## Bava Kamma Daf 35b

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

שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִים. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד – שְׁנֵיהֶם חַיָּיבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the two of them are exempt,** since each of them rejects the claim of the injured party that his ox caused the injury. **If both** oxen **belonged to one person, both are liable,** as will be explained in the Gemara.


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

הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק״, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן הִזִּיק״; אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״מוּעָד הִזִּיק״, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָּם הִזִּיק״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the pursuing oxen both belonged to one person, and were both innocuous, so that restitution is paid exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, and **one was large and** the other **one small,** in this case, if **the injured** party **says** that **the large** ox **caused the damage,** and he is therefore entitled to receive restitution for half the damage from the value of the large ox, **but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small** ox **caused the damage,** and half of its value is not sufficient to cover half the damage; or, similarly, in a case where **one** ox **is innocuous and one is forewarned,** and **the injured** party **says:** The **forewarned** ox **caused the damage,** and the injured party is therefore eligible to receive full damages, **but the one liable for damage says: No; rather,** the **innocuous** ox **caused the damage,** in which case he is liable to pay only half the damage; in both of the above cases, the principle is that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.**


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

הָיוּ הַנִּיזָּקִין שְׁנַיִם – אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיקִין שְׁנַיִם – אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן; הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וְקָטָן אֶת הַקָּטָן״, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וְגָדוֹל אֶת הַקָּטָן״; אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״מוּעָד הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וְתָם אֶת הַקָּטָן״, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָּם אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וּמוּעָד אֶת הַקָּטָן״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the **injured** animals **were two** oxen, **one large and** the other **one small, and the ones that caused the damage** were also **two** oxen, **one large and one small,** and **the injured** party **says: The large one injured the large one and the small one injured the small one, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small one** injured **the large one,** in which case, if half the value of the belligerent ox does not cover half the damage, he is not required to pay more, **and the large one** injured **the small one;** or, similarly, if **one** of the belligerent oxen was **innocuous and one forewarned,** and **the injured** party **says:** The **forewarned** ox **injured the large** one, **and** the **innocuous** ox injured **the small one, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather,** the **innocuous** ox injured **the large one and** the **forewarned** ox injured **the small one;** here too, **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: [זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת] חֲלוּקִים עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל סוֹמְכוֹס, דְּאָמַר: מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק – חוֹלְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna rules that in a case where there is uncertainty with regard to whether it was the pursuing ox that caused the injury to the other ox, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: That is to say** that **the colleagues of Sumakhos, who says** that **property of uncertain ownership is divided, disagree with his** opinion.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס אֲפִילּוּ בָּרִי וּבָרִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס אֲפִילּוּ בָּרִי וּבָרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba bar Memel said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Does Sumakhos state** this principle **even** in the case of **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim, i.e., where both parties maintain the certainty of their claims, as appears to be the case in the mishna? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba **said to him: Yes, Sumakhos says** this **even** in a case of **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim.


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

וּמִמַּאי דְּמַתְנִיתִין בְּבָרִי וּבָרִי הוּא? דְּקָתָנֵי: זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** is it inferred **that the mishna** is referring to a case of **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim? **As it teaches** that **this** one, the owner of the injured ox, **says: Your ox injured** my ox, **and that** one, the owner of the pursuing ox, **says: No, rather** etc., indicating that both make their claims with certainty.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: מִדְּרֵישָׁא בָּרִי וּבָרִי – סֵיפָא נָמֵי בָּרִי וּבָרִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa objects to this** interpretation of the case: **From** the suggestion **that** the case in **the first clause** of the mishna is one where there is **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim, it may be inferred that **the latter clause,** the subsequent clause in the mishna, **also** is referring to a case where there is **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim.


