## Bava Kamma Daf 33b

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

כֵּיוָן דִּמְשַׁעְבַּד לֵיהּ לְנִיזָּק – לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ מָכוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
does he say that **since** the ox **is liened** to the debt **to the injured** party, who will collect it should the ox’s owner not have sufficient funds, **it is not in his** power to sell it? Rav Naḥman **said to him: It is not sold.**


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: מְכָרוֹ – מָכוּר! חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֵהוּ. וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁחוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֵהוּ, לָמָּה מָכוּר? לְרִידְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava asked him: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that if **he sold it, it is sold?** Rav Naḥman replied: Nevertheless, the injured party **then collects it** from the purchaser. The Gemara asks: **Since** the injured party **then collects it** from the purchaser, **with regard to what** matter **is it sold?** His right to collect it negates the effectiveness of the sale. The Gemara answers: It is sold **for** the purpose of **plowing [*ridya*].** The purchaser may use the ox for plowing until the injured party collects it from him, and the purchaser is not required to reimburse the injured party for the use of his ox.


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

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לֹוֶה וּמוֹכֵר מִטַּלְטְלִין – בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין לוֹ מֵהֶם? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְמַאן דַּעֲשָׂאוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Should one **conclude from** this ruling that with regard to one who **borrows** money **and** then **sells** his **movable property, the court can collect** the debt **from** this property **on behalf of** the creditor, as according to Rabbi Yishmael the belligerent ox is only a lien for the debt owed to the injured party? The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of the belligerent ox, **it is different, as** the owner of the ox **is** considered **like one who rendered it designated payment** of the debt, since the Torah specifies that the injured party collects damages from the ox. In general, however, movable property that is sold by a debtor cannot be collected by the creditor.


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

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: עָשָׂה עַבְדּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי, וּמְכָרוֹ – בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנּוּ. שׁוֹרוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ – אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנּוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rava say** that if one **rendered his slave** as **designated repayment** for a debt **and** subsequently **sold him,** the **creditor collects** payment **from** the purchaser, whereas if one rendered **his ox** as **designated repayment and** then **sold it, the creditor cannot collect** it **from** the purchaser? This contradicts the previous statement that the belligerent ox is considered designated repayment, and therefore even if it is sold the injured party can collect it from the purchaser.


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

עֶבֶד מַאי טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לֵיהּ קָלָא; הַאי נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּנְגַח – קָלָא אִית לֵיהּ, דְּ״תוֹרָא נַגְחָנָא״ קָרוּ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The distinction made in Rava’s statement answers this question. **What is the reason** that **a slave** who was rendered as designated repayment can be collected from the purchaser? It is **because** rendering a slave as designated repayment is not common and generates **publicity.** The purchaser was therefore aware of this when he bought the slave. Similarly, with regard to **this** ox **as well, since it gored** an animal, it generates **publicity, as** it is publicly **called a goring ox,** and so the purchaser was aware of the lien attached to it. Therefore, the injured party can collect it from the purchaser.


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

תָּנֵי רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר מַעְרְבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מְכָרוֹ – אֵין מָכוּר, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ – מוּקְדָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Taḥalifa from the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **taught** the following *baraita* with regard to the belligerent ox **before Rabbi Abbahu:** If **he sold it, it is not sold,** but if **he consecrated it, it is consecrated.**


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

מְכָרוֹ מַאן? אִילֵימָא מַזִּיק, ״מְכָרוֹ אֵין מָכוּר״ מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הוּחְלַט הַשּׁוֹר; וְ״הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ״ – אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: יוּשַׁם הַשּׁוֹר בְּבֵית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who sold it?** Is it the injured party or the liable party? **If we say** it is **the one liable for the damage, whose** opinion is it that if **he sold it,** it is **not sold? It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that **the ox was** already **assigned** to the injured party. **But** in the following statement of the *baraita*, that if **he consecrated it,** it is **consecrated, we arrive at** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who says** that **the ox shall be appraised in court.**


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

אֶלָּא נִיזָּק? ״מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר״ מַנִּי – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ״הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ״ אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If, **rather,** it is referring to **the injured** party selling it, **whose** opinion is it that if **he sold it, it is not sold?** It is the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** who holds that the injured party has no share of ownership in the ox until it is transferred to him by the court. But in the statement that if **he consecrated it,** it is **consecrated, we arrive at** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** The *baraita* does not seem to accord with either opinion.


