Rabbi Yehudy, kotoryi skazal

v tom drugom raznoglasii: «

Naemnyi khraniteli podobен oplachivaemomu khranitelyu»,

i imenno poetomu baraita v zaklyuchitelnoi chasti obyazyvaet naemnogo khranitelya vozmestit stoimost byka ego vladeltсу, dazhe esli byk byl zashchishchen «slaboi okhranoi», togda

pust skazhet

posle togo, chto my uchili v baraiste: «I obyazany vozvratit stoimost byka ego vladeltсу,

krome besplatnogo khranitelya»:

a vse oni —

vse khraniteli —

v otnoshenii byka, stavshego muadom, osvobozhdeny ot kufer,

ved sam Rabbi Yehuda schitaet, chto dlya muada dostatochno slaboi okhrany, a byk byl zashchishchen slaboi okhranoi, i togda vse oni osvobozhdeny ot kufera; i analogichno vozniknet vopros o nachale baraitы, gde yavno skazano, chto oni obyazany platit kufer.

Skazal

on v otvet:

Rav Huna bar Hinana:

A eto kto —

eta baraita, kotoraya obyazyvaet khranitelya byka-muada, zashchishchennogo slaboi okhranoi, i osvobozhdaet naemnogo khranitelya:

Eto Rabbi Eliezer, kotoryi skazal:

muad

ne imeet inoi okhrany, krome nozhа,

i poetomu khraniteli obyazany platit kufer, dazhe esli oni ustanovili slabuyu okhranu;

a

to, chto naemnyi khraniteli obyazan vozmestit stoimost byka vladeltсу, proiskhodit potomu, chto

v otnoshenii naemnogo khranitelya on prinimaet —

Rabbi Eliezer —

mnenie Rabbi Yehudy, kotoryi skazal: naemnyi khraniteli podoben oplachivaemomu khranitelyu,

i slaboi okhrany dlya nego nedostatochno.

Skazal Abaye

v obyasnenie baraitы:

Vsegda

baraita

sootvetstvuet mneniyu Rabbi Meira,

kotoryi schitaet, chto dlya muada slaboi okhrany nedostatochno, i poetomu khraniteli obyazany platit kufer, kogda oni ustanovili tolko slabuyu okhranu. A na tvoi vopros: togda naemnyi khraniteli dolzhen byt osvobozhden ot vozmeshcheniya stoimosti byka ego vladeltсу, poskolku po mneniyu samogo Rabbi Meira naemnyi khraniteli podoben besplatnomu i emu dostatochno slaboi okhrany, otvetim te:

I soglasno tomu, kak Rabba bar Avuha zamenil —

polozheniya o naemnom khranitеле —

i uchil: kak naemnyi khraniteli platit? Rabbi Meir skazal: kak oplachivaemyi khraniteli; Rabbi Yehuda skazal: kak besplatnyi khraniteli,

togda vsyа baraita sootvetstvuet mneniyu Rabbi Meira, i naemnyi khraniteli obyazan vozmestit stoimost byka ego vladeltсу, tak kak on podoben oplachivaemomu khranitelyu, obyazannomu obespechit vladeltсу usilennuyu okhranu.

Skazal Rabbi Elazar:

Esli peredal svoego byka besplatnomu khranitelyu:

Byk vyshеl i

nanes ushcherb

drugim lyudyam —

khraniteli obyazan

vozmestit postradavshemu prichinennyi ushcherb.

Byk vyshеl i

sam poluchil ushcherb

ot drugogo byka —

khraniteli osvobozhden

ot vozmeshcheniya ushcherba vladeltсу.

Skazali

synovya beit-midrasha v nedoumenii: ved

kakim obrazom

zdes sleduet ponimat baraitu:

Esli khraniteli prinjal na sebya

даже если бык причинил ущерб, хранитель также должен быть освобождён,

okhranu ot ushcherba —

to est okhranu, chtoby byk ne nanes ushcherb i sam ne poluchil ushcherb, — togda

daже esli on poluchil ushcherb, khraniteli takzhe dolzhen platit,

tak kak eto vkhodit v ego prinjatie.

слова рабби Элазара: На самом деле он принял на себя охрану от ущерба, но о каком случае здесь идёт речь? Например, хранитель распознал,

A esli on ne prinjal na sebya okhranu ot ushcherba,

i poetomu osvobozhden, esli sam poluchil ushcherb, togda

daже esli on nanes ushcherb, khraniteli takzhe dolzhen byt osvobozhden,

tak kak on ne prinjal na sebya etu okhranu.