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

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, נִיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק״, וּמַזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן הִזִּיק״; אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, נִיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״מוּעָד הִזִּיק״, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָּם הִזִּיק״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **say the latter clause:** If **one was large and** the other **one small,** and **the injured** party **says** that **the large** ox **caused the damage, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small** ox **caused the damage;** or if **one** ox **is innocuous and one is forewarned,** and **the injured** party **says:** The **forewarned** ox **caused the damage, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather,** the **innocuous** ox **caused the damage, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.**


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

הָא לָא מַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה – שָׁקֵיל כִּדְאָמַר מַזִּיק; נֵימָא תִּהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה בַּר נָתָן – דְּאָמַר: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִים – פָּטוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This indicates that **if he does not bring proof, he takes** compensation **according to what the one liable for damage says.** If it is a case where both parties maintain certainty of their claims, **let us say** that this mishna **is a conclusive refutation of** the statement of **Rabba bar Natan, who says** that if one **claims** that another owes him **wheat,** which he claims he deposited with him, **and** the other **concedes** that he owes **him barley,** which is less expensive than wheat, he is **exempt** from any payment, since he did not admit to what was claimed, and what he did admit was not claimed. Similarly, here, the injured party claims that it was the large ox that injured his ox, and the defendant admits that his small ox caused the injury, but not the large ox. His admission does not correspond to the claim. Yet, he is apparently liable to pay according to his admission, contrary to the ruling of Rabba bar Natan.


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

אֶלָּא בְּבָרִי וְשֶׁמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this clause must be referring to a case where there is **a certain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, i.e., one party maintains certainty of his claim, while the other merely states his claim as a possibility.


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

דְּקָאָמַר בָּרִי מַאן, דְּקָאָמַר שֶׁמָּא מַאן? אִי נֵימָא דְּקָאָמַר נִיזָּק בָּרִי וְקָאָמַר מַזִּיק שֶׁמָּא, אַכַּתִּי לֵימָא תִּהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה בַּר נָתָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who is** the one **who states a certain** claim, and **who is** the one **who states an uncertain** claim? **If we say that** it is **the injured** party who **states** with **a certain** claim that the large ox caused the injury, **and** it is **the one liable for damage** who **states an uncertain claim** that it was the small one, **let us still say that** the mishna **is a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rabba bar Natan,** since the defendant does not admit to the claim of the injured party, and nevertheless he is liable to pay compensation from the small one.


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

אֶלָּא דְּקָאָמַר נִיזָּק שֶׁמָּא, וְקָאָמַר מַזִּיק בָּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be a case **where the injured** party **states an uncertain** claim that it was the large ox that caused the injury, **and the one liable for damage states a certain** claim that it was the small one. Since the claimant does not contradict the defendant’s admission, the latter is liable to pay the amount that he admitted he owes.


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

וּמִדְּסֵיפָא נִיזָּק שֶׁמָּא וּמַזִּיק בָּרִי, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי נִיזָּק שֶׁמָּא וּמַזִּיק בָּרִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the mishna is referring to a case where **the injured** party states **an uncertain** claim **and the one liable for damage** states **a certain** claim, it may be inferred that **the first clause** is **also** referring to a case where **the injured** party states **an uncertain** claim that it was the defendant’s ox that injured his ox, **and the one liable for damage** states **a certain** claim that it was injured by a stone. It is not referring to a case of two certain claims as inferred above.


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

וְאָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס אֲפִילּוּ בְּהָא – דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּלָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Sumakhos state** his ruling that the disputed property is divided between the two parties **even with regard to this** case, where the claimant states an uncertain claim, so **that it was necessary** for the mishna **to teach us that** according to the other Rabbis it is **not** divided? Certainly Sumakhos would concede that in this case the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.


###### Bava Kamma 35b:15
[Bava Kamma 35b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:15)

לָא; סֵיפָא נִיזָּק שֶׁמָּא וּמַזִּיק בָּרִי, רֵישָׁא נִיזָּק בָּרִי וּמַזִּיק שֶׁמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No;** although **the latter clause** is referring to a case where **the injured** party states **an uncertain** claim **and the one liable for damage** states **a certain** claim, **the first clause** is referring to a case where **the injured** party states **a certain** claim **and the one liable for damage** states **an uncertain** claim. It is with regard to this case that the Rabbis disagree with the opinion of Sumakhos that the property is divided.


###### Bava Kamma 35b:16
[Bava Kamma 35b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:16)

וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָא רֵישָׁא לְסֵיפָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this interpretation: **But** according to this interpretation, **the first clause is not similar to the last clause.** Why not explain the first clause as referring to a case of two certain claims?