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

לְעוֹלָם מַזִּיק, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל; ״מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר״ – אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּהָא מְשַׁעְבְּדָא לֵיהּ לְנִיזָּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it is referring to **the one liable for the damage, and everyone agrees** with its ruling. The ruling that if **he sold it, it is not sold** is the *halakha* **even** according **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, as** the ox **is liened to the injured** party, precluding the owner from selling it.


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

״הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ״ – אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The statement that if **he consecrated it,** it is **consecrated,** is the *halakha* **even** according **to Rabbi Akiva,** since it is not actually consecrated but is considered so only **due to** the statement **of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu says** that if one consecrates liened property, although the consecration does not take effect, nevertheless he is required to redeem it, due to a rabbinic **decree lest** people **say** that **consecrated** property can be **removed** from the ownership of the Temple treasury **without redemption.** Therefore, the ineffectiveness of the ox’s consecration notwithstanding, he is still required to redeem it, by means of minimal payment, so as not to cause the denigration of Temple property.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר תָּם שֶׁהִזִּיק; עַד שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בַּדִּין – מְכָרוֹ מָכוּר, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁחָטוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. מִשֶּׁעָמַד בַּדִּין – מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ אֵינוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁחָטוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **an innocuous ox that caused damage,** if, **before** its owner **stood trial, he sold it,** it is **sold.** If **he consecrated it,** it is **consecrated.** If **he slaughtered it or gave it as a gift, what he did is done,** i.e., takes effect. By contrast, **once he stood trial** and is now obligated to pay the injured party, if **he sold it, it is not sold;** if **he consecrated it, it is not consecrated;** if **he slaughtered it or gave it is a gift, he has done nothing.**


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

קָדְמוּ בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת (וְהִגְבִּיהוֹ) [וְגָבוּהוּ]; בֵּין חָב עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִזִּיק, בֵּין הִזִּיק עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָב – לֹא עָשׂוּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּלֵּם אֶלָּא מִגּוּפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **creditors** of the ox’s owner **collected** the ox **first, whether he owed** the creditors **before** his ox **caused** the **damage or whether it caused** the **damage before he owed** them, **they have done nothing.** Their collection is void, **because** compensation to the injured party is **paid only from the body of** the ox, as it was innocuous, and it is therefore designated exclusively for this compensation.


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

מוּעָד שֶׁהִזִּיק – בֵּין שֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בַּדִּין; מְכָרוֹ מָכוּר, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁחָטוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה – מָה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. קָדְמוּ בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת (וְהִגְבִּיהוּ) [וְגָבוּהוּ]; בֵּין חָב עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִזִּיק, בֵּין הִזִּיק עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָב – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּלֵּם אֶלָּא מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: With regard to **a forewarned** ox **that caused damage, whether** its owner **stood trial or whether he did not stand trial,** if **he sold it,** it is **sold;** if **he consecrated it,** it is **consecrated;** if **he slaughtered it or gave it as a gift, what he did is done.** Likewise, if **creditors collected** the ox **first, whether he owed** them **before it caused** the **damage,** or **whether it caused** the **damage before he owed** them, **what** they **did is done.** This is **because** the restitution is **paid only from** his **superior-quality** property, not from the body of the ox. Therefore, what he or his creditors do with the ox takes effect.


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

אָמַר מָר: ״מְכָרוֹ מָכוּר״ – לְרִדְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the *baraita*: **The Master said** above, with regard to an innocuous ox, that if **he sold it,** it is **sold.** As explained above, the sale is valid only with regard to the purchaser using the ox **for plowing** in the interim, until the injured party collects it.


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

״הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ״ – מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The statement that if **he consecrated it,** it is **consecrated** does not mean that it is actually consecrated, but rather that it must be redeemed through payment of a minimal sum, **due to Rabbi Abbahu’s** statement mentioned above.


