## Bava Kamma Daf 40b

###### Bava Kamma 40b:1
[Bava Kamma 40b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:1)

אִם תָּם – הֲוָה מוֹדֵינָא, וּמִפְּטַרְינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** the ox **was innocuous, I would have admitted** my liability **and would** thereby **have been exempt.** A fine is imposed only as result of the testimony of two witnesses; if the offender admits his liability, no fine is imposed. Therefore, since the liability to pay half the cost of the damage for the act of an innocuous ox is a fine, the borrower could have rendered himself exempt from liability through admission.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:2
[Bava Kamma 40b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:2)

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא מָמוֹנָא, נֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי תָּם הוּא – הֲוָה מַעֲרֵיקְנָא לֵיהּ לְאַגְמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even according to the one who says** that payment of **half the damage is** considered **monetary restitution,** not a fine, and therefore his admission would not have rendered himself exempt from liability, **let** the borrower **say to him: If** the ox **was innocuous, I would have smuggled it out to the marsh [*agma*]** so that the injured party would not find it in my possession. He would then be unable to collect damages from me, since he can collect payment only from the proceeds of the sale of the ox. By contrast, compensation for damage caused by a forewarned ox can be collected from all of the owner’s property, and the borrower had no way of rendering himself exempt from liability. Therefore, it is unclear why the borrower is liable to pay half the cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:3
[Bava Kamma 40b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:3)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּאַקְדֵּים בֵּי דִינָא, וְתַפְסֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, here we are dealing with** a case **where the court seized** the ox **first,** before the borrower had the chance to admit his liability or to smuggle the ox to the marsh. Therefore, the borrower cannot claim that he would have been able to render himself exempt from liability.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:4
[Bava Kamma 40b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:4)

אִי הָכִי, בְּעָלִים אַמַּאי מְשַׁלְּמִים חֲצִי נֶזֶק? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַתְפַּסְתֵּיהּ לְתוֹרַאי – בִּידָא [דְּ]מַאן דְּלָא מָצֵינָא לְאִשְׁתַּעוֹיֵי דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַהְדַּרְתֵּיהּ נִיהֲלָךְ, לָאו מִינָּךְ הֲווֹ שָׁקְלִי לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, why does the owner pay half** the cost of **the damage? Let him say to** the borrower: **You let my ox be seized by** the court, **with whom I cannot engage in litigation** in an attempt to reach a compromise; the court collects full payment, and you are responsible for this situation. Therefore, you should pay the entire amount. The Gemara answers that the owner is liable to pay **because** the borrower **can say to him: If I would have returned it to you, would** the court **not have taken it from you?**


###### Bava Kamma 40b:5
[Bava Kamma 40b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:5)

וְנֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי אַהְדַּרְתֵּיהּ נִיהֲלִי, הֲוָה מַעֲרֵיקְנָא לֵיהּ לְאַגְמָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: סוֹף סוֹף, לָאו מֵעֲלִיָּיה הֲווֹ מִשְׁתַּלְּמִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if that is the case, **let** the owner **say to him** in response: **If you would have returned it to me I would have smuggled it to the marsh,** and the court would not have been able to seize it. The Gemara answers: The owner cannot say this, **because** the borrower **can say to him: Ultimately, would** the injured party **not** then **have received payment from** your **superior-quality** property, as is the *halakha* in the case of a forewarned ox, where the compensation paid is not only from the proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox?


###### Bava Kamma 40b:6
[Bava Kamma 40b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:6)

הָנִיחָא הֵיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ נִכְסֵי, הֵיכָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ נִכְסֵי מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This** explanation **works out well** in a case **where** the owner **has** other **property** from which compensation can be collected, besides the ox. But **where he does not have** other **property, what is there to say?** In that case, the borrower has in fact caused him loss.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:7
[Bava Kamma 40b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:7)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי הֵיכָא דְּמִשְׁתַּעְבַּדְנָא לְדִידָךְ, הָכִי נָמֵי מִשְׁתַּעְבַּדְנָא לְהַאיְךְ – מִדְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The reason the borrower is exempt is **because** he **can say to** the owner: **Just as I am indebted to you,** to return your ox to you, **so too, I am indebted to that** injured party to whom you owe compensation. This is **due to** the ruling **of Rabbi Natan.**


###### Bava Kamma 40b:8
[Bava Kamma 40b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:8)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לַנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה, וַחֲבֵירוֹ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ – מִנַּיִן שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה, וְנוֹתְנִים לָזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says: From where** is it derived that if one **is owed one hundred dinars by another, and the other** person, i.e., the debtor, is owed one hundred dinars **by another** person, the court **appropriates** payment **from that** latter debtor **and gives** the money directly **to this** first creditor, without going through the middleman, who is both the first debtor and the second creditor? **The verse states,** with regard to returning stolen property: **“And he gives it to the one with regard to whom he is guilty”** (Numbers 5:7), indicating that there is a situation where the liable party pays a third party to whom his creditor owes money in turn.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:9
[Bava Kamma 40b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:9)

הוּעַד בְּבֵית שׁוֹאֵל, וְהֶחְזִירוֹ לַבְּעָלִים – בְּעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וְשׁוֹאֵל פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is stated at the end of the *baraita* cited earlier (40a): If the ox **was rendered forewarned in the house of the borrower, and** the borrower then **returned it to the owner** and it subsequently gored, **the owner pays half** the cost of **the damage and the borrower is exempt from** paying **any** compensation.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:10
[Bava Kamma 40b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:10)

