## Bava Kamma Daf 13a

###### Bava Kamma 13a:1
[Bava Kamma 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:1)

לִישַׁנֵּי: הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הָא רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**let** Ravina **answer** Rava’s objection by saying: **This** *baraita*, which states that an offering of lesser sanctity is the property of its owner and may be sold even when the Temple stands, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,** and it is referring to a case where the animal is still alive. And **that** qualification of the mishna by Rav Naḥman, that the sale of an unblemished firstborn animal when the Temple is standing is invalid, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who dispute Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:2
[Bava Kamma 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:2)

(אֲמַר לֵיהּ), מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, דְּכִי קָא זָכוּ – מִשֻּׁלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He said to him** that this is not difficult: **Do you speak** of **gifts** to which members **of the priesthood** are entitled, of which a firstborn animal is an example? **Gifts of the priesthood are different** from other offerings of lesser sanctity, **as when** the priests **receive** their portions, **they receive** them **from the table of the Most High.** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili claims that the act of consecration of an animal as an offering of lesser sanctity does not nullify one’s ownership of the animal. The sanctity of a firstborn offering takes effect with its birth, so it may be that it was never owned; rather, it is reasonable that the Torah provided the priest only with the right and the obligation to partake of it after it is sacrificed.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:3
[Bava Kamma 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:3)

גּוּפָא: ״וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֵם מָמוֹנוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא בִּבְכוֹר בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara considers **the** matter **itself:** The *baraita* teaches: Concerning one who steals another’s property and takes a false oath denying he has done so, incurring the obligation to bring a guilt-offering, the verse states: **“And commits a trespass against the Lord,** and deals falsely with his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves **to include** a case in which one denies having in his possession **offerings of lesser sanctity, which are** the **property of** their owners, and are included in the phrase “and deals falsely with his neighbor.” This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Ben Azzai says:** This phrase serves **to include peace-offerings. Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn** offering.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:4
[Bava Kamma 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:4)

אָמַר מָר, בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita*: **Ben Azzai says:** This phrase serves **to include peace-offerings.** The Gemara asks: Ben Azzai’s interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to peace-offerings, is **to exclude what?**


###### Bava Kamma 13a:5
[Bava Kamma 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:5)

אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּכוֹר, הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה שְׁלָמִים – שֶׁטְּעוּנִים סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, אָמְרַתְּ מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא; בְּכוֹר מִבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** it is **to exclude a firstborn** offering, because he holds that a firstborn is not the property of the priest, one could reject this, as the sanctity of a firstborn offering is a lesser sanctity than that of a peace-offering, as follows: **Now, just as** with regard to **peace-offerings, which** have a higher degree of sanctity such that **they require placing hands** on the head of the offering **and** are accompanied by **libations and the waving of** their **breast and** the right **hind leg** by the priest and owner together, **you** nevertheless **say** that **it is the property of the owners, is it necessary** to state that with regard to **a firstborn** offering, for which these *halakhot* do not apply, that the priest has ownership of it?


###### Bava Kamma 13a:6
[Bava Kamma 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַעֲשֵׂר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Ben Azzai mentioned peace-offerings in order **to exclude** an animal **tithe** offering, i.e., every tenth animal of one’s flock that is designated as tithe for those ten animals and is sacrificed as an offering of lesser sanctity. Animal tithes are excluded because ben Azzai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:7
[Bava Kamma 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:7)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: בִּבְכוֹר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״, וְנִמְכָּר תָּם – חַי, וּבַעַל מוּם – חַי וְשָׁחוּט; בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, לֹא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **With regard to a firstborn** offering **it is stated: “You shall not redeem”** (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. **And** the firstborn offering **can be sold** when it is **unblemished** and **alive, or** when it is **blemished** and **alive, or** blemished and **slaughtered. With regard to** animal **tithe** offerings, **it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. **And** the animal tithe offering **cannot be sold, not** when it is **alive and not** when it is **slaughtered, not** when **unblemished and not** when **blemished.** The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:8
[Bava Kamma 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:8)

רָבִינָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא – אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי, אֶלָּא בִּבְכוֹר בִּלְבָד. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina taught** the preceding discussion **with regard to the last clause** of the *baraita*: **Abba Yosei ben Dostai says** that **ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn** offering. The Gemara asks: Abba Yosei ben Dostai’s interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to a firstborn offering, is **to exclude what?**


###### Bava Kamma 13a:9
[Bava Kamma 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:9)

אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁלָמִים, הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה בְּכוֹר – שֶׁקָּדוֹשׁ מֵרֶחֶם, מָמוֹנוֹ הוּא; שְׁלָמִים מִבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** it is **to exclude peace-offerings,** because he holds that they are not the property of the one who consecrated them as offerings, one could reject this, as the sanctity of peace-offerings is a lesser sanctity than that of a firstborn offering, as follows: **Now, just as** with regard to **a firstborn** offering, **which is** already **sanctified** upon its emergence **from the womb** yet nevertheless **is the property of** the priest, **is it necessary** to state that **peace-offerings** are the property of those who consecrated them, where the animals were already the property of its owner before they were consecrated?


###### Bava Kamma 13a:10
[Bava Kamma 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Abba Yosei ben Dostai mentioned peace-offerings in order **to exclude** an animal **tithe** offering. Animal tithes are excluded because Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.


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

כִּדְתַנְיָא: בִּבְכוֹר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״, וְנִמְכָּר תָּם – חַי, וּבַעַל מוּם – חַי וְשָׁחוּט; בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, לֹא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **With regard to a firstborn** offering **it is stated: “You shall not redeem”** (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. **And** the firstborn offering **can be sold** when it is **unblemished** and **alive, or** when it is **blemished** and **alive, or** blemished and **slaughtered. With regard to** animal **tithe** offerings, **it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. **And** the animal tithe offering **cannot be sold, not** when it is **alive and not** when it is **slaughtered, not** when **unblemished and not** when **blemished.** The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:12
[Bava Kamma 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:12)

הָא בִּבְכוֹר בִּלְבַד קָאָמַר! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can one claim that Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that peace-offerings are also owned by those who consecrated them? **Doesn’t** Abba Yosei ben Dostai **say:** Ben Azzai said this **only with regard to a firstborn** offering. The Gemara concedes: This **is difficult.**


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

רָבָא אָמַר: מַאי ״נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה״ – נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דִּין מְעִילָה. וּמַאי נִינְהוּ – דְּהֶדְיוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites an alternative explanation of the mishna’s statement: **Rava said: What** does the mishna mean when it says: One is liable only for damage caused to **property** for **which,** were one to use it for a mundane purpose, one **would not be** liable **for** the **misuse** of consecrated property? It is referring to **property that is not** at all **subject to the *halakhot* of misuse** of consecrated property, **and what is that?** It is referring to any property **of an ordinary person,** which has no sanctity at all.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:14
[Bava Kamma 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:14)

וְלִיתְנֵי דְּהֶדְיוֹט! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** then **let** the mishna **teach** explicitly: One is liable only for damage caused to property **of an ordinary individual.** The Gemara concedes: This **is difficult.**


###### Bava Kamma 13a:15
[Bava Kamma 13a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ – גּוֹבֶה מִבְּשָׂרָן, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מֵאֵימוּרֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba says:** With regard to the case of an innocuous animal that was consecrated as **a peace**-**offering** and **that caused damage,** the injured party **collects** damages **from its meat,** i.e., from the portion of the offering that would have been eaten by its owners. This is in accordance with the general *halakha* that the payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is collected exclusively from the proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox and not from any other property of its owner. **But he does not collect** the damages **from the sacrificial portions.**


###### Bava Kamma 13a:16
[Bava Kamma 13a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:16)

פְּשִׁיטָא, אֵימוּרִין לְגָבוֹהַּ סָלְקִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** it **obvious** that one collects exclusively from the meat portion and not from the **sacrificial portions,** as those are **to be offered up to God?**


