Bava Kamma 45b (מה:) — 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

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.

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

tak:

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.

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,

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

a

«slabaya okhrana»

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

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 Yehuda’s opinion is:

Rabbi Yehuda holds: Ordinary oxen are presumed to be guarded

with inferior guarding

.

That is to say: Ordinarily, people guard their oxen at least with inferior guarding, and it is with regard to such oxen that the Torah spoke—

and

the Merciful One said: If it is an innocuous ox

—one of the oxen guarded with inferior guarding—when it gored,

he pays

so

that it should require superior guarding

, since if the Torah held him liable even with inferior guarding, it necessarily follows that the ox requires superior guarding.

And when

the Merciful One then said: “

and he does not guard it”

with regard to a forewarned ox

, and we learned

that he must provide it with superior guarding

, having already learned this from the fact that the Torah held one liable for an innocuous ox without superior guarding, it follows that there is

“an amplification following an amplification

, and an amplification following an amplification serves only to limit

, and

the verse limited the requirement of superior guarding

, so inferior guarding suffices for a forewarned ox.

And if you would say:

Let us derive

goring by an innocuous ox from goring by a forewarned ox

, and likewise exempt even an innocuous ox from the requirement of superior guarding. This cannot be said, because

the Merciful One limited

with regard to a forewarned ox: “

and he does not guard it

,” and this implies:

for this one

—that is, for a forewarned ox—

but not for another

—that is, an innocuous ox. Thus, the innocuous ox remains subject to its original law, that it requires superior guarding. The Gemara now explains the derivation and proceeds:

And we raise an objection:

But it is needed

—the phrase “and he does not guard it”—

for the prohibition

, that is: It is needed for its basic meaning, to teach that inferior guarding suffices for it; from where do you derive further 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 basic meaning and not to exclude another case—

the Merciful One should have written “

and he does not guard

”;

what

is the reason

for writing “and he does not guard it”? It comes to teach us: for this one but not for another.

It was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, if their owner guarded them with inferior guarding, are exempt.

And we explain:

What is the reason

for Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s opinion?

Because

he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Inferior guarding suffices for a forewarned ox

, as Rabbi Yehuda derived from the verses—

and

nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

derives goring by an innocuous ox and goring by a forewarned ox

, to teach us that an innocuous ox is also like a forewarned ox. He does not accept the exclusion “and he does not guard it.”

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

Rabbi Yehuda did not exempt

the owner of a forewarned ox who guarded it with inferior guarding and it caused damage

except

for

the aspect

of

forewarning within it

, that is: He is exempt only from the additional liability imposed upon it as a result of its having been forewarned—

but the aspect of innocuousness remains in force

, and he is liable for it as he was initially. That is, the half-damage that is paid when the ox is innocuous—even when it was guarded with inferior guarding—remains an obligation upon him even after it has been forewarned.

Rav said:

An ox forewarned with regard to the right horn

, having gored three times with its right horn and been forewarned on account of them,

is not forewarned with regard to the left horn

. That is to say: In this manner, one finds both innocuousness and forewarning in a single ox.

They said

, the members of the academy wondered: It is obvious that Rav did not need to teach us that the ox is not forewarned with regard to the left horn in terms of payment, to teach us that if it gored with the left horn, regarding which it had not been forewarned, the owner is not liable for full payment, for this is obvious, but rather Rav taught us this with regard to guarding: He taught us that the guarding that exempts the owner with regard to the forewarning of the right horn is not the guarding that exempts him with regard to the left horn, for which the ox had not been forewarned, from half-damage—

If so, this presents a difficulty:

According to whose opinion

did Rav state this?

If it is according to Rabbi Meir

, it is impossible to say so, because:

He said

Rabbi Meir:

Both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox require 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 with regard to guarding between the right and left horns.

And

if it is according to Rabbi Yehuda

, who distinguishes between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, as a forewarned ox suffices with inferior guarding, unlike an innocuous ox—and this is what Rav said, that in a single ox there are two levels of guarding: for goring with the right horn, inferior guarding suffices, while for goring with the left horn, superior guarding is required—even this is impossible, because if so,

why specifically the left horn

? That is to say: If Rav came to teach us that two levels of guarding can be found in a single ox, he did not need to distinguish between the right and left horns, since

even with the right horn as well, there is an aspect of innocuousness and there is an aspect of forewarning

, for the aspect of innocuousness remains in force, as explained above, and even with regard to the right horn itself two levels of guarding can be found in a single ox!?

They said

, the members of the academy answered:

Actually, it is according to Rabbi Yehuda

that Rav stated his ruling,

but

Rav nevertheless

Rav does not hold

the opinion of

Rav Adda bar Ahava

, that the aspect of innocuousness remains in force—

And this is what he said

; that is to say, this very law is what Rav came to teach us:

In a case such as this

—of the right and left horns alone—

it is that one finds in it

in a single ox

an aspect of innocuousness and forewarning

, which differ in the laws of their guarding—