## Bava Kamma Daf 34a

###### Bava Kamma 34a:1
[Bava Kamma 34a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:1)

וַאֲפִילּוּ הִזִּיק עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָב – בַּעַל חוֹב קְדֵים! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בַּעַל חוֹב מְאוּחָר שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה – מַה שֶּׁגָּבָה לֹא גָּבָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Moreover, even** if the ox **caused damage before he owed** them, nevertheless **the creditor** came **first** and seized what he rightfully deserved. Should one **conclude from** the *baraita* that if **a later creditor collected** a debt **before** an earlier creditor, **his collection is not valid** and payment should instead be given to the earlier creditor?


###### Bava Kamma 34a:2
[Bava Kamma 34a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:2)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: מַה שֶּׁגָּבָה גָּבָה; וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ גַּבָּךְ הֲוָה – לָא מִינָּךְ (הֲוָה) גְּבַי לֵיהּ? דְּהַאי תּוֹרָא דְּאַזְּקַן, מִינֵּיהּ מִשְׁתַּלֵּמְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No; actually, I** could **say to you** that **the collection of** the later creditor **is valid, and there,** in the case where a creditor seized the belligerent ox, **it is different, as** the injured party **can say to** the creditor who seized the ox: **If** the ox **was in your possession, would I not have collected it from you?** The reason I would take it is **that I am paid from this ox that caused me damage.** Therefore, the creditor cannot collect the ox, even if the debt preceded the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:3
[Bava Kamma 34a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְחָבַל בּוֹ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, וְשָׁבַח וְעָמַד עַל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז – שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא לֹא הִזִּיקוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד עַל שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת זוּז; נוֹתֵן כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** With regard to an innocuous **ox worth two hundred** dinars **that gored** another **ox** worth **two hundred** dinars **and injured it,** reducing its value **by fifty dinars [*zuz*], and** the injured ox subsequently **appreciated** in value, **and** its value **stood at four hundred dinars, while if** the belligerent ox **had not injured it, its** value **would have** now **stood at eight hundred dinars,** in this case the owner of the belligerent ox **gives him** only twenty-five dinars, which is half the value of the damage **according to** its value at **the time the injury** occurred.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:4
[Bava Kamma 34a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:4)

כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the injured ox **depreciated** in value and its worth is now less than at the time it was injured, the damage is evaluated **according to** the ox’s worth at **the time of standing trial.** In other words, the owner of the belligerent ox must pay the difference between its value before it was injured and its current value.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:5
[Bava Kamma 34a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:5)

שָׁבַח מַזִּיק – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the ox **that caused the injury,** from which the owner of the injured ox collects damages, **appreciated** in value, its owner **gives** the injured party a share of the ox **according to** its value **at the time of the injury.** If **it depreciated** in value, the owner gives him a share **according to** its value at **the time of standing trial.**


###### Bava Kamma 34a:6
[Bava Kamma 34a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:6)

אָמַר מָר: שָׁבַח מַזִּיק – נוֹתֵן כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. מַנִּי – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בַּעַל חוֹב הוּא, וְזוּזֵי הוּא דְּמַסֵּיק לֵיהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The Master said** in the first clause of the second half of the *baraita* that if the ox **that caused the damage appreciated** in value, its owner **gives** the injured party a share **according to** the ox’s value at **the time of the injury.** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is** this ruling? **It is** apparently in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who says** that the injured party **is** considered **a creditor, and it is money that he is claiming from him,** as he has no share of ownership in the belligerent ox.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:7
[Bava Kamma 34a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:7)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: שׁוּתָּפֵי נִינְהוּ! רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states a difficulty with this explanation: **Say the latter clause** of the second half of the *baraita*: If the belligerent ox **depreciated** in value, the owner gives the injured party a share **according to** its value at **the time of standing trial.** Here **we arrive at** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that the owners of the two oxen **are partners,** i.e., the injured party has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox. How can it be that **the first clause** is in accordance with **Rabbi Yishmael’s** opinion, and **the latter clause** follows the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva?**


###### Bava Kamma 34a:8
[Bava Kamma 34a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:8)

לָא, כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁפִּיטְּמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No, it is all** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** that they are partners, **and here,** in the case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, **we are dealing with** a case **where** the reason it appreciated is that its owner **fattened it.** Though the injured party has a share of ownership in the ox, he has no share in the appreciation in value, and his share is therefore calculated according to its value at the time of the injury.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:9
[Bava Kamma 34a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:9)

אִי כְּשֶׁפִּיטְּמוֹ, אֵימָא רֵישָׁא: שָׁבַח וְעָמַד עַל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. אִי כְּשֶׁפִּיטְּמו,ֹ צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is a case **where** the owner **fattened it, say the first clause** of the first half of the *baraita*, stated with regard to the injured ox: If **it appreciated** in value, and its value **stood at four hundred dinars,** the owner of the belligerent ox **gives him** compensation **according to** its value **at the time of the injury. If** this is referring to a case **where** its owner **fattened it, need it be said** that the owner of the belligerent ox is not exempt from compensation?