Skazal

— obyasnil —

Rava

slova Rabbi Elazara:

Vsegda rech idet o tom, chto on prinjal na sebya okhranu ot ushcherba; no o kakom sluchae zdes idet rech:

Napример, esli on raspoznal v nem

— v byke —

byka, kotoryi bodается,

i prinjal na sebya «okhranu ot ushcherba» v obshchem vide, no v otnoshenii takogo byka ego prinjatie podrazumevaet tolko okhranu, chtoby on ne nanes ushcherb, no ne okhranu ot togo, chtoby drugoi byk ne nanes ushcherb emu —

A

potomu chto

obyčno predpolagaetsya

:

Chto on sam ne poydet i ne naneset ushcherb drugim, on prinjal na sebya, [

chtoby on ne nanes ushcherb drugim, eto deistvitelno vklyucheno v ego prinjatie], tak kak imenno eto yavlyaetsya obychnym sluchaem; on predstavil ego v razume i vklyuchil v svoe prinjatie.

No

esli drugie pridut i nanesut ushcherb emu samomu, [

esli bodayushchiisya byk poluchit ushcherb ot drugikh],

on ne predpolagal etogo, [

ne predstavlyal eto v razume] i ne vklyuchil v svoe prinjatie, tak kak neobyčno, chtoby odin byk vstaval protiv drugogo bodayushchegosya byka.

то есть установили дверь, способную выдержать только обычный ветер; эти два вида охраны являются «ненадёжной охраной» — И он вышел и причинил ущерб

Mishna:

Ego vladelец privязal ego verevkoi

— eto konoplyanaya verevka, kotoroi privyazyvayut sheyu zhivotnogo —

Meiri. I zapер [

ili zapер]

pered nim kak podobает,

to est dveryu, sposobnoi vystoyat tolko pri obychnom vetre; obe eti okhrany yavlyayutsya «slaboi okhranoi» —

i byk vyshеl

i

nanes ushcherb

svoim rogom, [ to est byk porval verevku ili dver byla slomana neobychnym vetrom, posle chego on vyshеl i nanes ushcherb]:

I za ne-muada, i za muada on obyazan; takovo mnenie Rabbi Meira,

kotoryi schitaet: i ne-muadu, i muadu slaboi okhrany nedostatochno; ikh nuzhno privyazat zheleznymi tsepyami, kotorye oni ne smogut porvat, ili zapерet ikh za dveryu, sposobnoi vystoyat dazhe pri neobychnom vetre.

Rabbi Yehuda govorit:

Esli byk byl

ne-muad,

to on

obyazan,

tak kak dlya osvobozhdeniya vladeltсу nuzhna «usilennaya okhrana» —

a

esli zhe byk byl

muad,

to on

osvobozhden,

tak kak dlya muada dostatochno slaboi okhrany, i potomu chto

skazano [

Shmot 21:36]: «Esli zhe bylo izvestno, chto byk bodayushchiisya, i on bodal uzhe vchera i tretего dnya,

В чём причина мнения рабби Меира,

no ego vladelец ne stereg ego, polnostyu dolzhen on zaplatit: byka vmesto byka»,

Потому что

a

«slabaya okhrana»

tozhe yavlyaetsya okhranoi, i v Gemare podrobno obyasnyaetsya etot vyvod.

то есть обычно люди не охраняют своих быков, и именно о таких быках говорит Тора —

Rabbi Eliezer govorit:

U muada net okhrany

krome

nozhа,

i dazhe esli ego zashchitili usilennoi okhranoi, no on vyshеl i nanes ushcherb, ego vladelец obyazan vozmestit ushcherb.

Gemara:

Gemara obyasnyaet prichinu raznoglasiya Rabbi Meira i Rabbi Yehudy:

Kakova prichina mneniya Rabbi Meira,

kotoryi schitaet, chto i ne-muadu, i muadu nuzhna «usilennaya okhrana»:

Potomu chto

on schitaet,

Rabbi Meir:

obychnye byki ne schitayutsya nahodyashchimisya pod okhranoi, [

to est obychnye lyudi ne steregut svoikh bykov, i imenno k nim obrashchena Tora] —

i Miloserdnyi skazal: o ne-muade

— iz etikh bykov, kotorye voobsche ne okhranyayutsya, — kogda on bodnul,

my obyazhem

ego platezhom, chtoby

emu nuzhna byla

po krainей mere

slabaya okhrana,

chtoby osvobodit ego ot platezha; to est, poskolku Tora obyazala byka, kotoryi ne okhranyaetsya, my uchim, chto bez okhrany chelovek obyazan za deistvie svoego byka, no esli on ustanovil dazhe slabuyu okhranu, u nas net istochnika, chto on obyazan.

I kogda

vnov Miloserdnyi skazal: «

i ne budet ego sterech»

v otnoshenii muada,

to est esli ego steregut, on osvobozhden, stikh dobavlyaet,

chto emu nuzhna

dlya muada

usilennaya okhrana —

a

posle togo kak my uznali, chto muadu nuzhna usilennaya okhrana, — vnov

vyvodit

Rabbi Meir posredstvom gzera-shava:

«bodanie» v ne-muade — «bodanie» v muade,

tak chto i ne-muadu nuzhna usilennaya okhrana.

