## Bava Kamma Daf 14b

###### Bava Kamma 14b:1
[Bava Kamma 14b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:1)

שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּלָלוֹת – בְּאַרְבָּעָ[ה] מְקוֹמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There are only **three** distinct **principles,** but they are listed as four cases because they apply **in four** different **places.**


###### Bava Kamma 14b:2
[Bava Kamma 14b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוּם כֶּסֶף, שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף. בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין, וְעַל פִּי עֵדִים – בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, בְּנֵי בְרִית. וְהַנָּשִׁים בִּכְלַל הַנֶּזֶק. וְהַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The determination of payment of damages is made by **monetary appraisal.** One pays with items **worth money.** This *halakha* applies **before a court. And** it is **based upon** the testimony of **witnesses** who are **free men,** i.e., men who are not Canaanite slaves, and who are **members of the covenant,** i.e., Jews. **And women are included in the** *halakhot* of **damages** in the same way as men. **And** both **the injured** party **and the one liable for the damage** are involved **in** the **payment.** The Gemara will explicate each of these principles.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:3
[Bava Kamma 14b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״שׁוּם כֶּסֶף״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What** is the meaning of: The determination of payment of damages is made by **monetary appraisal?**


###### Bava Kamma 14b:4
[Bava Kamma 14b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:4)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שׁוּם זֶה לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says: This appraisal** of the damage caused **should be** made **only in terms of** the **monetary** value of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:5
[Bava Kamma 14b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:5)

תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרָה שֶׁהִזִּיקָה טַלִּית, וְטַלִּית שֶׁהִזִּיקָה פָּרָה – אֵין אוֹמְרִים: תֵּצֵא פָּרָה בְּטַלִּית וְטַלִּית בְּפָרָה, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ בְּדָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **We learn,** in this mishna, **this** *halakha* **that the Sages taught** explicitly: In a case in which **a cow damaged a cloak,** and the **cloak injured** the **cow,** e.g., the cow tread on it, thereby damaging it, and it became entangled in the cow’s legs, causing the cow to trip, **one does not say** that it may be presumed that the damage to the **cow is offset by** the damage to the **cloak and** the damage to the **cloak is offset by** the damage to the **cow,** and therefore the owners of both are exempt from any payment. **Rather,** the court **appraises** separately the damage caused to each side **in terms of** its **monetary** value and only then calculates to what extent the liabilities offset each other.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:6
[Bava Kamma 14b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:6)

״שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: With items **worth money;** to what does this refer?


###### Bava Kamma 14b:7
[Bava Kamma 14b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:7)

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין אֶלָּא לִנְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת. אֲבָל אִם קָדַם נִיזָּק וְתָפַס מִטַּלְטְלִין – בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין לוֹ מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: Payment is made with items **worth money.** This **teaches that** the **court attends to** the collection of damages **only** in order to collect from **property that serves as a guarantee,** i.e., land. **But if the injured** party **proceeded,** of his own accord, **to seize movable property** from the one liable for the damage, the **court collects** damages **for him from those** items he seized. According to the *baraita*, the phrase: Items worth money, is referring to land.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:8
[Bava Kamma 14b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:8)

אָמַר מָר: ״שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין אֶלָּא לִנְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת. מַאי מַשְׁמַע?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this: **The Master said** in the *baraita*: Payment is made with items **worth money.** This **teaches that** the **court attends to** the collection of damages **only** in order to collect from **property that serves as a guarantee,** i.e., land. The phrase: Items worth money, therefore, is used as a term for land. The Gemara asks: **From where** is this **inferred?**


###### Bava Kamma 14b:9
[Bava Kamma 14b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:9)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה כֹּל כֶּסֶף. מַאי נִיהוּ? דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אוֹנָאָה. עֲבָדִים וּשְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי אֵין לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Ulla says** that the phrase: Items worth money, is referring to **something that is worth any** amount of **money,** and **what is that?** It is **something that is not subject to** price **fraud,** which is the *halakha* with regard to land. Unlike the sale of movable property, the sale of land is valid irrespective of the sum for which the land is sold. The Gemara challenges this explanation: **But slaves and documents are also not subject to** price **fraud,** and yet these are not included in the phrase: Items worth money, as the court does not collect payments of damages from them.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:10
[Bava Kamma 14b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: דָּבָר הַנִּקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף. עֲבָדִים וּשְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabba bar Ulla said:** The phrase is referring to **something that is acquired with money,** which is the *halakha* with regard to land but not with regard to movable property (see *Kiddushin* 26a). The Gemara rejects this explanation: But **slaves and documents are also acquired with money.**


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: ״שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף״ – וְלֹא כֶּסֶף, וְהָנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ כֶּסֶף נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said:** The phrase is referring to something that is **worth money, but is not** actually **money, and all these** things, i.e., movable property, slaves, and documents, **are** considered like actual **money** because they have the defining characteristics of money in that they are valuable and portable.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:12
[Bava Kamma 14b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:12)

רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר חִינָּנָא לְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, תָּנָא: ״שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין אֶלָּא לִנְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת. וְהָתַנְיָא: ״יָשִׁיב״ – לְרַבּוֹת שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף, וַאֲפִילּוּ סוּבִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda bar Ḥinnana raises a contradiction to** the opinion of **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:** In the *baraita* cited earlier **it is taught:** The mishna’s statement that payment is made with items **worth money teaches that** the **court attends to** the collection of damages **only** in order to collect from **property that serves as a guarantee,** i.e., land. **But it is taught** also in another *baraita*: The verse states the superfluous phrase: **“He shall recompense”** (Exodus 21:34), **to include** items **worth money, and even bran,** a relatively inferior commodity, is accepted as a valid form of payment. The first *baraita* teaches that only land is a valid form of payment, whereas the second *baraita* teaches that one may pay even with movable property.


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

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּיַתְמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here** in the *baraita* that teaches that the court collects damages only from land? We are dealing **with** a case where damages are collected from **orphans** whose father was liable to pay damages. The *baraita* teaches that the liability inherited by the orphans applies only to the land they inherited from their father as it is liened to their father’s debts.


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

אִי בְּיַתְמֵי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם קָדַם נִיזָּק וְתָפַס מִטַּלְטְלִין – בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין לוֹ מֵהֶן. אִי בְּיַתְמֵי, אַמַּאי בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין לוֹ מֵהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the *baraita* is referring to collection **from orphans, say,** and try to explain accordingly, **the latter clause** of the *baraita*: But **if the injured** party **proceeded,** of his own accord, **to seize movable property** from the one liable for the damage, the **court collects** damages **for him from those** items he seized. The Gemara asks: **If,** as suggested, the *baraita* is referring to collection **from orphans, why does the court collect** damages **for him from those** items he seized, as the father’s movable property is not liened to his debts?


###### Bava Kamma 14b:15
[Bava Kamma 14b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:15)

כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שֶׁתָּפַס מֵחַיִּים; הָכָא נָמֵי – שֶׁתָּפַס מֵחַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The case is **like that which Rava says** that **Rav Naḥman says** with regard to a mishna (*Ketubot* 84a), which teaches that creditors who seize movable property as payment for a debt may keep those items: That is referring to a case in **which he seized** the property **while** the debtor was still **alive. Here also,** the *baraita* is referring to a case in **which he seized** the property **while** the one liable for the damage was still **alive.**


###### Bava Kamma 14b:16
[Bava Kamma 14b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:16)

״בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **Before a court.** What does this phrase mean?


###### Bava Kamma 14b:17
[Bava Kamma 14b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:17)

פְּרָט לְמוֹכֵר נְכָסָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This phrase should be understood as a qualification of the previous phrase in the mishna that teaches, as the Gemara explained, that a court collects damages only from land. The mishna then teaches that the court collects only from land that is still in the possession of the one liable for the damage when he appears in court. This **excludes** a case where the one liable for the damage **sells his** landed **property and afterward goes to court.** Since at the time of the hearing he no longer owns land, the court does not collect damages from it.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:18
[Bava Kamma 14b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:18)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – לָוָה וּמָכַר נְכָסָיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא לְבֵית דִּין, אֵין בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין לוֹ מֵהֶן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: Should we **conclude from** the mishna that if one **borrows** money **and** then **sells his** landed **property, and afterward** he **goes to the court, the court does not collect** the loan **from those** landed properties that he sold? This is certainly incorrect, as the creditor has a lien on the debtor’s property from the time that he borrows the money.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:19
[Bava Kamma 14b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:19)

אֶלָּא פְּרָט לְבֵית דִּין הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the phrase: Before a court, should be understood as an independent clause that **excludes a court of non-ordained judges [*hedyotot*]** from judging all types of damages, as the payment for certain types of damage is considered to be a fine, and only expert judges who have been ordained are able to impose fines.


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

״עַל פִּי עֵדִים״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: Payment is made **based upon** the testimony of **witnesses.**


###### Bava Kamma 14b:21
[Bava Kamma 14b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:21)

פְּרָט לְמוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים, שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: This clause is stated to **exclude** from liability one who **admits** he is liable to pay **a fine,** even if **witnesses come afterward** and testify that he is liable to pay it. The mishna teaches **that he is** nevertheless **exempt,** due to his admission.


###### Bava Kamma 14b:22
[Bava Kamma 14b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:22)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – חַיָּיב, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says: One who admits** he is liable to pay **a fine** is **exempt,** even if **witnesses come afterward** and testify to his liability. **But according to the one who says:** With regard to **one who admits** he is liable to pay **a fine and** then **witnesses come afterward** and testify that he is guilty, he is **liable** to pay the fine, **what is there to say** in explanation of this clause of the mishna?


###### Bava Kamma 14b:23
[Bava Kamma 14b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/14b:23)

סֵיפָא אִצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This clause does not serve to exclude some other case; rather, **it is needed** to preface **the latter clause** that teaches that the only people who are accepted as witnesses in cases of damages are both