## Bava Kamma Daf 36a

###### Bava Kamma 36a:1
[Bava Kamma 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:1)

רָאוּי לִיטּוֹל, וְאֵין לוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי זֶה מִשְׁתַּלֵּם לַקָּטָן מִן הַמּוּעָד, וְלַגָּדוֹל מִן הַתָּם! דִּתְפַס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna does not indicate that the injured party receives compensation. Rather, it indicates that **it is fitting for him to take** compensation, **but** in practice **he does not** receive any compensation. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **he receives payment for** his **small ox from the** liable party’s **forewarned** ox, **and for** his **large** ox **from the** liable party’s **innocuous** ox? Evidently he does receive payment. The Gemara answers: This *baraita* is also 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. The court cannot compel the defendant to pay him *ab initio*.


###### Bava Kamma 36a:2
[Bava Kamma 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:2)

הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד – שְׁנֵיהֶם חַיָּיבִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִפַּרְזִיקָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, שְׁוָורִים תַּמִּים שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ – רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה, רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In a case where an ox was injured by one of two oxen that were pursuing it, if **both** oxen **belonged to one person, both are liable. Rava of Parzika said to Rav Ashi:** Should one **learn from** the fact that both are liable that in a case of **innocuous oxen that caused damage,** if the injured party **wishes,** he can **collect** damages **from** the proceeds from the sale of **this** ox, and if **he wishes,** he can **collect from** the sale of **that** ox?


###### Bava Kamma 36a:3
[Bava Kamma 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:3)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמוּעָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi rejected this inference: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing **with forewarned** oxen, in which case the injured party does not collect damages exclusively from the belligerent ox but rather from any of its owner’s property. Therefore, he can collect from either ox as compensation.


###### Bava Kamma 36a:4
[Bava Kamma 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:4)

אִי בְּמוּעָדִין, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר: ״גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק״, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן הִזִּיק״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אִי בְּמוּעָדִין, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? סוֹף סוֹף, דְּמֵי תּוֹרָא מְעַלְּיָא בָּעֵי לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava of Parzika replied: **If** the mishna is referring **to forewarned** oxen, **say the latter clause** of the mishna: If **one** of the belligerent oxen **was large and** the other **one** was **small,** and **the injured** party **says** that **the large** ox **caused the damage, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small** ox **caused the damage, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. If** this is referring **to forewarned** oxen, **what difference does it make to him** which one caused the injury? **Ultimately,** the liable party **is required to pay** the **value of a full ox** in any case.


###### Bava Kamma 36a:5
[Bava Kamma 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵיפָא בְּתַמִּין, וְרֵישָׁא בְּמוּעָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: The latter clause** of the mishna is referring **to innocuous** oxen, **and the first clause** is referring **to forewarned** oxen.


###### Bava Kamma 36a:6
[Bava Kamma 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא סָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אִי בְּמוּעָדִין, ״חַיָּיבִים״?! ״חַיָּיב גַּבְרָא״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! וְתוּ, מַאי ״שְׁנֵיהֶם״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa the Elder said to Rav Ashi: If** it is referring **to** a case of **forewarned** oxen, where compensation is not collected specifically from the belligerent ox, why does the mishna state: **They are liable,** in the plural form? **It should have** stated: The **man is liable. And furthermore, what** is the word **both** in the statement: Both are liable, referring to?


###### Bava Kamma 36a:7
[Bava Kamma 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:7)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם בְּתַמִּין; וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שׁוּתָּפִין נִינְהוּ; וְטַעְמָא דְּאִיתַנְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ – דְּלָא מָצֵי מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל לֵיתַנְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ – מָצֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה דְּהַאי תּוֹרָא אַזְּקָךְ, וַאֲשַׁלֵּם לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the first clause of the mishna is **actually** referring **to innocuous** oxen, **and it is** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that the injured party and the liable party **are partners,** as they share ownership of the belligerent ox. **And** therefore, **the reason** that the owner of the belligerent oxen is liable is that **the two of them are** available, **so he cannot dismiss** the injured party by claiming that this ox is not the one that caused the injury. **But** if **the two of them are not** available, e.g., if one died or was lost, **he can say to** the injured party: **Go bring proof that** it was **this ox** that **caused you damage, and I will pay you** compensation.