And the reason for Rabbi Judah’s [view] is:

Rabbi Judah holds: ordinary oxen are presumed to be guarded

with lesser guarding

[and] stand,

that is to say: ordinary people guard their oxen at least with lesser guarding, and concerning these oxen the Torah spoke—

and

the Merciful One said: an innocuous ox—

from among the oxen guarded with lesser guarding—when it gored,

it is paid

so

that it would require superior guarding,

for if the Torah obligated him with lesser guarding, then necessarily it requires superior guarding.

And when

the Merciful One again said: “

and he does not guard it”

concerning a forewarned ox,

and we learned

that we should make for it superior guarding,

after we had already learned this from the fact that the Torah obligated the innocuous ox without superior guarding, it follows that

this is ‘an amplification after an amplification,”

and an amplification after an amplification serves only to exclude,

and

the verse excluded superior guarding,

and lesser guarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox.

And if you should say:

Let us derive

goring concerning an innocuous ox from goring concerning a forewarned ox,

and exclude even the innocuous ox from superior guarding—this cannot be said, because

the Merciful One excluded this

concerning a forewarned ox: “

and he does not guard it,”

and it implies:

for this one,

namely, for the forewarned ox,

and not for another, namely, the innocuous ox. The innocuous ox thus remains in its law, that it requires superior guarding, and the Gemara explains the exposition and proceeds.

And we challenge:

But

it is needed for him—the phrase “

and he does not guard it”

for the negative prohibition,

that is to say: it is needed for its own matter, that lesser guarding is sufficient for him; and from where do you have to derive further from this that this law applies only to a forewarned ox and not to an innocuous ox? And we explain:

If so—

that the verse came only for its own matter and not to exclude—

the Merciful One should have written “

and he does not guard”;

what is “

and he does not guard it”? It comes to teach us:

for us:

for this one and not for another.

It was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: whether an innocuous ox or a forewarned ox, if they guarded it with lesser guarding, he is exempt.

And we explain:

What is the reason

of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

Because

he agrees with Rabbi Judah, who says: for a forewarned ox, lesser guarding is sufficient for it,

as Rabbi Judah learned from the verses—

and

however, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

derives goring concerning an innocuous ox and goring concerning a forewarned ox,

to teach us that the innocuous ox too is like the forewarned ox, and he does not hold the exclusion “and he does not guard it.”

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

Rabbi Judah did not exempt

a forewarned ox that they guarded with lesser guarding and it caused damage

except

for

the aspect

of

forewarning in it,

that is to say: he is exempt only from that which was added to his obligation through its forewarning—

but the aspect of its innocuous state remains in its place,

and he is liable for it as at first; that is to say, the half-damage that is paid when it is innocuous—even when they guarded it with lesser guarding—he is liable for it even after it was forewarned.

Rav said:

Forewarned with regard to the right horn,

it gored three times with the right [horn] and was forewarned concerning them,

it is not forewarned with regard to the left horn,

that is to say: in this manner you find in one ox an innocuous aspect and a forewarned aspect.

They said,

the members of the academy wondered: But it is obvious that Rav did not inform us that it is not forewarned for purposes of payment, to teach us that if it gored with the left horn, concerning which it was not forewarned, he is not liable for payment, for this is obvious, rather, it is with regard to guarding that Rav informed us that it is not forewarned with regard to the left horn, to teach us that the guarding that exempts it for its forewarned status in the right horn is not the guarding that exempts it in the left horn from half-damage, concerning which it was not forewarned—

And if so, this is difficult:

According to whose view

did Rav say it!?

If according to Rabbi Meir,

for it is impossible to say so, because:

He said

Rabbi Meir:

whether an innocuous ox or a forewarned ox, it requires superior guarding,

that is to say: the law of guarding is the same for an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, and there is no difference in guarding between the right and the left.

And

if according to Rabbi Judah,

who distinguishes between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, for a forewarned ox requires only lesser guarding, unlike an innocuous ox—and this is what Rav said, that in one ox there are two guardings: for goring with the right [horn] its guarding is lesser, and for goring with the left [horn] its guarding is superior—this too is impossible, because: if so,

why specifically the left horn?

That is to say: if Rav came to inform us that it is possible to find two guardings in one ox, then he did not need to distance its gorings from the right to the left, for

even in the right [horn] as well, there is an aspect of innocuousness and there is an aspect of forewarning,

for the aspect of its innocuous state remains in its place, as explained above, and in the right [horn] itself it is possible to find two guardings in one ox!?

They said,

the members of the academy answered:

Actually, it is according to Rabbi Judah

that Rav stated his law,

and

however

he does not hold

this [statement] of

Rav Adda bar Ahava,

that the aspect of its innocuous state remains in its place—

And this is what he is saying,

that is to say: this very law is what Rav comes to inform us:

in such a case,

of the right and left alone,

is it that one finds in it

in one ox

an aspect of innocuousness and forewarning,

which differ in their laws of guarding—