Bava Kamma 47a — the Talmud in English

And if

the cow is not present—

because it was lost or died

, he collects one-quarter of the damage

only

from

the

offspring,

for an ox that is innocuous and caused damage is collected only from its body.

Indeed, if the offspring actually participated in the goring, the injured party could collect the entire half-damage from the offspring, as will be explained below; but now that it is uncertain, they divide it between them, and he collects only one-quarter of the damage.

And we infer from Rava’s words: This that if the cow is not present, he collects only one-quarter of the damage,

the reason

for the matter is because

we do not know whether there was an offspring with it

with the cow

when it gored, or whether there was not

with it when it gored.

But if it is obvious to us that there was an offspring with it when it gored, he collects the entire half-damage from

the

offspring,

that is, if it is known to us that the offspring participated in the goring, the injured party can collect the entire payment of the half-damage from the offspring when the cow is not present.

And

Rava follows his own reasoning

according to his position:

For Rava said: If a cow caused damage, he collects

even

from

the

offspring

of the cow, and

what is the reason?

Because the offspring is

the body

of the cow

itself.

But

if a hen caused damage, he does not collect from its egg,

and

what is the reason?

Because the egg is

mere excrement,

that is, the egg is something secreted from the hen and is not like a part of its body.

And Rava said:

a. An ox that gored a cow, and the cow miscarried through the goring—when they come to assess the damage,

they do not assess the cow separately and the offspring separately.

Rather, they assess the offspring upon the cow,

how much the cow was worth when it was pregnant and how much it is worth now without the offspring. The difference is the value of the offspring, and because of the uncertainty, the one who caused the damage pays the injured party half its value.

For if you do not say so,

and you wish to assess the cow separately and the offspring separately,

you will be found to be diminishing

and causing a loss to

the one who caused the damage,

and it is established for us that wherever the damage is assessed, one must be lenient toward the one who caused the damage. [And below it asks: If by law it is proper to assess each one separately, from where is it evident that one should be lenient toward the one who caused the damage!?]

b.

And so you find with one who cuts off the hand of the slave

the Canaanite

of his fellow,

that they do not assess the hand separately, saying how much a person would wish to take in order to cut off the hand of such a slave , but they assess this slave: how much he was worth initially and how much he is worth now, and the one who caused the damage pays the slave’s owner the difference.

For if you do not say so, and you wish to assess the hand separately, then a person who sees his slave whole would not be prepared to cut off his hands except for a great sum, and you will be found to be diminishing and causing a loss to the one who caused the damage.

c.

And so you find with one who damages his fellow’s field

that if he ate one garden bed, they do not assess it by itself, but they assess an area of a beit se'a in that field, how much it was worth initially and by how much its value decreased because of this garden bed.

For if you do not say so, and you wish to assess the garden bed separately, its value would be high, and you will be found to be diminishing and causing a loss to the one who caused the damage.

He said

he asked

to him, Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, to Rav Ashi: But if it is the law, should the one who caused the damage be diminished!?

That is, if the strict law indeed requires assessing the cow separately and the offspring separately, since the cow and the offspring are two bodies, then why should we care that the one who caused the damage suffers a loss, and what sort of argument is this, in order to exempt the one who caused the damage from his obligation!?

Rav Ashi said to him:

Because he says to him

the one who caused the damage to the injured party: Behold,

a pregnant cow damaged you;

therefore,

we assess a pregnant cow for you,

that is, the cow and the offspring are considered one body—a “pregnant cow”—and therefore we are lenient in assessing the offspring together with its mother.

Since “a cow belonging to one person and an offspring belonging to another” was mentioned above, the Gemara discusses how to assess the value of their respective shares:

This

is obvious

to us: If

the cow belongs to one

man

and the offspring belongs to one

man, then

the fatness

what is added to the cow’s value because of its fat

belongs to

the owner of

the cow,

and not to the owner of the offspring, for the fat does not come because of the offspring.

But concerning

bulk

what is added to the cow’s value because it is greater in volume—there is uncertainty:

what

is its law?

Rav Pappa said:

Bulk

belongs to the owner of the cow,

since the bulk is in the body of the cow, and the offspring is merely the cause of the bulk.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: They divide

it between them, the owner of the cow and the owner of the offspring, since in the end the offspring is a partner in the fact that the cow appears larger in its bulk.

And the halakha is: They divide.

Mishna:

a.

The potter

the maker of pots

who brought

his

pots

into the courtyard

of

the owner of the premises without permission

of the owner of the premises,

and the animal of the owner of the premises broke them,

behold, the owner of the premises is

exempt

from paying the value of the pots, for the owner of the premises says to the owner of the pots: “Who permitted you to enter and to put what is yours into what is mine?”

And if his animal was injured by them

the animal of the owner of the premises, then

the owner of the pots is liable

for its damage.

And if he brought in

the potter his pots

with permission

of the owner of the premises [the courtyard], and the pots were broken, then

the owner of the courtyard is liable.

There are two interpretations of this in the Gemara:

The first: The owner of the courtyard is liable only when his animal broke them, because ordinarily he accepts responsibility for guarding the pots from damage caused by his own animal.

The second: The owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage to the pots even if they were broken by the wind, because when he said to him, “Enter,” his intention was: “Enter, and I will guard your pots,” and he became a complete guardian over them.

b. If

a person brought in

his

produce into the courtyard of the owner of the premises without permission, and the animal of the owner of the premises ate it,

then the owner of the premises is

exempt

from paying the value of the produce, for he should not have brought it in.

And if his animal was injured by them

the animal of the owner of the premises, such as when it slipped on them, then

the owner of the produce is liable

for its damage.

And if he brought in

that person his produce

with permission

of the owner of the courtyard, then

the owner of the courtyard is liable

if his animal ate it, and according to the two interpretations explained above.