## Bava Kamma Daf 15b

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

״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִי״ אוֹ ״שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one admits: **My ox killed so-and-so, or** my ox killed **so-and-so’s ox,** then **this** person **pays based on his own** admission.


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

מַאי, לָאו בְּתָם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the mishna: **What, is** the *halakha* of the mishna **not** stated **with regard to an innocuous ox?** If so, this mishna proves that one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage even based on one’s own admission, which demonstrates that the payment is monetary restitution and not a fine.


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

לָא, בְּמוּעָד. אֲבָל תָּם מַאי – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ – אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **No,** the *halakha* of the mishna is stated **with regard to a forewarned** ox. The Gemara asks: **But** according to this explanation, if it had been an **innocuous** ox that gored, **what** would be the *halakha*? Would one say that **indeed, he does not pay based on his own** admission? But **if so, rather than teaching** in **the latter clause** of the mishna in *Ketubot*: If one admits: **My ox killed so-and-so’s** Canaanite **slave, he does not pay based on his own** admission, **let** the mishna **differentiate and teach** the distinction **with regard to** the case raised in the first clause **itself.** The reason for the distinction between the cases when one’s ox kills a Jew or a Canaanite slave is that in the first one pays monetary restitution, while in the second one pays a fine. If the mishna wishes to demonstrate the difference between a fine and monetary restitution with regard to admission, then instead of introducing a new case, the mishna would have modified the case of the previous clause.


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

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּמוּעָד, אֲבָל בְּתָם – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna would have continued: **In what** case **is this statement** in the first clause **said?** It is said **with regard to a forewarned** ox, **but with regard to** an admission that one’s **innocuous** ox gored, **he does not pay based on his own** admission. The fact that the mishna does not do so suggests that in fact one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage based on one’s own admission that his innocuous ox gored. Evidently, the payment is considered to be monetary restitution.


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

כּוּלָּהּ בְּמוּעָד קָמַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: The reason the mishna did not raise the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox is not because that distinction is not a valid one, but because the **entire** mishna **speaks** only **of** cases of **a forewarned** ox. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם יוֹתֵר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. מַאי, לָאו הָא פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶׁהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests further: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the concluding clause of the mishna just cited: **This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than** the cost of **that which he damaged does not pay based on his own** admission. The Gemara infers: **What, is it not** that were he liable to pay **less than** the cost of **that which he damaged, he would pay** based on his own admission? Since when an innocuous ox gores, its owner is liable to pay more than the cost of the damage, the payment is clearly not monetary restitution, and this is why it is not payable based on one’s own admission.


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

לָא, הָא כְּמָה שֶׁהִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the inference: **No,** one should infer only that were he liable to pay **as much as** the cost of **that which he damaged, he pays** based on his own admission. If the sum to be paid is more or less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would not pay based on his own admission.


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

אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מַאי – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם יוֹתֵר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ; לִיתְנֵי: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם כְּמָה שֶׁהִזִּיק – דְּמַשְׁמַע פָּחוֹת, וּמַשְׁמַע יוֹתֵר! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks. **But** according to that opinion, where one is liable to pay **less** than the cost of the damage, **what** would be the *halakha*? Would one say that, **indeed, he does not pay** based on his own admission? **If so, instead of teaching: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than** the cost of **that which he damaged does not pay based on his own** admission, **let** the mishna **teach** instead: **This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay as much as** the cost of **that which he damaged** does not pay based on his own admission. **As** that statement **indicates** cases where one is liable to pay **more** than the cost of that which he damaged **and it** also **indicates** cases where one is liable to pay **less** than the cost of that which he damaged. Evidently, the mishna holds that where one’s liability is for less than the cost of the damage, it is payable based on one’s own admission. This therefore provides **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.


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

וְהִלְכְתָא: פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא – קְנָסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And the *halakha*** is that the payment for **half** the cost of **the damage is a fine.**


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

תְּיוּבְתָּא וְהִלְכְתָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes the obvious inconsistency: How can it be that the Gemara offers **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine **and** then state that **the *halakha*** is in accordance with that opinion?


