Commentary page

Bava Kamma 34a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Bava Kamma 34a

Bava Kamma 34a. The full printed text of this folio side — 19 numbered segments, about 423 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

וַאֲפִילּוּ הִזִּיק עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָב – בַּעַל חוֹב קְדֵים! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בַּעַל חוֹב מְאוּחָר שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה – מַה שֶּׁגָּבָה לֹא גָּבָה?!

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?

Segment 2

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: מַה שֶּׁגָּבָה גָּבָה; וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ גַּבָּךְ הֲוָה – לָא מִינָּךְ (הֲוָה) גְּבַי לֵיהּ? דְּהַאי תּוֹרָא דְּאַזְּקַן, מִינֵּיהּ מִשְׁתַּלֵּמְנָא.

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.

Segment 3

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְחָבַל בּוֹ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, וְשָׁבַח וְעָמַד עַל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז – שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא לֹא הִזִּיקוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד עַל שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת זוּז; נוֹתֵן כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק.

§ 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.

Segment 4

כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.

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.

Segment 5

שָׁבַח מַזִּיק – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.

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.

Segment 6

אָמַר מָר: שָׁבַח מַזִּיק – נוֹתֵן כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. מַנִּי – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בַּעַל חוֹב הוּא, וְזוּזֵי הוּא דְּמַסֵּיק לֵיהּ;

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.

Segment 7

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: שׁוּתָּפֵי נִינְהוּ! רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?!

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?

Segment 8

לָא, כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁפִּיטְּמוֹ.

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.

Segment 9

אִי כְּשֶׁפִּיטְּמוֹ, אֵימָא רֵישָׁא: שָׁבַח וְעָמַד עַל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. אִי כְּשֶׁפִּיטְּמו,ֹ צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?!

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?

Segment 10

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רֵישָׁא – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בֵּין דְּפַטְּמַהּ פַּטּוֹמֵי בֵּין דִּשְׁבַחָא מִמֵּילָא, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּהֵיכָא דִּשְׁבַחָא מִמֵּילָא – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. סֵיפָא – לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ.

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.

Segment 11

כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין. כָּחַשׁ מֵחֲמַת מַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּכָחֲשָׁה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַתְּ מַכְחֲשַׁתְּ, וַאֲנָא יָהֵיבְנָא?!

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?

Segment 12

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דִּכְחַשׁ מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: קַרְנָא דְּתוֹרָךְ קְבִירָא בֵּיהּ.

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.

Segment 13

מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה כְּלוּם – אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״.

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).

Segment 14

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכֵן הֲלָכָה; קִיַּימְתָּ ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״, וְלֹא קִיַּימְתָּ ״וְגַם הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן״! וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְהַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז; שֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת.

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.

Segment 15

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְהַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז – זֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶהוּ שׁוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

Segment 16

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶהוּ שׁוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה, אֶלָּא שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה כְּלוּם, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״. אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן״? פְּחָת שֶׁפְּחָתַתּוּ מִיתָה – מַחֲצִין בַּחַי.

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.

Segment 17

מִכְּדֵי בֵּין רַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הַאי מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה שָׁקֵיל, וְהַאי מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה שָׁקֵיל; מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

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?

Segment 18

אָמַר רָבָא: פְּחַת נְבֵילָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: פְּחַת נְבֵילָה – דְּנִיזָּק הָוֵי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: פְּחַת נְבֵילָה – דְּמַזִּיק הָוֵי פַּלְגָא.

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.

Segment 19

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִם כֵּן, מָצִינוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה

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

Bava Kamma 34a

Bava Kamma 34a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Meiri

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text