###### Bava Kamma 36a:8
[Bava Kamma 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:8)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמַּנִּיחַ**


###### Bava Kamma 36a:9
[Bava Kamma 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:9)

מַתְנִי׳ **שׁוֹר** שֶׁנָּגַח אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שְׁוָורִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה – יְשַׁלֵּם לָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶם, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מוֹתָר – יַחֲזִיר לְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מוֹתָר – יַחֲזִיר לְשֶׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִשְׂכָּר; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to an innocuous **ox that gored four or five** other **oxen one after the other,** its owner **shall pay** the owner of **the last** one **of them** half of the damages from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox; **and if there is surplus** value left **in** his ox after he pays that owner, **he shall return** it **to** the owner of **the previous** ox that was gored; **and if there is** still **surplus** value left **in** his ox after he pays that owner, **he shall return** it **to the** one **prior to the previous** one. The principle is that the owner of **the latest** of the oxen gored in succession **gains.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Bava Kamma 36a:10
[Bava Kamma 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:10)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה כְּלוּם – זֶה נוֹטֵל מָנֶה, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל מָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says** that the division of the compensation is as follows: With regard to an innocuous **ox worth two hundred** dinars **that gored an ox worth two hundred** dinars, thereby killing it, **and the carcass is worthless,** the injured party **takes one hundred dinars,** i.e., half the cost of the damage, from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, **and** the owner of the belligerent ox **takes** the remaining **one hundred dinars.**


###### Bava Kamma 36a:11
[Bava Kamma 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:11)

חָזַר וְנָגַח שׁוֹר אַחֵר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם – הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מָנֶה; וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו – זֶה נוֹטֵל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the ox, after goring the first ox but before compensation had been paid, **again gored another ox worth two hundred** dinars, and the carcass is worthless, the owner of **the last** ox that was gored **takes one hundred dinars, and** with regard to payment for **the previous** goring, the owner of **this** ox that was gored **takes fifty dinars,** which is half the remaining value of the belligerent ox after one hundred dinars were paid to the last injured party, **and** the owner of **that** belligerent ox **takes** the remaining **fifty dinars.**


###### Bava Kamma 36a:12
[Bava Kamma 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:12)

חָזַר וְנָגַח שׁוֹר אַחֵר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם – הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מָנֶה, וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, וּשְׁנַיִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – דִּינַר זָהָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the ox, after goring the first two oxen but before compensation had been paid, again **gored another ox worth two hundred** dinars, and the carcass is worthless, **the last** injured party **takes one hundred dinars, the previous one** takes **fifty dinars, and the first two,** i.e., the first injured party and the owner of the belligerent ox, divide the remainder, each receiving **one gold dinar,** which is worth twenty-five silver dinars.


###### Bava Kamma 36a:13
[Bava Kamma 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Whose** opinion is expressed in the **mishna?** Apparently the mishna is **neither in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, nor in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** (see 33a).


###### Bava Kamma 36a:14
[Bava Kamma 36a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/36a:14)

אִי כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת נִינְהוּ, הַאי ״אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִשְׂכָּר״?! ״רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן נִשְׂכָּר״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אִי כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָא דְשׁוּתָּפֵי הוּא, הַאי ״יֵשׁ בּוֹ מוֹתָר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** the mishna had been **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who says** that the owners of the gored oxen **are** considered **creditors** of the owner of the belligerent ox, then instead of stating **this** *halakha* that the owner of **the latest** of the oxen gored in succession **gains,** the mishna **should have** stated that the owner of **the earliest** of the oxen gored in succession **gains,** since the creditor to whom the ox is initially liened collects first. And **if** the mishna had been **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that **the** belligerent **ox belongs to** its owner and to the injured party, who are considered **partners** in the ownership of the ox, then instead of stating **this** ruling that **if there is surplus** value remaining in the ox after he pays that owner