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

אִין, טַעְמָא מַאי הָוְיָא תְּיוּבְתָּא – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִזִּיק;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Yes,** the *halakha* may be in accordance with that opinion because of the following resolution of the refutation. **What is the reason** that the Gemara held that **there is a conclusive refutation** of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine? **Because** the mishna **does not teach:** Anyone who does not pay **as much as** the cost of **that which he damaged** does not pay based on his own admission. This is not, in fact, a conclusive refutation, as even if one holds that the payment of half the cost of the damage for an innocuous ox is considered monetary restitution, one can still explain why the mishna doesn’t discuss cases where one is liable for less than the cost of the damage.


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

לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא; מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is because the *tanna* **cannot make an absolute** statement about such cases, that one never pays based on one’s own admission. **Since there is** an obligation for one to pay for **half** the cost of **the damage** resulting from **pebbles** inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, **which, through tradition it is learned that** this payment **is monetary restitution,** and it is **due to that** reason that the mishna **does not teach** cases where one’s liability is valued at less than the cost of the damage.


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

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא קְנָסָא, הַאי כַּלְבָּא דַּאֲכַל אִימְּרֵי, וְשׁוּנָּרָא דַּאֲכַלה תַּרְנְגוֹלָא – מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא, וְלָא מַגְבֵּינַן בְּבָבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara considers the ramifications of this *halakha*: **And now that you have said** that the *halakha* is that the payment of **half the** cost of the **damage is a fine,** with regard to **this** innocuous **dog that ate lambs or** this innocuous **cat that ate a chicken,** which **is atypical** behavior for dogs and cats, **we do not collect** the payment for these acts in the courts **in Babylonia.** Since it is not common for these animals to eat those animals, these acts are classified as Goring, irrespective of the fact that the animal gained pleasure from the damage, for which it would normally be classified in the category of Eating. Therefore, in cases where these animals had not performed this act of damaging before, and were therefore considered innocuous, the owner is liable for only half the cost of the damage, which is a fine. Since the collection of fines may be imposed only by judges who have been ordained, and ordination is given only in Eretz Yisrael, these payments are not collected in Babylonia.


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

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּרַבְרְבֵי, אֲבָל בְּזוּטְרֵי – אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And this matter** applies only **where** they attacked **large** animals, as it is atypical behavior for them; **but where** they attacked **small** animals, since that **is their** typical **manner** of behavior, it is classified as Eating, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, which is certainly considered monetary restitution. Accordingly, the payment is collected by the courts in Babylonia.


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

וְאִי תְּפַס – לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** even in a case where the payment is considered a fine, **if** the injured party **seized** the property of the owner of the belligerent animal in order to cover his loss, **we do not reclaim** it **from him** since he is entitled to it.


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

וְאִי אָמַר: קִבְעוּ לִי זִימְנָא, דְּאָזֵילְנָא לְאַרְעָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – קָבְעִינַן לֵיהּ. וְאִי לָא אָזֵיל – מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** also, **if** the injured party **said** to the court: **Fix a time for me to go to Eretz Yisrael** to present the case before ordained judges, **we fix** a time **for him** and require the owner of the belligerent animal to go to the court in Eretz Yisrael at that time. **And** if **he does not go, we excommunicate him** for disobeying the orders of the court.


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

וּבֵין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דִּמְסַלֵּק הֶזֵּיקָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And either way, we excommunicate** the owner of the belligerent animal **until he removes the danger,** e.g., by killing the animal or otherwise neutralizing the danger.


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

מִדְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם כֶּלֶב רַע בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְאַל יַעֲמִיד סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The justification for this is **from** the ruling **of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Natan says: From where** is it derived **that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: “You shall not bring blood into your house”** (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one’s house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** חֲמִשָּׁה תַּמִּין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מוּעָדִין –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There are **five** damage-causing acts that an animal can perform twice and remain **innocuous** even when its owner was warned each time to prevent it from doing so. After the third time, the animal is rendered forewarned. In such cases, the owner is liable to pay only half of the damages. **And** there are **five** damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered **forewarned,** at times even if it had never caused damage in that manner. In such cases the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.


