## Bava Kamma Daf 13b

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

אֲבָל הָכָא, מִי מָצֵי אָמַר: ״בָּשָׂר אַזֵּיק, אֵימוּרִין לָא אַזִּיק״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But here,** in the case of damage caused by an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, **is** the injured party actually **able to say:** Only the **meat** of the animal **caused damage** but the **sacrificial portions did not cause damage?** Since the entire animal caused the damage, he does not collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: תּוֹדָה שֶׁהִזִּיקָה – גּוֹבֶה מִבְּשָׂרָהּ, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִלַּחְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** In the case of an innocuous animal consecrated as **a thanks-offering that caused damage,** the injured party **collects** damages **from its meat,** i.e., from the portion of the offerings that would have been eaten by the one who brought the offering, **but he does not collect from its bread,** i.e., from the offering of forty loaves of bread that accompanies the sacrifice of the animal.


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

לֶחֶם – פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** it **obvious** that he does not collect from the **bread?** The bread is not part of the animal that caused damage.


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

סֵיפָא אִצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ – נִיזָּק אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר מֵבִיא לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** for Rava to state this because of **the latter clause** of his ruling, which states: The **injured** party **eats** the **meat** portions of the offering according to the value of the damages owed to him, **but the one achieving atonement,** i.e., the one bringing the offering, **brings the bread.**


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

הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֶחֶם הֶכְשֵׁירָא דְזֶבַח הוּא – לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָכְלַתְּ בְּשַׂר, וַאֲנָא אַיְיתֵי לֶחֶם; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלֶחֶם חִיּוּבָא דִּבְעָלִים הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t this also obvious?** Why should anyone else bring the bread? The Gemara explains: **Lest you say, since** the **bread** is a necessary **qualifying factor for** the **thanks-offering,** as without it one does not fulfill one’s obligation, **let** the owner of the offering **say to** the one eating it, why should **you eat** the **meat and I bring** the **bread?** If you wish to eat, you should bring the bread. Therefore, Rava **teaches us that** the offering of the loaves of **bread is the obligation of the owners** of the offering.


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

נְכָסִים שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל בְּנֵי בְרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: One is liable only for damage caused to **property that belongs to members of the covenant.**


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

לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּגוֹי – הָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ לְקַמַּן: שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This clause serves **to exclude what? If** it serves **to exclude** the property of **a gentile, isn’t that** already explicitly **taught** in the mishna **below** (37b): In the case of **an ox of a Jew that gored an ox of a gentile,** the Jew is **exempt.** The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **teaches** this as a principle in the mishna here **and then explains** it in greater detail in the mishna below.


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

נְכָסִים הַמְיוּחָדִין. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: One is liable only for **assigned property.** The Gemara asks: This clause serves **to exclude what? Rav Yehuda said:** This clause serves **to exclude** a case in which an animal is injured but it is unclear which of two oxen, owned by different people, caused the damage. The owner of **this** ox **says** to the owner of the other: **Your ox caused** the **damage. And** the owner of **that** ox **says** to the owner of the other: **Your ox caused** the **damage.** Since it cannot be proven which ox actually caused the damage, neither owner is liable. The intention of the mishna is that one is liable only where the belligerent ox is assigned to, i.e., is known to be the property of, a specific individual.


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

הָא תָּנֵי לְקַמַּן: הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִין אַחַר אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״ – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t that** explicitly **taught** in the mishna **below** (35a): If **two** oxen **were** seen **pursuing a single** ox, and then the single ox is found to be injured, and the owner of **this** ox **says** to the owner of the other: **Your ox caused** the **damage.** And the owner of **that** ox **says** to the owner of the other: **Your ox caused** the **damage.** In such a case, **both of them are exempt** since it is uncertain which one is guilty. The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **teaches** this as a principle in the mishna here **and then explains** it in greater detail in the mishna below.


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

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: פְּרָט לְנִכְסֵי הֶפְקֵר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּנְגַח תּוֹרָא דִידַן לְתוֹרָא דְהֶפְקֵר – מַאן תָּבַע לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא דִּנְגַח תּוֹרָא דְהֶפְקֵר לְתוֹרָא דִידַן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught in a *baraita*** in explanation of the mishna that the term assigned property serves **to exclude ownerless** property. The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** in which the mishna teaches that one is exempt? **If we say** it is referring to a case **where an ox belonging to us,** i.e., to a Jew, **gored an ownerless ox,** it is obvious that the owner bears no liability, as **who is claiming** damages **from him? Rather,** it must be referring to a case **where an ownerless ox gored an ox belonging to us,** and it teaches that the injured party does not have a right to damages.