###### Bava Kamma 35b:17
[Bava Kamma 35b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:17)

אָמְרִי: בָּרִי וְשֶׁמָּא, שֶׁמָּא וּבָרִי – חַד מִילְּתָא הִיא; בָּרִי וּבָרִי, שֶׁמָּא וּבָרִי – תְּרֵי מִילֵּי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: A case of **a certain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, and a case of **an uncertain** claim **and a certain** claim, **are one matter.** Therefore, the two clauses are congruent. By contrast, a case of **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim, and a case of **an uncertain** claim **and a certain** claim, **are two matters.** Therefore, the first clause of the mishna cannot be referring to a case of two certain claims.


###### Bava Kamma 35b:18
[Bava Kamma 35b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:18)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר נָתָן: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִין – פָּטוּר. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִין – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss **the** matter **itself** that was mentioned above. **Rabba bar Natan says:** If one **claims** that another owes him **wheat, and** the other **concedes** that he owes **him barley,** the latter is **exempt** from payment. The Gemara asks: **What** novel element **is** this **teaching us? We** already **learned** it in a mishna: If one **claims** that another owes him **wheat, and** the other **concedes** that he owes **him barley,** he is **exempt** (*Shevuot* 38b).


###### Bava Kamma 35b:19
[Bava Kamma 35b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:19)

אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: פָּטוּר מִדְּמֵי חִטִּין, וְחַיָּיב בִּדְמֵי שְׂעוֹרִין. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָטוּר לִגְמָרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** it had been taught only **from there, I would say** the mishna means that he is **exempt from** payment of **the value of the wheat but liable to** pay **the value of the barley,** which he conceded that he owes. Therefore, Rabba bar Natan **teaches us that** the mishna means that he is **completely exempt,** even from paying for the barley.


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

תְּנַן: הָיוּ הַנִּיזָּקִין שְׁנַיִם – אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן וְכוּ׳. הָא לָא מַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה – שָׁקֵיל כִּדְקָאָמַר מַזִּיק; אַמַּאי? חִטִּים וּשְׂעוֹרִים נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to this statement: **We learned** in the mishna here that if the **injured** animals **were two** oxen, **one large and** the other **one small,** and the ones that caused the damage were also two oxen, one large and one small, and the injured party claims that the large one injured the large one, and the small one injured the small one, and the liable party claims that the small one injured the large one, and the large one injured the small one, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. This indicates that **if** the injured party **does not bring proof** for his claim, **he takes** compensation **according to what the one liable for damage says.** According to Rabba bar Natan’s statement, **why** does he receive compensation at all? The case **is** parallel to the case of **wheat and barley,** and the defendant should be entirely exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 35b:21
[Bava Kamma 35b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:21)

רָאוּי לִיטּוֹל – וְאֵין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna does not indicate that the injured party receives compensation, rather, that **it is fitting for him to take** compensation. **But** in practice **he does not** receive any compensation.


###### Bava Kamma 35b:22
[Bava Kamma 35b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:22)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי זֶה מִשְׁתַּלֵּם עַל הַקָּטָן מִן הַגָּדוֹל, וְלַגָּדוֹל מִן הַקָּטָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that the injured party **receives payment for** his **small ox from the** liable party’s **large** ox, **and for** his **large** ox **from the** liable party’s **small** ox? Evidently he does receive payment.


###### Bava Kamma 35b:23
[Bava Kamma 35b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:23)

דִּתְפַס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the injured party **seized** the defendant’s ox, in which case the court allows it to remain in his possession, since his taking it was appropriate, although the court cannot compel the defendant to pay him *ab initio*.


###### Bava Kamma 35b:24
[Bava Kamma 35b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/35b:24)

תְּנַן: הָיָה אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״מוּעָד הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וְתָם אֶת הַקָּטָן״, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָּם אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וּמוּעָד אֶת הַקָּטָן״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָא לָא מַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה – שָׁקֵיל כִּדְקָאָמַר מַזִּיק; וְאַמַּאי? חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabba bar Natan’s statement from the last clause of the mishna as well: **We learned** in the mishna that if **one** of the belligerent oxen **was innocuous and** the other **one** was **forewarned,** and **the injured** party **says:** The **forewarned** ox **injured the large one and** the **innocuous** ox injured **the small one, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather,** the **innocuous** ox injured **the large one and** the **forewarned** ox injured **the small one,** in this case, **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.** This indicates that **if he does not bring proof** for his claim, **he takes** compensation **according to what the one liable for damage says. Why** does he receive compensation at all? The case **is** parallel to the case of **wheat and barley.**