###### Bava Kamma 34a:10
[Bava Kamma 34a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:10)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רֵישָׁא – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בֵּין דְּפַטְּמַהּ פַּטּוֹמֵי בֵּין דִּשְׁבַחָא מִמֵּילָא, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּהֵיכָא דִּשְׁבַחָא מִמֵּילָא – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּזֶק. סֵיפָא – לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: You find** the *halakha* stated in **the first clause** of the first half of the *baraita* to be true **whether he fattened it or whether it appreciated** in value **by itself. And** the *tanna* **found it necessary** to mention this *halakha* **to teach us that** even in a case **where** the ox **appreciated** in value **by itself,** the owner of the belligerent ox **gives him** compensation **according to** its value **at the time of the injury** and not at the time of the trial. By contrast, **you find** the *halakha* stated in **the latter clause** of the second half of the *baraita*, with regard to a case where the belligerent ox appreciated in value, **only where** its owner **fattened it.**


###### Bava Kamma 34a:11
[Bava Kamma 34a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:11)

כָּחַשׁ – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין. כָּחַשׁ מֵחֲמַת מַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּכָחֲשָׁה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַתְּ מַכְחֲשַׁתְּ, וַאֲנָא יָהֵיבְנָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is stated in the latter clause of the first half of the *baraita* that if the injured ox **depreciated** in value, it is evaluated **according to** its worth at **the time of standing trial.** The Gemara asks: **Due to what did it depreciate** in value? **If we say that** the ox **depreciated** in value **due to labor** for which it was used, **let** the liable party **say to him: You reduced** its **value and I should** therefore **give** you extra compensation?


###### Bava Kamma 34a:12
[Bava Kamma 34a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:12)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דִּכְחַשׁ מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: קַרְנָא דְּתוֹרָךְ קְבִירָא בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** It is a case **where it depreciated** in value **due to the** continuous effect of the **wound, as** the injured party **can say to him: The horn of your ox is buried in it,** i.e., it is still losing value due to the wound.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:13
[Bava Kamma 34a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה כְּלוּם – אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to an innocuous **ox worth two hundred** dinars **that gored** another **ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing, Rabbi Meir said:** It is **about this** type of case that **it is stated: “Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value”** (Exodus 21:35).


###### Bava Kamma 34a:14
[Bava Kamma 34a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:14)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכֵן הֲלָכָה; קִיַּימְתָּ ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״, וְלֹא קִיַּימְתָּ ״וְגַם הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן״! וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְהַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז; שֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And that is** the ***halakha*,** yet your interpretation of the verse is incorrect. **You have upheld** the clause: **“Then they shall sell the live ox and divide its monetary value,”** which fits your interpretation of the case. But **you have not upheld** the latter clause of the verse: **“And the dead they shall also divide,”** since in the case you mentioned the carcass is worthless. Rather, to **which** case is the verse referring? **It is** the case of **an ox worth two hundred** dinars **that gored** another **ox worth two hundred** dinars, **and the carcass is worth fifty dinars.** In this case, **this** party **takes half** the value of **the living** ox, one hundred dinars, **and half the** value of the **dead** ox, twenty-five dinars; **and that** party also **takes half** the value of **the living** ox **and half** the value of **the dead** ox.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:15
[Bava Kamma 34a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:15)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְהַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז – זֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶהוּ שׁוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught:** With regard to **an ox worth two hundred** dinars **that gored an ox worth two hundred** dinars, **and the carcass is worth fifty dinars, this** party **takes half** the value of **the living** ox **and half** the value of **the dead** ox, **and that** party also **takes half** the value of **the living** ox **and half** the value of **the dead** ox, **and this is the** case of the belligerent **ox stated in the Torah.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Bava Kamma 34a:16
[Bava Kamma 34a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:16)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶהוּ שׁוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה, אֶלָּא שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה כְּלוּם, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״. אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן״? פְּחָת שֶׁפְּחָתַתּוּ מִיתָה – מַחֲצִין בַּחַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says: This is not** the case of the **ox stated in the Torah. Rather,** it is the case of **an ox worth two hundred** dinars **that gored an ox worth two hundred** dinars, **and the carcass is worth nothing.** It is **about this** case that **it is stated** in the verse: **“Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value.” Rather, how do I realize** the meaning of **“And the dead they shall also divide”?** This clause means that the **diminished** value of the dead ox **that was diminished by** its **death** is compensated for by **dividing** the value of **the live** ox between the two parties, while its owner does not receive a share in the carcass of the dead ox.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:17
[Bava Kamma 34a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:17)

מִכְּדֵי בֵּין רַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הַאי מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה שָׁקֵיל, וְהַאי מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה שָׁקֵיל; מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda** hold that in the case described by Rabbi Yehuda, where the carcass is worth fifty, **this** party **takes one hundred and twenty-five, and that** party **takes one hundred and twenty-five.** Rabbi Meir holds that the injured party keeps the carcass, worth fifty, and receives another seventy-five dinars, half the value of the damage, from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox. Its owner is thereby left with one hundred and twenty-five dinars out of the two hundred that it is worth. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the value of both oxen is split between the two parties, leaving each with one hundred and twenty-five. If so, **what is** the difference **between** the two *tanna’im*? Why does it matter in which manner the compensation is calculated?


###### Bava Kamma 34a:18
[Bava Kamma 34a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:18)

אָמַר רָבָא: פְּחַת נְבֵילָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: פְּחַת נְבֵילָה – דְּנִיזָּק הָוֵי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: פְּחַת נְבֵילָה – דְּמַזִּיק הָוֵי פַּלְגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: There is** a practical difference **between them** with regard to **the diminishing** value **of the carcass.** If the carcass depreciates in value between the ox’s death and the time it is sold, **Rabbi Meir holds** that **the diminishing** value **of the carcass** is sustained **by the injured** party. The one liable for the damage is not responsible for any depreciation in value that occurs after the loss caused by the attack has been evaluated. **And Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **half of the diminishing** value **of the carcass** is sustained **by the one liable for damage,** since he receives half of the dead ox.


###### Bava Kamma 34a:19
[Bava Kamma 34a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/34a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִם כֵּן, מָצִינוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **If so, we have found, according to Rabbi Yehuda,**