## Bava Kamma Daf 11a

###### Bava Kamma 11a:1
[Bava Kamma 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:1)

יָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה בְּאוֹנֶס, וּפָטוּר. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא עֲדוּדָה לְבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This means that the bailee **should bring witnesses that** the animal **was mauled through circumstances beyond** his **control, and** based on their testimony he is **exempt** from liability. **Abba Shaul says:** The word *ed* should not be interpreted as witness, but as carcass. Accordingly, the bailee **should** immediately **bring** the **carcass [*aduda*] to court** in order to appraise its current value.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:2
[Bava Kamma 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:2)

מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: פְּחַת נְבֵילָה דְּנִיזָּק הָוֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: דְּמַזִּיק הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** so that **they disagree about this** matter: **That** one **Sage,** Abba Shaul, **holds** that the loss due to **the diminishing** value **of the carcass is** sustained **by the injured** party, and so there is a need to appraise its value immediately in order to correctly assess how much the one liable for the damage must pay, **and** the other **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that the loss due to **the diminishing** value **of the carcass is** sustained **by the one liable for the damage** because the Torah granted him ownership of it.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:3
[Bava Kamma 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:3)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דְּנִיזָּק, וְהָכָא בְּטוֹרַח נְבֵילָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, everyone** agrees that the loss due to **the diminishing** value **of the carcass is** sustained **by the injured** party, since he owns it, **and here they disagree concerning** who must go to **the effort** of retrieving the **carcass** and transporting it to the court to be appraised.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:4
[Bava Kamma 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:4)

וְהָתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִין שֶׁעַל בַּעַל הַבּוֹר לְהַעֲלוֹת שׁוֹר מִבּוֹרוֹ – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו, וְהַמֵּת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** so **it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Others say: From where** is it derived **that it is** incumbent **upon the owner of the pit to raise the ox from his pit** after it was killed by falling into it? **The verse states:** “The owner of the pit shall pay; **he shall restore money to its owner, and the carcass** shall be his” (Exodus 21:34). They read the term “and the carcass” as a second subject of the term “he shall restore.” It therefore indicates that the one liable for the damage must restore the carcass to the injured party by retrieving it. The fact that this opinion is introduced with the phrase: Others say, suggests that it stands in opposition to another opinion. That other opinion apparently holds that the owner of the injured animal is responsible for retrieving the carcass.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:5
[Bava Kamma 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: הַאי טוֹרַח נְבֵילָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rava: What are the circumstances** in which the one liable for the damage is required to go to **this effort,** to retrieve the **carcass** from the pit?


###### Bava Kamma 11a:6
[Bava Kamma 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:6)

אִילֵימָא דִּבְבֵירָא שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא, וְאַגּוּדָּא שָׁוְיָא אַרְבַּע; כִּי טָרַח – בִּדְנַפְשֵׁיהּ טָרַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say that** while still **inside the pit,** the carcass **is worth a dinar, and** when it is **at the edge** of the pit, since it is more accessible, its market value increases and **is worth four** dinars, then **when** the one liable for the damage **expends the effort** to retrieve the carcass, he is **expending the effort for his own sake,** since by increasing the value of the carcass he reduces his own liability. Therefore, he will certainly retrieve it of his own accord, and it is not necessary for the Torah to require him to do so.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:7
[Bava Kamma 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּבְבֵירָא שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא, וְאַגּוּדָּא נָמֵי שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: No,** it is **necessary** to require him to retrieve the carcass in a case **where,** while still **inside the pit** the carcass **is worth** one **dinar, and** when it is **at the edge** of the pit, despite being more accessible, it **is still worth** one **dinar.** Since it is of no benefit to him to retrieve it, the Torah had to require him to do so.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:8
[Bava Kamma 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:8)

וּמִי אִיכָּא כְּהַאי גַוְונָא? אִין, דְּהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כְּשׁוּרָא בְּמָתָא בְּזוּזָא, כְּשׁוּרָא בְּדַבְרָא בְּזוּזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is there** ever **a case like this,** where despite being more accessible its market value does not change? The Gemara answers: **Yes, as people say, a beam** of wood **in the city** sells **for a dinar,** and **a beam** of wood **in the field** also sells **for a dinar,** despite the fact that it needs to be transported from there to the city.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:9
[Bava Kamma 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:9)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין שָׁמִין לֹא לְגַנָּב וְלֹא לְגַזְלָן, אֶלָּא לְנִזָּקִין. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אַף לְשׁוֹאֵל. וְאַבָּא מוֹדֶה לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel says:** The practice of the court is that when an animal or other item is stolen and then is damaged or dies, the court **does not appraise** its current value and assign ownership of it to its owner, in order that the perpetrator should have to pay only the difference between its prior value and its current value, **neither for** the sake of **a thief nor for** the sake of **a robber.** Rather, the thief or robber acquires ownership of the carcass or damaged item and compensates the owner for its prior value. The court appraises the item or carcass **only for damages,** as the Gemara explained above. **And I say** that they appraise the item or animal **even for a borrower** who borrowed an item and while it was in his possession it became damaged, or who borrowed an animal and while it was in his possession it died, **and Abba,** i.e., Rav, **concedes to me.**


