Bava Kamma 34aבבא קמא ל״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Kamma 34a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
34aל״ד א

ואפילו הזיק עד שלא חב בעל חוב קדים ש"מ ב"ח מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה לא גבה

Moreover, even if the ox caused damage before he owed them, nevertheless the creditor came first and seized what he rightfully deserved. Should one conclude from the baraita that if a later creditor collected a debt before an earlier creditor, his collection is not valid and payment should instead be given to the earlier creditor?

לא לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה גבה ושאני התם דא"ל אילו גבך הוה לא מינך הוה גבי ליה דהאי תורא דאזקן מיניה משתלמנא:

The Gemara answers: No; actually, I could say to you that the collection of the later creditor is valid, and there, in the case where a creditor seized the belligerent ox, it is different, as the injured party can say to the creditor who seized the ox: If the ox was in your possession, would I not have collected it from you? The reason I would take it is that I am paid from this ox that caused me damage. Therefore, the creditor cannot collect the ox, even if the debt preceded the damage.

ת"ר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים וחבל בו בחמשים זוז ושבח ועמד על ארבע מאות זוז שאלמלא (לא) הזיקו היה עומד על שמנה מאות זוז נותן כשעת הנזק

§ The Sages taught: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars and injured it, reducing its value by fifty dinars [zuz], and the injured ox subsequently appreciated in value, and its value stood at four hundred dinars, while if the belligerent ox had not injured it, its value would have now stood at eight hundred dinars, in this case the owner of the belligerent ox gives him only twenty-five dinars, which is half the value of the damage according to its value at the time the injury occurred.

כחש כשעת העמדה בדין

If the injured ox depreciated in value and its worth is now less than at the time it was injured, the damage is evaluated according to the ox’s worth at the time of standing trial. In other words, the owner of the belligerent ox must pay the difference between its value before it was injured and its current value.

שבח מזיק נותן לו כשעת הנזק כחש כשעת העמדה בדין

If the ox that caused the injury, from which the owner of the injured ox collects damages, appreciated in value, its owner gives the injured party a share of the ox according to its value at the time of the injury. If it depreciated in value, the owner gives him a share according to its value at the time of standing trial.

אמר מר שבח מזיק נותן כשעת הנזק מני ר' ישמעאל היא דאמר בעל חוב הוא וזוזי הוא דמסיק ליה

The Gemara asks: The Master said in the first clause of the second half of the baraita that if the ox that caused the damage appreciated in value, its owner gives the injured party a share according to the ox’s value at the time of the injury. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the injured party is considered a creditor, and it is money that he is claiming from him, as he has no share of ownership in the belligerent ox.

אימא סיפא כחש כשעת העמדה בדין אתאן לר"ע דאמר שותפי נינהו רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא ר"ע

The Gemara states a difficulty with this explanation: Say the latter clause of the second half of the baraita: If the belligerent ox depreciated in value, the owner gives the injured party a share according to its value at the time of standing trial. Here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the owners of the two oxen are partners, i.e., the injured party has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox. How can it be that the first clause is in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion, and the latter clause follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva?

לא כולה ר"ע היא והכא במאי עסקינן כשפיטמו

The Gemara answers: No, it is all in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that they are partners, and here, in the case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, we are dealing with a case where the reason it appreciated is that its owner fattened it. Though the injured party has a share of ownership in the ox, he has no share in the appreciation in value, and his share is therefore calculated according to its value at the time of the injury.

אי כשפיטמו אימא רישא שבח ועמד על ד' מאות זוז נותן לו כשעת הנזק אי כשפיטמו צריכא למימר

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the owner fattened it, say the first clause of the first half of the baraita, stated with regard to the injured ox: If it appreciated in value, and its value stood at four hundred dinars, the owner of the belligerent ox gives him compensation according to its value at the time of the injury. If this is referring to a case where its owner fattened it, need it be said that the owner of the belligerent ox is not exempt from compensation?

אמר רב פפא רישא משכחת לה בין דפטמה פטומי בין דשבחא ממילא ואצטריך לאשמועינן דהיכא דשבחא ממילא נותן לו כשעת הנזק סיפא לא משכחת לה אלא כשפטמו

Rav Pappa said: You find the halakha stated in the first clause of the first half of the baraita to be true whether he fattened it or whether it appreciated in value by itself. And the tanna found it necessary to mention this halakha to teach us that even in a case where the ox appreciated in value by itself, the owner of the belligerent ox gives him compensation according to its value at the time of the injury and not at the time of the trial. By contrast, you find the halakha stated in the latter clause of the second half of the baraita, with regard to a case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, only where its owner fattened it.

