## Bava Kamma Daf 33a

###### Bava Kamma 33a:1
[Bava Kamma 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:1)

אַחֵר – לֵית לֵיהּ אֵימְתָא דְרַבֵּיהּ, הַאי – אִית לֵיהּ אֵימְתָא דְרַבֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Another** person **does not have awe of his mentor.** Therefore, even if the welder urges another person to leave, he must ascertain that that person actually did so, and otherwise he is liable to be exiled. By contrast, **this** apprentice **has awe of his mentor,** and so the welder may assume that if he instructed him to leave, he certainly did. Therefore, if in reality the apprentice did not leave and is killed by the sparks, the welder is not liable to be exiled, as he is not held accountable.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:2
[Bava Kamma 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:2)

רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא: ״וּמָצָא״ – פְּרָט לְמַמְצִיא אֶת עַצְמוֹ. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: מִי שֶׁיָּצְתָה אֶבֶן מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וְהוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְקִיבְּלָהּ – פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: פָּטוּר מִגָּלוּת, וְחַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid taught in the name of Rava** that **this** aforementioned statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina is in reference not to the above *baraita* but is **in reference to this** *baraita*: It is stated in the verse concerning one who kills unintentionally: “And the head slips off the helve, **and finds** his neighbor, and he dies” (Deuteronomy 19:5); this serves to **exclude** one **who introduces himself** into an area of danger, in which case the one who kills unintentionally is exempt from exile. **From here Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:** With regard to **one whom a stone departed from his hand, and another** person **stuck out his head and received** a blow from **it** and died, the one who threw the stone is **exempt** from exile. It is in reference to this statement that **Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: He is exempt from exile** for killing him. **But** if the victim was merely injured, he is **liable to** pay **four types of indemnity.**


###### Bava Kamma 33a:3
[Bava Kamma 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:3)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַקַּמַּיְיתָא; וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַקַּמַּיְיתָא – אֲבָל אַהָא פָּטוּר לִגְמָרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The one who teaches this** statement **in reference to this** *baraita*, **all the more so** he would teach it **in reference to the first** *baraita*, where one entered the workshop of the carpenter. **But the one who teaches it with regard to the first** *baraita* teaches it only in reference to that *baraita*. **But in this** *baraita* he is **entirely exempt** from liability for injury, as one could claim that he is completely blameless.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:4
[Bava Kamma 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פּוֹעֲלִים שֶׁבָּאוּ לִתְבּוֹעַ שְׂכָרָן מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וּנְגָחָן שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וּנְשָׁכָן כַּלְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: רַשָּׁאִין פּוֹעֲלִין לִתְבּוֹעַ שְׂכָרָן מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** With regard to salaried **laborers who came** into their employer’s courtyard **to claim their wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner’s ox gored them, or the homeowner’s dog bit them, and** a laborer **died,** the homeowner is **exempt. Others say** that he is liable, as salaried **laborers are allowed** to enter their employer’s property **to claim their wages from the homeowner.**


###### Bava Kamma 33a:5
[Bava Kamma 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:5)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ בְּמָתָא – מַאי טַעְמָא דַּאֲחֵרִים? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ בַּבַּיִת – מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** the employer **can be found in the city, what is the reason of the others,** who hold him liable? The laborers could have met him in the city to claim their wages and did not need to enter his courtyard. **If he can be found** only **at home, what is the reason of the first *tanna*,** who exempts him? Clearly they are entitled to claim their wages.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:6
[Bava Kamma 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:6)

לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּגַבְרָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ וְלָא שְׁכִיחַ, וְקָרֵי אַבָּבָא וַאֲמַר לְהוּ ״אִין״; מַר סָבַר: ״אִין״ – ״עוּל תָּא״ מַשְׁמַע. וּמַר סָבַר: ״אִין״ – ״קוּם אַדּוּכְתָּךְ״ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** these are not the circumstances under discussion. This *halakha* is **necessary** only **with regard to a man who can** sometimes **be found** in town **and** sometimes **cannot be found** in town, **and** the laborers **called** to him **at the gate** of his courtyard, **and he said to them: Yes.** One **Sage,** referred to as the others, **holds** that the term **yes** in this context **indicates: Come in.** Therefore, he is liable for their death. **And** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that the term **yes** in this context **indicates: Stand in your place** and I will come out to you. Since he did not give them permission to enter, he is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:7
[Bava Kamma 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:7)

תַּנְיָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אִין״ – ״קוּם אַדּוּכְתָּךְ״ מַשְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: פּוֹעֵל שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִתְבּוֹעַ שְׂכָרוֹ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ נְשָׁכוֹ כַּלְבּוֹ, פָּטוּר – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת. אַמַּאי פָּטוּר? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּקָרֵי אַבָּבָא, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ ״אִין״, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ ״אִין״ – ״קוּם אַדּוּכְתָּךְ״ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that **yes** in this context **indicates: Stand in your place. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a salaried **laborer who entered** his employer’s courtyard **to claim his wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner’s ox gored him, or his dog bit him,** the homeowner **is exempt, although** the laborer **entered with permission.** The Gemara asks: **Why** is he **exempt** if the laborer entered with permission? **Rather, is it not** because it is a case **where** the laborer **called** him **at the gate, and** he **said to him: Yes? Conclude from it** that **yes** in this context **indicates: Stand in your place.**


###### Bava Kamma 33a:8
[Bava Kamma 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁנֵי שְׁווֹרִין תַּמִּין שֶׁחָבְלוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה – מְשַׁלְּמִין בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. שְׁנֵיהֶן מוּעָדִין – מְשַׁלְּמִין בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **two innocuous oxen that injured each other,** the respective damages are evaluated, and if one amount is more than the other, the owner **pays half the damages with regard to the difference.** In other words, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the other owner half the difference. If **both oxen were forewarned,** the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage **pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference.**


###### Bava Kamma 33a:9
[Bava Kamma 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:9)

אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד – מוּעָד בַּתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, תָּם בַּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where **one** of the oxen was **innocuous and** the other **one** was **forewarned,** if the **forewarned** ox caused greater damage **to** the **innocuous** ox than the reverse, the owner of the forewarned ox **pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference.** If the **innocuous** ox caused greater damage **to** the **forewarned** ox, its owner **pays half the damage with regard to the difference.**


###### Bava Kamma 33a:10
[Bava Kamma 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:10)

וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁחָבְלוּ זֶה בָּזֶה – מְשַׁלְּמִין בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly,** with regard to **two people who injured each other,** the one who did greater damage **pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference,** since one is always considered forewarned with regard to damage he causes.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:11
[Bava Kamma 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:11)

אָדָם בַּמוּעָד וּמוּעָד בָּאָדָם – מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָדָם בַּתָּם וְתָם בָּאָדָם – אָדָם בַּתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, תָּם בָּאָדָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַף תָּם שֶׁחָבַל בָּאָדָם – מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **a person** caused damage **to a forewarned** ox **and** the **forewarned** ox caused damage **to** the **person,** whichever side caused the greater damage **pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference.** In a case where **a person** caused damage **to an innocuous** ox **and** the **innocuous** ox caused damage **to** the **person,** if **the person** caused greater financial damage **to** the **innocuous** ox **he pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference.** If the **innocuous** ox caused greater damage **to the person,** its owner **pays** only **half the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva says:** The owner of the **innocuous** ox **that injured a person also pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference.** Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injures a person.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:12
[Bava Kamma 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט שׁוֹר בְּשׁוֹר, כָּךְ מִשְׁפַּט שׁוֹר בְּאָדָם. מָה שׁוֹר בְּשׁוֹר – תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמוּעָד נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, אַף שׁוֹר בְּאָדָם – תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמוּעָד נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis about a case where an ox injures a person, **the Sages taught:** It is derived from the verse: “Whether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, **according to this judgment shall it be done to him”** (Exodus 21:31), that **as is the judgment** concerning **an ox** that causes damage **to an ox, so is the judgment** with regard to **an ox** that causes damage **to a person. Just as** with regard to **an ox** that causes damage **to an ox,** if it is **innocuous** its owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage and** if it is **forewarned** he pays the **full** cost of the **damage, so too,** with regard to **an ox** that causes damage **to a person,** if it is an **innocuous** ox its owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage and** if it is a **forewarned** ox the owner pays the **full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 33a:13
[Bava Kamma 33a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:13)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה״ – כַּתַּחְתּוֹן, וְלֹא כָּעֶלְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** It is derived from the phrase **“according to this judgment”** that the *halakha* with regard to an ox that gores a person is judged **like** the case that appears in **the lower** verse, i.e., the case of a forewarned ox, which appears in Exodus 21:29, **and not like** the case that appears in **the upper** verse, i.e., the case of an innocuous ox, which appears in Exodus 21:28.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:14
[Bava Kamma 33a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:14)

יָכוֹל מְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יֵעָשֶׂה לוֹ״ – מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that since the case of an ox that gored a person is compared to the case of a forewarned ox, the owner also **pays from** his **superior-quality** property. Therefore, **the verse states: “Shall it be done to him [*lo*],”** indicating **he pays** restitution exclusively **from** the proceeds of the sale of the **body** of his belligerent ox **and does not pay from** his **superior-quality** property, as the word *lo* can also be understood as referring to the ox. In this manner the case of an innocuous ox that gores a person is compared to the *halakha* of an innocuous ox that gores another ox, whereas with regard to the amount of restitution, it is compared to the case of a forewarned ox.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:15
[Bava Kamma 33a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:15)