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

לֵיזִיל וְלַיְתֵיהּ! בְּשֶׁקָּדַם וְזָכָה בּוֹ אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: What is the point of this *halakha*? If the injured party wishes to recover his losses, **let him go and take** the belligerent ox for himself, since it is currently ownerless. The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches that the injured party does not have any right to the ox, in order to teach that in a case **where another** person **preceded him and acquired it,** the injured party has no claim to it.


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

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ; נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפְקִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said** an alternative interpretation of the mishna: The term assigned property serves **to exclude** a case in which an ox **gored and subsequently** its owner **consecrated** it, or where **it gored and subsequently** its owner **declared** it **ownerless.** Since the owners did not own the ox at the time the case was brought before the court, they are exempt from paying. Ravina explains that this is the intention of the mishna: That one is liable only when the property that caused the damage was owned by a responsible party both when it caused the damage and when it was tried. In this case, at the time of the court hearing it was not owned by a responsible party, as it was either consecrated or ownerless.


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ, נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפְקִיר – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְהֵמִית אִישׁ וְגוֹ׳״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מִיתָה וְהַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין שָׁוִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is also taught** in a *baraita*: The *halakha* is that an ox that kills a person is stoned to death. The mishna states (44b) that this does not apply to an ox consecrated to the Temple or an ownerless ox. **Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said: Even** if an ox **gored and** its owner **subsequently consecrated** it to the Temple, or if an ox **gored and** its owner **subsequently declared** it **ownerless,** the owner **is exempt** from liability, **as it is stated:** “And if the ox was wont to gore in time past, **and had been forewarned with its owner,** and he had not guarded it in, **and it killed a man** or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29). The repetition of the reference to the owner at the beginning and end of the verse indicates that the ox is not stoned **unless** the ox’s status as the owner’s property at the time of the **death** of the victim **and** at the time of the owner’s **standing trial is the same,** i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for both events.


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

וּגְמַר הַדִּין לָא בָּעֵינַן?! הָא ״הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל״ – בִּגְמַר דִּין הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But do we not** also **require** that the ox’s status be the same at the time of the **verdict**? **Isn’t** the phrase: **“The ox shall be stoned” written with regard to** the time of the **verdict?**


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

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מִיתָה וְהַעֲמָדָה בְּדִין וּגְמַר דִּין שָׁוִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** that the owner of the ox is exempt **unless** the ox’s status as the owner’s property at the time of the **death** of the victim and at the time of the owner’s **standing trial and at the verdict is the same,** i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for all three events.


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

חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק. דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: תּוֹרָךְ בִּרְשׁוּתִי מַאי בָּעֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: One is liable for damage caused in any place **except for a domain designated** exclusively **for** the use of **the one responsible for the damage.** The Gemara explains the reason for this: This is **because** the one liable for the damage **can say to** the injured party: **What did your ox want in my domain?** One does not have to guard his ox from causing damage within his own property, since another person’s animal has no right to be there.


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

וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And** one is liable for damage caused in **a domain** designated for the joint use **of the injured** party **and the one liable for the damage.**


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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: חֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִין – חַיָּיב בָּהּ עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק״ – דְּפָטוּר; ״וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק – כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a dispute concerning this case that results in two different ways of interpreting the mishna: **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Avimi says:** With regard to **a courtyard** designated for **the** joint use of two **partners,** either one of them is **liable** for damage caused by the ox of one partner to the property of the other partner while **in it,** both **for the** category of **Eating and for the** category of **Trampling. And** accordingly, **this is** what the mishna **is saying:** One is liable for damage caused in any place **except for a domain designated** exclusively **for** the use of **the one responsible for the damage, as** he is **exempt** there; **but** in **a domain** designated for the joint use **of the injured** party **and the one responsible for the damage, when he causes damage, the one who is responsible for the damage is obligated** to pay damages. The statement in the mishna concerning a domain designated for joint use is the beginning of the following clause and introduces a case in which one is liable for damage.


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

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: פָּטוּר עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק, וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק״ נָמֵי – פָּטוּר; ״וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק״ – לְאֵתוֹיֵי קֶרֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar says:** In a courtyard designated for joint use, one is **exempt for** one’s ox causing damage to the property of his partner in **the** category of **Eating, and for** one’s ox causing damage to the property of his partner in **the** category of **Trampling. And** accordingly, **this is** what the mishna **is saying:** One is liable for damage caused in any place **except for a domain designated** exclusively **for** the use of **the one responsible for the damage, and** one is **also exempt** for damage done in **a domain** designated for the joint use **of the injured** party **and the one liable for the damage.** The statement in the mishna about a domain designated for joint use is a continuation of the previous clause and adds an additional case in which one is exempt. **And** the following clause: **When one causes damage, the one liable for the damage is obligated** to pay damages, serves **to add** the fact that one is liable for damage in the framework of the category of **Goring,** which was not previously mentioned in the mishna.