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

הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מוּעֶדֶת לֹא לִיגַּח, וְלֹא לִיגּוֹף, וְלֹא לִשּׁוֹךְ, וְלֹא לִרְבּוֹץ, וְלֹא לִבְעוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**An animal is not** considered **forewarned** with regard to Goring, i.e., **not for goring** with its horns, **nor for pushing** with its body, **nor for biting, nor for crouching** upon items in order to damage them, **nor for kicking.** In these cases the animal is considered to be innocuous and its owner is liable for only half of the damages.


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

הַשֵּׁן – מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ; הָרֶגֶל – מוּעֶדֶת לִשְׁבּוֹר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ; וְשׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד; וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק; וְהָאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Concerning acts of damage performed with **the tooth,** the animal is considered **forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it** to eat. Concerning acts of damage performed with **the foot,** the animal is considered **forewarned with regard to breaking** items **while walking. And** there is **a forewarned ox,** which gored three times and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. **And** there is **an ox that causes damage** to the property of the injured party while **on the property of the injured** party. **And** there is **the person,** i.e., any damage done by a person. In all of these cases the one who caused the damage is considered to be forewarned, resulting in the obligation to pay the full cost of the damage.


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

הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי וְהַדּוֹב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּעָדִין. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי תַרְבּוּת – אֵינָן מוּעָדִין. וְהַנָּחָשׁ מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna presents the *halakha* for wild animals: **The wolf; the lion; the bear; the leopard; the *bardelas*,** the meaning of which the Gemara will discuss; **and the snake. These are** considered **forewarned** even if they had never previously caused damage. **Rabbi Elazar says: When these** animals **are domesticated they are not** considered **forewarned. But the snake is always** considered **forewarned.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** מִדְּקָתָנֵי הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל – מִכְּלָל דְּבַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק עָסְקִינַן; וְקָתָנֵי בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מוּעֶדֶת לְשַׁלֵּם כּוּלֵּיהּ – אֲבָל חֲצִי נֶזֶק מְשַׁלֶּמֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **From** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches** in its latter clause: Concerning acts of damage performed with **the tooth,** the animal is considered **forewarned with regard to eating** that which is fitting for it to eat, we learn, **by inference, that we are dealing** throughout the mishna **with** cases of damage done **in the courtyard of the injured** party, as one is exempt from liability for acts of damage classified as Eating if they occur in the public domain. **And** yet the first clause **teaches: An animal is not** considered **forewarned** with regard to Goring. Stating that it is not forewarned indicates that the liability of its owner is limited only **with regard to paying the full** cost **of** the damage, **but** the owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage.**


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

מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, חֲצִי נֶזֶק הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who is** it that holds that when damage classified as Goring is done within the property of the injured party the owner of the belligerent animal is liable for only half of the damages? **It is the Rabbis, who say:** The *halakha* of cases of **Goring** performed by an innocuous animal, which is **atypical** behavior, done **in the courtyard of the injured** party, is that the owner of the ox **pays half** the cost of **the damage.**


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

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד, וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, וְהָאָדָם – אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But then **say,** and try to explain accordingly, the next part of **the latter clause** of the mishna: **And** there is **a forewarned ox** that gored three times, and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. **And** there is **an ox that causes damage** to the property of the injured party while **on the property of the injured** party. **And** there is **the person.** In these cases, the responsible party pays full damages. With this clause **we arrive at** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon, who says:** The *halakha* of cases of **Goring** performed by an innocuous animal, which is **atypical,** done **in the courtyard of the injured** party, is that the owner of the ox **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage** even if the ox is innocuous.


###### Bava Kamma 15b:26
[Bava Kamma 15b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15b:26)

רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Could it be that **the first** part of the latter **clause** of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the **Rabbis and** the next part of **the latter clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon?**


###### Bava Kamma 15b:27
[Bava Kamma 15b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15b:27)

אִין, דְּהָאָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, שְׁבוֹק מַתְנִיתִין וְתָא אַבַּתְרַאי – רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Large-toothed one, leave the mishna and follow after me** and my interpretation that **the first** part of the latter **clause** of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the **Rabbis and** the next part of **the latter clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon.**


###### Bava Kamma 15b:28
[Bava Kamma 15b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/15b:28)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a different interpretation of the mishna: **Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav:**