כחש כשעת העמדה בדין כחש מחמת מאי אילימא דכחשא מחמת מלאכה לימא ליה את מכחשת ואנא יהיבנא

It is stated in the latter clause of the first half of the baraita that if the injured ox depreciated in value, it is evaluated according to its worth at the time of standing trial. The Gemara asks: Due to what did it depreciate in value? If we say that the ox depreciated in value due to labor for which it was used, let the liable party say to him: You reduced its value and I should therefore give you extra compensation?

אמר רב אשי דכחש מחמת מכה דא"ל קרנא דתורך קבירא ביה:

Rav Ashi said: It is a case where it depreciated in value due to the continuous effect of the wound, as the injured party can say to him: The horn of your ox is buried in it, i.e., it is still losing value due to the wound.

מתני׳ שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבילה יפה כלום אמר ר"מ על זה נאמר (שמות כא, לה) ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו

MISHNA: With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing, Rabbi Meir said: It is about this type of case that it is stated: “Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value” (Exodus 21:35).

א"ל רבי יהודה וכן הלכה קיימת ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו ולא קיימת וגם המת יחצון ואיזה זה שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים והנבילה יפה חמשים זוז שזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת:

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And that is the halakha, yet your interpretation of the verse is incorrect. You have upheld the clause: “Then they shall sell the live ox and divide its monetary value,” which fits your interpretation of the case. But you have not upheld the latter clause of the verse: “And the dead they shall also divide,” since in the case you mentioned the carcass is worthless. Rather, to which case is the verse referring? It is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars. In this case, this party takes half the value of the living ox, one hundred dinars, and half the value of the dead ox, twenty-five dinars; and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox.

גמ׳ ת"ר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים והנבילה יפה חמשים זוז זה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת וזהו שור האמור בתורה דברי רבי יהודה

GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars, this party takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox, and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox, and this is the case of the belligerent ox stated in the Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי מאיר אומר אין זהו שור האמור בתורה אלא שור שוה מאתים שנגח לשור שוה מאתים ואין הנבילה יפה כלום על זה נאמר ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו אלא מה אני מקיים וגם את המת יחצון פחת שפחתו מיתה מחצין בחי

Rabbi Meir says: This is not the case of the ox stated in the Torah. Rather, it is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth nothing. It is about this case that it is stated in the verse: “Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value.” Rather, how do I realize the meaning of “And the dead they shall also divide”? This clause means that the diminished value of the dead ox that was diminished by its death is compensated for by dividing the value of the live ox between the two parties, while its owner does not receive a share in the carcass of the dead ox.

מכדי בין ר"מ בין רבי יהודה האי מאה ועשרים וחמשה שקיל והאי מאה ועשרים וחמשה שקיל מאי בינייהו

The Gemara asks: Now, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that in the case described by Rabbi Yehuda, where the carcass is worth fifty, this party takes one hundred and twenty-five, and that party takes one hundred and twenty-five. Rabbi Meir holds that the injured party keeps the carcass, worth fifty, and receives another seventy-five dinars, half the value of the damage, from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox. Its owner is thereby left with one hundred and twenty-five dinars out of the two hundred that it is worth. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the value of both oxen is split between the two parties, leaving each with one hundred and twenty-five. If so, what is the difference between the two tanna’im? Why does it matter in which manner the compensation is calculated?

אמר רבא פחת נבילה איכא בינייהו רבי מאיר סבר פחת נבילה דניזק הוי ורבי יהודה סבר פחת נבילה דמזיק הוי פלגא

Rava said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the diminishing value of the carcass. If the carcass depreciates in value between the ox’s death and the time it is sold, Rabbi Meir holds that the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the injured party. The one liable for the damage is not responsible for any depreciation in value that occurs after the loss caused by the attack has been evaluated. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that half of the diminishing value of the carcass is sustained by the one liable for damage, since he receives half of the dead ox.

א"ל אביי אם כן מצינו לרבי יהודה

Abaye said to Rava: If so, we have found, according to Rabbi Yehuda,