## Bava Kamma Daf 15a

###### Bava Kamma 15a:1
[Bava Kamma 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:1)

״בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וּבְנֵי בְרִית״. ״בְּנֵי חוֹרִין״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי עֲבָדִים, ״בְּנֵי בְרִית״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**free men and members of the covenant.** The mishna states: **Free men, to exclude** Canaanite **slaves** from being valid witnesses, and it states: **Members of the covenant, to exclude gentiles.**


###### Bava Kamma 15a:2
[Bava Kamma 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:2)

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עֶבֶד – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס, אֲבָל גּוֹי – דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ חַיִיס, אֵימָא לָא; וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גּוֹי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שָׁיֵיךְ בְּמִצְוֹת, אֲבָל עֶבֶד – דְּשָׁיֵיךְ בְּמִצְוֹת, אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** it is **necessary** to teach both exceptions, **as had** the Torah **taught us** only about **a slave,** I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness **because he has no lineage,** i.e., the child of a Canaanite slave is not legally considered to be his child in any sense; **but a** free **gentile, who has lineage, I might say no,** he is qualified. **And** similarly, **had** the Torah **taught us** only about **a gentile,** I might have presumed that he is disqualified from serving as a witness **because he has no connection to** the **mitzvot** of the Torah; **but** with regard to a Canaanite **slave, who does have a connection to** the **mitzvot,** as he is obligated to keep the mitzvot that a woman is obligated to keep, **I might say no,** he is qualified. Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach both exceptions.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:3
[Bava Kamma 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:3)

וְהַנָּשִׁים בִּכְלַל הַנֶּזֶק. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **And women are included in the** *halakhot* of **damages** in the same way as men. The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived?


###### Bava Kamma 15a:4
[Bava Kamma 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:4)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל עוֹנָשִׁין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents three sources for this *halakha*. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** The **verse states** with regard to the liability of one who takes a false oath that he had not stolen: **“When a man or woman shall commit any of the sins** of a person” (Numbers 5:6). **The verse equates a woman with a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah.**


###### Bava Kamma 15a:5
[Bava Kamma 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:5)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תָּנָא: ״וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל דִּינִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Elazar taught:** The verse states with regard to the civil laws given following the revelation at Sinai: **“And these are the civil laws that you shall set before them”** (Exodus 21:1). The reference to “them” in the verse is referring to all those who stood at the revelation, both men and women. **The verse** thereby **equates a woman with a man with regard to all civil laws in the Torah.**


###### Bava Kamma 15a:6
[Bava Kamma 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:6)

דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי תָּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught:** The **verse states** with regard to liability in a case where one’s ox kills a person: **“And it killed a man or a woman”** (Exodus 21:29). **The verse** thereby **equates a woman with a man with regard to all killings in the Torah,** i.e., the liability incurred is the same whether the person killed was a man or a woman.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:7
[Bava Kamma 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:7)

וּצְרִיכִי; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא – הָתָם הוּא דְּחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֶהְוֵי לַהּ כַּפָּרָה; אֲבָל דִּינִין – אִישׁ, דְּבַר מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן – אִין, אִשָּׁה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** all three sources **are necessary, as had** the Torah **taught us** only **the first** source, one might have said that it **is there** that men and women are equated, **as the Merciful One had pity upon** a woman and made her liable **in order that she should achieve atonement** through paying restitution. **But** with regard to **civil law,** one might say that for **a man, who is involved in business dealings, yes,** the civil laws apply to him, but to **a woman,** who generally is not involved in business dealings, the laws do **not apply.**


