## Bava Kamma Daf 35a

###### Bava Kamma 35a:1
[Bava Kamma 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:1)

אַף הוּא נָמֵי דְּלָא קָבָעֵי לֵיהּ; וְקָתָנֵי: פָּטוּר – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִדּוֹן בְּנַפְשׁוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**so too,** in the case where **he** set the fire, it is presumably a case **where he does not need** the ashes. **And** nevertheless, the mishna **teaches** that he is **exempt because he is sentenced to death.** Apparently, one who lights a fire on Shabbat is liable even if he does not need the ashes, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:2
[Bava Kamma 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:2)

לֹא; שׁוֹרוֹ דּוּמְיָא דִידֵיהּ – מָה הוּא דְּקָבָעֵי לֵיהּ, אַף שׁוֹרוֹ דְּקָבָעֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** the comparison is the other way around; the case where **his ox** set the fire **is similar to** the case where **he** set the fire. **Just as** the case where **he** is liable for lighting a fire on Shabbat is one **where he needs** the ashes, **so too,** the case of **his ox** setting fire to the haystack is one **where it needs** the ashes.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:3
[Bava Kamma 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:3)

שׁוֹרוֹ הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַוְיָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּשׁוֹר פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁעָלְתָה לוֹ נְשִׁיכָה בְּגַבּוֹ, וְקָא בָּעֵי לְמִקְלְיֵיהּ וְאִיגַּנְדַּר בְּקִוטְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In the case where **his ox** set the fire, **how can you find these** circumstances, where it did so because it needed the ashes? **Rav Avya said to him: Here we are dealing with an intelligent ox that was bitten on its back and wants to burn down** the haystack **and** then **roll around [*iggandar*] in the ashes** in order to heal the bite.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:4
[Bava Kamma 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:4)

וּמְנָא יָדְעִינַן? דִּלְבָתַר דְּקַלְיֵיהּ קָמִגַּנְדַּר בְּקִוטְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do we know** that this is the reason that it set the fire? The Gemara answers: **Because after** the ox **burned** the haystack, **it was rolling around in the ashes.**


###### Bava Kamma 35a:5
[Bava Kamma 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:5)

וּמִי אִיכָּא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? אִין; דְּהָהוּא תּוֹרָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַב פָּפָּא דַּהֲוָה כָּיְבִין לֵיהּ חִינְכֵיהּ, עָיֵיל וּפַתְקֵיהּ לְנָזְיָיתָא, וְשָׁתֵי שִׁיכְרָא וְאִיתַּסִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is there** really **a case like this?** The Gemara answers: **Yes, as a certain ox that was at the house of Rav Pappa had a toothache. It went inside, and broke the lid** of a utensil, **and drank the liquor** inside **and was cured.** Evidently there are oxen with this level of intelligence.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:6
[Bava Kamma 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:6)

אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ שׁוֹרוֹ דּוּמְיָא דִידֵיהּ?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי: שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁבִּיֵּישׁ – פָּטוּר, וְהוּא שֶׁבִּיֵּישׁ – חַיָּיב. שׁוֹרוֹ דּוּמְיָא דִידֵיהּ נִתְכַּוֵּון לְבַיֵּישׁ – הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said before Rav Pappa: How can you say** that the case involving **his ox is similar to** the case involving **him? But doesn’t** the mishna **teach:** If **his ox caused** a person **humiliation**, he is **exempt, but** if **he humiliated** someone, he is **liable?** If the case of **his ox is** understood to be **similar to** the case involving **him, how can you find** a case where the ox **intended to humiliate** the person? One is liable for humiliating someone only when he intends to do so, and an ox never has intention to humiliate.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:7
[Bava Kamma 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:7)

כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון לְהַזִּיק. דְּאָמַר מָר: נִתְכַּוֵּון לְהַזִּיק – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּון לְבַיֵּישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is a case **where** the ox **intended to cause injury.** If it was the action of a person, he would be liable for the humiliation he caused as well, **as the Master said:** In a case where **a person intended to cause injury,** he is liable for humiliation **even if he did not intend to humiliate** his victim.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:8
[Bava Kamma 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:8)