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

״שְׁחָטוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי״; בִּשְׁלָמָא נְתָנוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי – לְרִדְיָא; אֶלָּא שְׁחָטוֹ – לֵיתֵי וְלִשְׁתַּלַּם מִבִּשְׂרֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the statement that if **he slaughtered it or gave it as a present, what he did is done,** the Gemara asks: **Granted,** if **he gave it as a present, what he did is done** with regard to the recipient’s permission to use it **for plowing. But** if **he slaughtered it,** how does that affect the injured party’s rights? **Let him come and receive payment from** the slaughtered ox’s **meat.**


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

דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַי״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַי, שְׁחָטוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: It is stated in the Torah: “Then they shall sell the **live** ox” (Exodus 21:35). **I have** derived **only** that the injured party receives a share of ownership if the belligerent ox is **alive. From where** do I derive that this applies even if the ox’s owner **slaughtered it? The verse states: “Then they shall sell** the live **ox,”** indicating that **in any case,** whatever the circumstances, the injured party is paid from proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox.


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

אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִפְחַת שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheizevi said:** This statement **is necessary only** with regard **to the diminished** value of the ox due to its **slaughter.** Although the value of the ox may no longer cover the damage, its owner is not liable to compensate the injured party beyond the ox’s current value.


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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הַמַּזִּיק שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: That is to say** that **one who causes damage to another’s liened property is exempt** from paying compensation, since the property does not actually belong to the one who holds the lien.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, הָתָם הוּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא חַסַּרְתָּיךְ וְלָא מִידֵּי – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: זִיקָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דִּשְׁקַלִי מִינָּךְ; אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא לִיחַיַּיב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this inference from the *baraita* **obvious?** The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, states this *halakha* **lest you say** that **it is** specifically **there,** in the case where one slaughters a liened ox, that he is exempt, **as he can say to him: I have not detracted anything from** what is **yours, as he can say to him: I took only spirit from** what is **yours.** He detracted only the life of the ox, not its physical body, and one who causes damage to another’s liened property might be exempt from liability for this intangible damage. **But generally** one who causes damage to another’s lien **should be liable.** Therefore, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, **teaches us** that one is exempt from liability for all types of damage he causes to another’s liened property.


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

הָא נָמֵי רַבָּה אַמְרַהּ – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הַשּׂוֹרֵף שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **Rabba stated this** principle, **as well,** and there would be no need for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, to state it. **As Rabba says: One who burns another’s documents,** in which other people’s debts to him are recorded, **is exempt,** although the owner of the documents can no longer collect payment from liened property.


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, הָתָם הוּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: נְיָירָא בְּעָלְמָא קְלַאי מִינָּךְ; אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, לִיחַיַּיב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָא הָכָא כְּמַאן דְּחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת דָּמֵי, וְקָאָמַר: מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, states this principle **lest you say** that **it is** specifically **there** that he is exempt, **as** the perpetrator of the damage **can say to** the owner of the documents: **I burned your mere paper,** for which I am prepared to pay. **But** in a case **where one dug pits, ditches, or caves on** liened land, causing substantial damage, **he should be liable** to compensate the one holding the lien. Therefore, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, **teaches us** that even in a case of substantial damage he is exempt, **as** the case **here,** where the ox was slaughtered, **is like one who dug pits, ditches, or caves,** as slaughter is considered substantial damage, **and** the *tanna* **said** that in this case **what he did is done.**


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

קָדְמוּ בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת (וְהִגְבִּיהוּ) [וְגָבוּהוּ]; בֵּין חָב עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִזִּיק, בֵּין הִזִּיק עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָב – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מִגּוּפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to explain the *baraita*, which states: If **creditors collected** the innocuous ox **first, whether** its owner **owed** them **before** his ox **caused damage or whether it caused damage before he owed** them, they **have done nothing, because** restitution is **paid only from the body of** the ox.


###### Bava Kamma 33b:24
[Bava Kamma 33b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/33b:24)

בִּשְׁלָמָא הִזִּיק עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָב – נִיזָּקִין קָדְמוּ. אֲבָל חָב עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִזִּיק – בַּעַל חוֹב קְדֵים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** in the case where **it caused damage before he owed** them, **the injured parties came first,** and the ox is liened to the debt. **But** in the case where **he owed** them **before it caused damage, the creditor** collected it **first,** so why does he not have the preemptive right to the ox?