###### Bava Kamma 15a:8
[Bava Kamma 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:8)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן דִּינִין – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִיהְוֵי לַהּ חַיּוּתָא; אֲבָל כַּפָּרָה – אִישׁ, דְּבַר מִצְוָה – אִין; אִשָּׁה, דְּלָאו בַּת מִצְוָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the Torah **taught us** only that men and women are equated in **civil law,** one might have said that this is **in order that she should** be able to **sustain** herself by engaging in business dealings. If civil laws did not apply to a woman, one would be wary about conducting business with her. **But** with regard to obligating a woman to achieve **atonement,** one might have said that **a man, who is obligated in mitzvot, yes,** he is similarly obligated to achieve atonement; but **a woman, who is not obligated in** all the **mitzvot** to the same extent as a man, no, the obligation does **not** apply to her.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:9
[Bava Kamma 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:9)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – הָכָא מִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה, וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם חַיּוּתָא; אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן קְטָלָא – אִישׁ, דְּבַר מִצְוָה – לְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר; אִשָּׁה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the Torah **taught us** only **these** first **two** sources, one might have limited the fact that a woman and man are equated to these two cases, **here due to** the fact that she also needs **atonement, and there due to** the fact that she needs to be able to **sustain** herself. **But with regard to** one’s liability for his ox **killing** a person, one might have said that only for killing **a man, who is obligated in** all **mitzvot,** yes, the owner of the ox is liable **to pay a ransom;** but for killing **a woman,** who is not obligated in all mitzvot, one might say he is **not** liable.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:10
[Bava Kamma 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:10)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן כּוֹפֶר – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה; אֲבָל הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, דְּלֵיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the Torah **taught us** only the equivalence of a man and woman with regard to **a ransom,** one might have thought that this is **because** it is a very serious matter as **there is a loss of life, but** in **these** first **two** sources, **where there is not a loss of life, I would say no,** a woman is not included. Accordingly, it is **necessary** to have all three sources.


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

הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **And** both **the injured** party **and the one liable for the damage** are involved **in** the **payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 15a:12
[Bava Kamma 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:12)

אִתְּמַר: פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא – רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מָמוֹנָא, רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: קְנָסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
An amoraic dispute **was stated** with regard to the payment of **half** the cost of **the damage** made when one’s innocuous ox gores another’s animal. **Rav Pappa says:** It is **monetary restitution** for the injured party’s loss. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says:** It is **a fine.**


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר מָמוֹנָא – קָסָבַר: סְתָם שְׁווֹרִים לָאו בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דְּבָעֵי לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ; וְרַחֲמָנָא הוּא דְּחָס עֲלֵיהּ, דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִיַּיעַד תּוֹרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elucidates: **Rav Pappa says:** The payment is **monetary restitution,** as **he holds** that even **ordinary oxen,** which have not been forewarned with regard to Goring, are **not presumed to be safeguarded,** as their nature does not prevent them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is responsible to safeguard them, to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, **by right it** should have been **that** the owner **needs to pay** the **full** cost of the damage. Nevertheless, **the Merciful One had pity upon him, as his ox had not yet been forewarned** and he was not fully aware of the possibility that it might gore, and accordingly, the Torah reduced the extent of his liability.


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

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר קְנָסָא – קָסָבַר: סְתָם שְׁווֹרִים בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלָא לְשַׁלֵּם כְּלָל; וְרַחֲמָנָא הוּא דְּקַנְסֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִנְטְרֵיהּ לְתוֹרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says:** It is **a fine,** as **he holds** that **ordinary oxen** are **presumed to be safeguarded,** as their nature prevents them from acting in a belligerent manner. Therefore, the owner is not responsible for safeguarding them to prevent them from doing so. Accordingly, if an ox causes damage by goring, **by right it** should have been **that** the owner **does not pay at all.** Nevertheless, **the Merciful One penalized him in order that he will safeguard his ox,** even before it is forewarned, and decreed that the fine should be given to the injured party even though he is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss.


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

תְּנַן: הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא מָמוֹנָא – הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁיֵיךְ נִיזָּק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא קְנָסָא – הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָאו דִּידֵיהּ שָׁקֵיל, בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין אִיתֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: Both **the injured** party **and the one liable for the damage** are involved **in** the **payment. Granted, according to the one who says** that **the** payment of **half the** cost of the **damage** is **monetary restitution,** this assumes that the injured party is theoretically entitled to receive the full value of his damaged animal but in practice receives only half. **This is** what the mishna means by saying **that the injured** party is also **involved in** the **payment,** because it is as though he is compelled to forgo half of the cost of the damage that by right he should be paid. **But according to the one who says** that **the** payment of **half the** cost of the **damage** is **a fine,** which assumes that the injured party is not really entitled to be compensated for his loss, **now that** even the money that **he takes is not his** by right, is it accurate to describe him **as being** involved **in the payment?**