רָבָא אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין בְּשׁוֹגֵג,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** a different solution with regard to the difficulty that the mishna poses to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **The mishna** is referring **to** a case where one lit a fire on Shabbat **unintentionally.** Although he is not liable to receive the death penalty, nevertheless, since he performed a prohibited action that would carry the death penalty were it to be performed deliberately, he is still exempt from monetary restitution.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:9
[Bava Kamma 35a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:9)

וְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה – דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: מַכֵּה אָדָם וּמַכֵּה בְּהֵמָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: This is **in accordance with what the school of Ḥizkiyya taught, as the school of Ḥizkiyya taught:** The verse states: “And he who kills an animal shall pay for it, and he who kills a man shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:21), indicating that **one who kills a man and one who kills an animal** are comparable.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:10
[Bava Kamma 35a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:10)

מָה מַכֵּה בְּהֵמָה – לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בָּהּ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד, בֵּין מִתְכַּוֵּון לְשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּון, בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְדֶרֶךְ עֲלִיָּיה, לְפוֹטְרוֹ מָמוֹן אֶלָּא לְחַיְּיבוֹ מָמוֹן; אַף מַכֵּה אָדָם – לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד, בֵּין מִתְכַּוֵּון לְשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּון, בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְדֶרֶךְ עֲלִיָּיה, לְחַיְּיבוֹ מָמוֹן אֶלָּא לְפוֹטְרוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This teaches that **just as** with regard to **one who kills an animal,** the Torah **did not differentiate** between **whether** he does so **unintentionally or whether** he does so **intentionally, whether advertently or inadvertently, whether by way of descent or by way of ascent,** and this was not **to exempt him from** paying **monetary restitution** in all these cases but **rather to render him liable** to pay **monetary restitution,** as one who kills an animal is liable in any event, **similarly, with regard to one who kills a man, do not differentiate** between **whether** he does so **intentionally or unintentionally, whether advertently or inadvertently, whether by way of descent or by way of ascent,** and this was not **to render him liable** to pay **monetary restitution** for the damage he causes in the process of killing him, but **rather to exempt him from** paying **monetary restitution** in any event. It is derived from here that one who commits a transgression carrying the death penalty is exempt from paying damages for his action, even if he is not in practice given the death penalty.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:11
[Bava Kamma 35a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:11)

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: מִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג? וְהָא ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּדּוֹן בְּנַפְשׁוֹ״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said to Rava: Can you** really **interpret** the mishna as referring **to** a case where the transgression was **unintentional? But doesn’t it teach** that the transgressor is exempt **because he is sentenced to death,** which is only the case if the transgression was intentional?


###### Bava Kamma 35a:12
[Bava Kamma 35a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:12)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֵּיוָן דִּבְמֵזִיד נִדּוֹן בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי – דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְאֶפְרוֹ; הַשְׁתָּא בְּשׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answered that **this is** what the mishna **is saying:** He is exempt, **since** when this action is performed **intentionally,** the transgressor is liable to be **sentenced to death. And what are the circumstances** in which one is liable to receive the death penalty for deliberately lighting a fire on Shabbat? It is a case **where he needs the ashes.** Therefore, even **now, when** the transgression was **unintentional, he is exempt** from paying damages.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:13
[Bava Kamma 35a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר שׁוֹר אַחֵר, וְהוּזַּק; זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא בְּסֶלַע לָקָה״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **an ox that was pursuing another ox, and** the ox being pursued **became injured,** but there are no witnesses as to how it was injured, and **this** one, the owner of the injured ox, **says** to the owner of the pursuing ox: **Your ox injured** my ox, and you are liable to pay me damages, **and that** one, the owner of the pursuing ox, **says** in response: **No; rather, it was hurt by a rock,** and I am not liable, then in this case, **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.** As long as the owner of the injured ox cannot prove that the injury was inflicted by the pursuing ox, the owner of the pursuing ox is not liable.


###### Bava Kamma 35a:14
[Bava Kamma 35a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35a:14)

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִים אַחַר אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where **two** oxen, belonging to two different owners, **were pursuing one** ox belonging to a third person, and that ox was injured by one of the pursuing oxen, and **this** one, the owner of one of the pursuing oxen, **says** to the owner of the other: It was **your ox** that **caused the injury, and that** one, the owner of the other pursuing ox, **says:** No, it was **your ox** that **caused the injury,**