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

הָנִיחָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר: תְּנָא שׁוֹר וְכֹל מִילֵּי דְשׁוֹר, ״חָב הַמַּזִּיק״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This interpretation of the concluding clause of the mishna, as a reference to Goring, **works out well according to Shmuel,** in his dispute with Rav (3b) concerning the meaning of Ox and *Maveh* in the first mishna of this chapter. According to Shmuel they mean Trampling and Eating, respectively, and Goring has yet to be addressed. **But according to Rav, who says:** The term ox in the mishna includes damage caused by the ox **and all matters** involving damaging actions **that** are completed by **an ox,** including Goring, Eating, and Trampling, Goring is already addressed in the mishna. **What is added** by the clause: The **one liable for the damage is obligated** to pay damages?


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

לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק״ – לְהָבִיא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר, שֶׁהִזִּיקָה בְּהֵמָה בִּרְשׁוּתָן; תָּם – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמוּעָד – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. נִפְרְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁפְּרָצוּהָ לִסְטִין, וְיָצְתָה וְהִזִּיקָה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It serves **to add that which the Sages taught** in a *baraita* that elucidates the mishna’s statement. The mishna states: **When** an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard **causes damage, the one liable for the damage** caused by insufficiently safeguarding it **is obligated** to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves **to include** the cases of **an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter,** in **which an animal,** e.g., an ox, **caused damage** while **in their possession.** If the ox was **innocuous,** he **pays half** of **the damages, and** if it was **forewarned,** he **pays** the **full damages.** If the ox was safely enclosed and a wall **broke open at night, or** if **bandits [*listin*] broke it open and** the ox **went out and caused damage,** he is **exempt** from liability.


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

אָמַר מָר: כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק – לְהָבִיא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **The Master said** that the mishna states: **When** an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard **causes damage, the one liable for the damage** caused by insufficiently safeguarding it **is obligated** to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves **to include** the cases of **an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances?**


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

אִילֵימָא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דְמַשְׁאִיל לְתוֹרָא דְשׁוֹאֵל – לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ אַזֵּיק בְּעָלְמָא – בָּעֵית לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי אַתְּ; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ לְתוֹרָא דִידָךְ, בָּעֵינָא לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that **the lender’s ox,** which was under the watch of the borrower, **injured the borrower’s ox,** and the *baraita* is teaching that the lender is liable to pay the borrower, why is this so? **Let** the lender **say to** the borrower: **If** my ox **had injured** an ox **in the world** at large, i.e., someone else’s ox, **you,** the borrower, **would be required to pay,** as you were entrusted with safeguarding it. **Now that** my ox **has injured your ox, should I be required to pay?**


###### Bava Kamma 13b:24
[Bava Kamma 13b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13b:24)

אֶלָּא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דְשׁוֹאֵל לְתוֹרָא דְמַשְׁאִיל – לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ אִיתַּזַּק מֵעָלְמָא – בָּעֵית לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ תּוֹרָא; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דִידָךְ, פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא הוּא דִּמְשַׁלְּמַתְּ לִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the case must be **that the borrower’s ox injured the lender’s ox,** and the *baraita* is teaching that the borrower is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, the *baraita* teaches that if the belligerent ox was innocuous, the borrower is liable to pay only half of the damages. But why? **Let** the lender **say to** the borrower: By borrowing my ox, you undertook full responsibility for it such that **if** my ox **had been injured** by an ox **from the world** at large, **you would be required to pay** me **for** the **entire** value of my **ox,** irrespective of whether the belligerent ox was considered innocuous or forewarned. **Now that** it is **your ox that injured** my ox, **should you** have to **pay** only **half** of **the damages?** This interpretation of the *baraita* is also difficult.


###### Bava Kamma 13b:25
[Bava Kamma 13b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/13b:25)

לְעוֹלָם דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דְמַשְׁאִיל לְתוֹרָא דְשׁוֹאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת גּוּפוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Actually,** the case is **where the lender’s ox injured the borrower’s ox, and with what are we dealing here?** This is a case **where** the borrower **undertook** the responsibility of **safeguarding the body of** the lender’s ox from being injured,