וְרַבָּנַן – ״זֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לְפוֹטְרוֹ מֵאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who do not differentiate between an ox that gores a person and one that gores an animal, inasmuch as the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox applies in both cases, **why do I** need the seemingly superfluous word **“this”?** The Gemara answers: The word is stated **to exempt him from the four types of indemnity** that one who injures another person is liable to pay, thereby emphasizing the comparison to the case of an ox that gores an ox.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:16
[Bava Kamma 33a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:16)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לְפוֹטְרוֹ מֵאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אִישׁ כִּי יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ״; ״אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בַּעֲמִיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where does Rabbi Akiva** derive the *halakha* **exempting him from** paying these **four types of indemnity?** The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the verse: **“And if a man maims his neighbor,** as he has done, so shall be done to him” (Leviticus 24:19). Rabbi Akiva derives from here that only when **a man** injures **his neighbor** is he liable to pay these four types of indemnity, **but not** when **an ox** injures **his neighbor.**


###### Bava Kamma 33a:17
[Bava Kamma 33a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:17)

וְרַבָּנַן – אִי מֵהַהִיא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא צַעַר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, אֲבָל רִיפּוּי וָשֶׁבֶת אֵימָא לִיתֵּן לֵיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** why do **the Rabbis** not derive this *halakha* from that verse? The Gemara answers: **If** it would have been derived **from that** verse, **I would have said** that he is exempt **only** from paying for **pain, but** for **medical costs and loss of livelihood,** I would **say** that he is liable **to give him** compensation. Therefore, the phrase “according to this judgment” **teaches us** that he is not liable to pay compensation for anything other than the damage itself.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:18
[Bava Kamma 33a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה כְּלוּם – נוֹטֵל אֶת הַשּׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to an innocuous **ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred** dinars, **and the carcass** of the dead ox **is not worth anything,** its owner **takes the** entire **ox** that gored it, since it is worth half the value of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:19
[Bava Kamma 33a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:19)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: יוּשַׁם הַשּׁוֹר בְּבֵית דִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הוּחְלַט הַשּׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Whose** opinion is expressed in the **mishna,** which rules that the injured party takes the ox immediately? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: After it gores another ox, **the** belligerent **ox shall be appraised in court** before it is taken by the injured party, this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The ox was** already **assigned** to the owner of the dead ox as payment, and if the amount of damages is not contested by the owner of the goring ox, no further legal steps are required.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:20
[Bava Kamma 33a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:20)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: בַּעַל חוֹב הוּא, וְזוּזֵי הוּא דְּמַסֵּיק לֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: שׁוּתָּפֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With regard to what** principle **do** they **disagree? Rabbi Yishmael holds** that the owner of the dead ox **is** considered **a creditor** of the owner of the belligerent ox, **and it is money that he is claiming from him,** but he has no ownership of the body of the belligerent ox. **And Rabbi Akiva holds** that **they are partners,** i.e., from the time the innocuous ox killed the other ox, the owner of the dead ox has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:21
[Bava Kamma 33a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:21)

וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בְּהַאי קְרָא: ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״ – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: לְבֵי דִינָא קָמַזְהַר רַחֲמָנָא; וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לְנִיזָּק וּמַזִּיק מַזְהַר לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And they disagree with regard to** the meaning of **this verse: “Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value”** (Exodus 21:35). **Rabbi Yishmael holds** that **the Merciful One is commanding the court** to evaluate the damages in this manner, **and Rabbi Akiva holds** that **the Merciful One is commanding the injured** party **and the one liable for damage** to split ownership of the live ox, without the involvement of the court.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:22
[Bava Kamma 33a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:22)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? הִקְדִּישׁוֹ נִיזָּק אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between** the two opinions as to whether or not they are considered partners? The Gemara answers: There **is** a practical difference **between them** in a case where **the injured** party **consecrated** the ox to the Temple. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, until the court transfers the ox to the injured party, it still belongs to its owner, and therefore the injured party cannot consecrate it. According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the injured party owns the ox from the time the damage was inflicted, and he can therefore consecrate it.


###### Bava Kamma 33a:23
[Bava Kamma 33a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33a:23)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: מְכָרוֹ מַזִּיק, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּעַל חוֹב הוּא, וְזוּזֵי הוּא דְּמַסֵּיק לֵיהּ – מָכוּר; אוֹ דִלְמָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava asked Rav Naḥman:** If **the one liable for damage sold** the ox, **what is** the *halakha* **according to Rabbi Yishmael?** Is it that **since Rabbi Yishmael says** that the injured party **is** considered **a creditor, and it is** merely **money that he is claiming from him, it is sold? Or perhaps**