###### Bava Kamma 13a:17
[Bava Kamma 13a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:17)

לָא צְרִיכָא, לְגוֹבֶה מִבְּשָׂרָן כְּנֶגֶד אֵימוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** for Rabbi Abba to teach that there is no **collection from** the owner’s **meat** portions **corresponding** to the **sacrificial portions.** Payment for damage caused by an innocuous animal is half the amount of the damages, and can be no more than the value of the animal itself. Rabbi Abba is teaching that when assessing the damage to determine the amount to be paid, one deems the owner responsible only according to his share of the animal, i.e., the meat portions, in relation to the animal as a whole.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:18
[Bava Kamma 13a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:18)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis engage in a dispute concerning the *halakha* in a case in which an ox pushed another animal into a pit (see 53a). If it were an innocuous ox, for which the Torah limits the owner’s liability to half the damages, the Rabbis rule that liability is incurred exclusively by the owner of the ox, i.e., he pays half the value of the damage, and the owner of the pit is entirely exempt. Rabbi Natan holds that since the damage was caused jointly by the ox and the pit, the owner of the ox need pay only half of what he would pay if his animal had been solely responsible, i.e., a quarter of the damages. Rabbi Natan further rules that the remaining sum can then be fully recovered from the owner of the pit, i.e., he pays the remaining three-quarters of the damages. The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion, of those *tanna’im*, does Rabbi Abba state his ruling?


###### Bava Kamma 13a:19
[Bava Kamma 13a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:19)

אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן – פְּשִׁיטָא! הָא אָמְרִי כִּי לֵיכָּא לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַאי, לָא מִשְׁתַּלַּם מֵהַאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis,** then it **is obvious** and there is no need to state it, as **didn’t** the Rabbis **say: Whenever,** for whatever reason, the full cost of the damage **cannot be recovered from this** party, **it is not recovered from that** party, i.e., even though the injured party suffered the loss of the full value of his animal and recovered only half its value from the owner of the ox, he may not demand the remaining sum from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, where the injured party cannot collect damages from the sacrificial portions, he cannot recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.


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

וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי נָתָן – הָא אָמַר: כִּי לֵיכָּא לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַאי, מִשְׁתַּלַּם מֵהַאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Natan, doesn’t he say: Whenever** the full cost of the damage **cannot be recovered from this** one, **it is recovered from that** one, i.e., since the owner of the ox pays only a quarter of the damages, the remaining sum can be recovered from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, since the injured party cannot collect payment from the sacrificial portions, he should be able to recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering, in contrast to the ruling of Rabbi Abba.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:21
[Bava Kamma 13a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:21)

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי נָתָן, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If you wish, say** Rabbi Abba’s ruling is in accordance with **Rabbi Natan, and if you wish, say** his ruling is in accordance with **the Rabbis.**


###### Bava Kamma 13a:22
[Bava Kamma 13a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:22)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבָּנַן – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּתְרֵי גוּפֵי, אֲבָל בְּחַד גּוּפָא מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מִכֹּל הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵינָא – מִשְׁתַּלַּמְנָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If you wish, say** Rabbi Abba’s ruling is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** as one might have thought that **this matter,** the ruling of the Rabbis, **applies** only **where** the damage is caused by **two bodies,** such as an ox and a pit. **But where** the damage is caused by **one body,** as in the case of damage caused by an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, the injured party **can say to** the owner of the animal: **From anywhere that I want to, I will recover** my losses, and accordingly, the injured party could collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering. Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Abba to teach that this is not the *halakha*.


###### Bava Kamma 13a:23
[Bava Kamma 13a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13a:23)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי נָתָן – הָתָם הוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּעַל שׁוֹר לְבַעַל הַבּוֹר: ״אֲנָא תּוֹרַאי בְּבֵירָךְ אַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ; מַאי דְּלֵית לִי לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַיְאךְ – מִשְׁתַּלַּימְנָא מִינָּךְ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** Rabbi Abba’s ruling is in accordance with **Rabbi Natan:** It is only **there that** the **owner of** the damaged **ox** can **say to the owner of the pit:** Since **I found my ox in your pit,** ultimately you bear responsibility for any damage, and therefore **whatever I cannot recover from the other** one, i.e., the owner of the ox, **I will recover from you.**