###### Bava Kamma 11a:10
[Bava Kamma 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָכִי קָאָמַר – אַף לְשׁוֹאֵל שָׁמִין, וְאַבָּא מוֹדֶה לִי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר – וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אַף לְשׁוֹאֵל אֵין שָׁמִין, וְאַבָּא מוֹדֶה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before them:** Is **this what** Shmuel **is saying:** The court **appraises** the value of an item or a carcass **even for** the sake of **a borrower, and Abba concedes to me; or perhaps, this is what** Shmuel **is saying: And I say** that the court **does not appraise** its value **even for a borrower, and Abba concedes to me?**


###### Bava Kamma 11a:11
[Bava Kamma 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁאֵיל נַרְגָּא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, תַּבְרֵהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שַׁלֵּים לֵיהּ נַרְגָּא מְעַלְּיָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין שָׁמִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution from the following incident: There was **a certain man who borrowed an ax from another and he broke it. He came before Rav** to rule if, and how much, he was liable to pay for it. Rav **said to him: Go and pay him with a full-fledged ax,** i.e., you must compensate the owner for the full value of the ax that you broke. The Gemara suggests: **Conclude from it** that the court **does not appraise** its value for the sake of a borrower.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:12
[Bava Kamma 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:12)

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִדְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: ״דִּינָא הָכִי?!״ וּשְׁתֵיק, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שָׁמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **On the contrary, from** the fact **that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav** on that occasion: **Is this the *halakha*? And** Rav **remained silent,** this suggests that he conceded to their opinion that the borrower should not have had to pay the full value of the ax. Accordingly, **conclude from it** that the court **appraises** an item’s value for the sake of a borrower.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:13
[Bava Kamma 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:13)

אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שָׁמִין לְגַנָּב וּלְגַזְלָן. רַב פַּפֵּי אָמַר: אֵין שָׁמִין. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֵין שָׁמִין לֹא לְגַנָּב וְלֹא לְגַזְלָן, אֲבָל לְשׁוֹאֵל שָׁמִין – כִּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
An amoraic dispute **was stated: Ulla says** that **Rabbi Elazar says:** The court **appraises** a stolen item’s value **for a thief and for a robber. Rav Pappi says: It does not appraise** its value for them. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that the court **does not appraise** value **either for a thief or for a robber; but it appraises** value **for a borrower, in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.**


###### Bava Kamma 11a:14
[Bava Kamma 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:14)

וְאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וּמִקְצָתָהּ בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי, מוֹנִין לָהּ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites additional *halakhot* taught by Ulla, citing Rabbi Elazar: When a woman gives birth or miscarries a fetus she is thereby rendered ritually impure (see Leviticus 12:1–5). Even if she delivers only the afterbirth, with no discernible fetus, she is rendered ritually impure due to the possibility that the fetus was dissolved in the afterbirth, and it is therefore considered as though she delivered it (*Nidda* 24b). The length of the period of impurity depends on the sex of the child. In the case where it is unclear what the sex is, she must observe the longer period of fourteen days (*Nidda* 29a). At the end of that period she may purify herself by immersing in a ritual bath. **And Ulla says** that **Rabbi Elazar says:** If **part of** the **afterbirth [*shilya*] emerged on the first day** of a woman’s miscarriage **and part of it** emerged **on the second day, one counts** the period of ritual impurity **from the first** day.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:15
[Bava Kamma 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מָה דַעְתָּךְ, לְחוּמְרָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him,** to Ulla: **What** is the rationale for **your opinion** to begin counting from the first day? It would appear to be based on the following: Ritual impurity is engendered only once the woman has delivered the fetus. This is defined as the emergence of the majority of the fetus or its head. Since in this case the fetus is not discernible, one must consider the possibility that it had already emerged on the first day, and therefore one is required **to act stringently** and regard her as impure from the first day.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:16
[Bava Kamma 11a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:16)

חוּמְרָא דְּאָתֵי לִידֵי קוּלָּא הוּא – דְּקָא מְטַהֲרַתְּ לַהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava questions the propriety of acting stringently in this case, as it is **a stringency that results in a leniency, because** if she begins counting from the first day, **you will** also **render her** fit to immerse and become **pure from** fourteen days **after the first** day. This is a leniency because it is possible that the majority of the fetus emerged only on the second day and therefore her period of impurity began only then. She will therefore remain impure until the fifteenth day.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:17
[Bava Kamma 11a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לָחוֹשׁ – חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת; מִימְנָא לָא (מ)מָנְיָא אֶלָּא לְשֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** With regard **to being concerned** for the possibility that she is impure from the first day, **she should be concerned.** But with regard to **counting** the period of impurity, **one counts only from the second** day.


###### Bava Kamma 11a:18
[Bava Kamma 11a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:18)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּאֵין מִקְצָת שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד? תְּנֵינָא: שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ – אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה; סִימָן וָלָד בְּאִשָּׁה, סִימָן וָלָד בִּבְהֵמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** Ulla **teaching us** through this *halakha*? Does he mean to teach us **that part of the afterbirth** does not emerge **without** part of the **fetus** inside? But **we** already **learned** that in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 77a): When an animal is ritually slaughtered, the animal and everything inside it becomes permitted for consumption. This applies to an unborn fetus as well. If prior to the slaughter the majority of the fetus emerged, it is considered to have been born, and therefore the entire fetus, even the part that is still within its mother, is not rendered permitted for consumption by the slaughter. Accordingly, if **part of the afterbirth emerged** prior to the slaughter, **it is prohibited to eat** it, because an afterbirth is **a sign of a fetus in a woman** and **a sign of a fetus in an animal.**


###### Bava Kamma 11a:19
[Bava Kamma 11a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/11a:19)

אִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** I would know this only **from the mishna, I would say**