###### Bava Kamma 15a:16
[Bava Kamma 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:16)

לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִפְחַת נְבֵילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The mishna’s statement **is necessary only with regard to** the fact that the injured party is the one who absorbs the loss due to the **diminishing** value **of the carcass** between the animal’s death and the time that the case is brought before the court. Since he must absorb this financial loss, it may be said that he is involved in the payment.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:17
[Bava Kamma 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:17)

פְּחַת נְבֵילָה – הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: ״תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִטַּפְּלִין בִּנְבֵילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can one claim that the mishna is referring to the **diminishing** value **of the carcass? Isn’t it** already **taught** in **the first clause** of the mishna, which by using the term: **Payments** of restitution **for damage, teaches that the owner** of the injured animal **attends to,** i.e., retains ownership of, **the animal carcass?** And therefore it follows that he bears any depreciation in its value, as the Gemara (10b) explained above.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:18
[Bava Kamma 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:18)

חֲדָא בְּתָם, וַחֲדָא בְּמוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why the mishna needs to teach this principle twice: **One** mention is made **with regard to an innocuous** ox **and** the other **one** is made **with regard to a forewarned** ox.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:19
[Bava Kamma 15a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:19)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן תָּם – מִשּׁוּם דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִיַּיעַד, אֲבָל מוּעָד אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מוּעָד – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּם כּוּלֵּיהּ, אֲבָל תָּם אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **necessary** to state both cases, **because if it would teach us** the principle only with regard to **an innocuous** ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the liability of the owner of the ox, **because it has not yet been forewarned. But** with regard to **a forewarned** ox, **I would say** the Torah does **not** limit the owner’s liability at all and the owner must also bear the loss due to the diminishing value of the carcass. **And** similarly, **if it would teach us** the principle only with regard to **a forewarned** ox, I might say that only there does the Torah limit the owner’s liability **because he is paying the full** cost **of** the damage, so the Torah does not overly burden him. **But** with regard to **an innocuous** ox, where he is liable for only half of the damage, **I would say** the Torah does **not** limit his liability any further, so he must bear the loss of the diminishing value of the carcass. Therefore, it is **necessary** to state the principle in both cases.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: מָה בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד? שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק – מִגּוּפוֹ, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם – מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to prove whether the payment of half the cost of the damage is considered to be monetary restitution or a fine: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (16b): **What** is the difference **between** the liability incurred for damage caused by **an innocuous** ox **and** that caused by **a forewarned** ox? The difference is **that** the owner of **an innocuous** ox **pays half the** cost of the **damage** exclusively **from** proceeds of the sale of **its body, and** the owner of **a forewarned** ox **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage from** his **superior-quality** property.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:21
[Bava Kamma 15a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:21)

וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי הָא – תָּם אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the challenge posed by the mishna: **And if it is so,** that payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is considered a fine, **let** the mishna **also teach this** additional distinction: The owner of **an innocuous** ox **does not pay based on his own** admission, in accordance with the *halakha* that one does not pay a fine based on one’s own admission, whereas the owner of **a forewarned** ox **pays based on his own** admission.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:22
[Bava Kamma 15a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:22)

תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר. מַאי שַׁיַּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* could have taught this distinction; however, **he taught** only certain distinctions **and omitted** others, including this one. The Gemara asks: **What** else **did he omit that he omitted this?** A *tanna* would never omit just a single case, perforce there must be another *halakha* he omitted.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:23
[Bava Kamma 15a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:23)

שַׁיַּיר חֲצִי כוֹפֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He omitted** the *halakha* that if an innocuous ox kills someone, its owner does not pay even **half of the ransom** payment, whereas if the ox is forewarned, he pays the full ransom.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:24
[Bava Kamma 15a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:24)

אִי מִשּׁוּם חֲצִי כוֹפֶר – לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא; הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי כוֹפֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **If** one claims that the mishna omits the *halakha* of one who admits his liability **due to** the fact that it also omits the *halakha* that the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay even **half of the ransom,** that is a flawed claim, as **this is not an omission,** because one could say: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? It **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says** that when **an innocuous** ox kills a person, one **pays half the ransom,** and therefore the distinction between an innocuous and forewarned ox is included in the mishna’s ruling that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 15a:25
[Bava Kamma 15a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15a:25)

תָּא שְׁמַע:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (*Ketubot* 41a):