סֵיפָא – רְשׁוּת מְשַׁנָּה, רֵישָׁא – רְשׁוּת אֵינָהּ מְשַׁנָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The last clause** of that *baraita* indicates that a change of **custody changes** the status of the ox; if it was rendered forewarned while in the borrower’s possession and was then returned to its owner, the owner pays only half the cost of the damage for any subsequent damage it might cause, as it is no longer considered forewarned. By contrast, **the first clause** of the same *baraita*, which teaches that the ox retains its status as forewarned even after being borrowed, indicates that a change of **custody does not change** the status of the ox.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:11
[Bava Kamma 40b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תִּבְרַהּ; מִי שֶׁשָּׁנָה זוֹ לֹא שָׁנָה זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** This *baraita* is **disjointed [*tavra*].** The *tanna* **who taught this** clause **did not teach that** clause.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:12
[Bava Kamma 40b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:12)

רַבָּה אָמַר: מִדְּרֵישָׁא רְשׁוּת אֵינָהּ מְשַׁנָּה, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רְשׁוּת אֵינָהּ מְשַׁנָּה. וְסֵיפָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינָךְ דִּמְיַיעֲדַתְּ לֵיהּ לְתוֹרַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: From** the fact that **the first clause** follows the opinion that a change of **custody does not change** the status of the ox, it is inferred that **the last clause also** follows the opinion that a change of **custody does not change** its status. **And this is the reason** that in **the last clause** the ox reverts to its status of innocuousness: It is **because** the owner **can say to** the borrower: **It is not in your power to render my ox forewarned,** as I did not give it to you with that intention and it was your negligence that caused the change in its status. Therefore, the owner is not liable to pay additional compensation that results from the status the ox acquired under the custody of the borrower.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:13
[Bava Kamma 40b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:13)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִדְּסֵיפָא רְשׁוּת מְשַׁנָּה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רְשׁוּת מְשַׁנָּה; וְרֵישָׁא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוֹלֵךְ, שֵׁם בְּעָלָיו עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: From** the fact that **the last clause** follows the opinion that a change of **custody changes** the status of the ox, it is inferred that **the first clause also** follows the opinion that a change of **custody changes** its status. **And this is the reason** that in **the first clause** the ox is considered forewarned even when in the custody of the borrower: It is **because wherever it goes, the name of its owner is upon it.** Since it was rendered forewarned under its owner’s custody, with whom it remains identified, it is not considered to have undergone a change of custody.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:14
[Bava Kamma 40b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:14)

שׁוֹר הָאִצְטָדִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב מִיתָה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **a stadium ox is not liable** to be put to **death,** since it was trained to gore. **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If an ox kills a person it may not be brought as an offering, even if it is not put to death. If a stadium ox kills a person, **what is** the *halakha* **with regard to** sacrificing it on **the altar?**


###### Bava Kamma 40b:15
[Bava Kamma 40b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:15)

רַב אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: פָּסוּל. רַב אָמַר כָּשֵׁר – אָנוּס הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר פָּסוּל – הֲרֵי נֶעֶבְדָ[ה] בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says** that it is **fit** to be brought as an offering, **and Shmuel says** that it is **disqualified. Rav says** that the ox is **fit** because it acted **due to circumstances beyond its control,** as goring is what it was trained to do; **and Shmuel says** that it is **disqualified as,** in any event, **a transgression was committed through it.**


###### Bava Kamma 40b:16
[Bava Kamma 40b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:16)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְאֶת הַנִּרְבָּע. ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד. ״מִן הַצֹּאן״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמּוּקְצֶה. ״וּמִן הַצֹּאן״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנּוֹגֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* that interprets the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The phrase **“from the cattle”** is mentioned **to exclude** an animal that **engaged in bestiality and** an animal that **was the object of bestiality** from eligibility to be brought as an offering. The phrase **“from the herd”** is mentioned **to exclude** an animal that had been **worshipped** as a god. **“From the flock”** is mentioned **to exclude** an animal that had been **set aside** for idol worship. The additional conjunction “or,” in the phrase **“or from the flock”** is mentioned **to exclude** an animal that **gores** a person, killing him.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:17
[Bava Kamma 40b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם נֶאֱמַר רוֹבֵעַ – לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר נוֹגֵחַ? וְאִם נֶאֱמַר נוֹגֵחַ – לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר רוֹבֵעַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Shimon said: If it is stated** that an animal that **engaged in bestiality** is disqualified from being brought as an offering, **why is it stated** that an animal that **gores** is disqualified? **And if it is stated** that an animal that **gores** is disqualified, **why is it stated** that an animal that **engaged in bestiality** is disqualified?


###### Bava Kamma 40b:18
[Bava Kamma 40b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:18)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּרוֹבֵעַ שֶׁאֵין בַּנּוֹגֵחַ, וְיֵשׁ בַּנּוֹגֵחַ שֶׁאֵין בָּרוֹבֵעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains: It is **because there is** a stringency **pertaining to** an animal that **engaged in bestiality that does not pertain to** one that **gores, and,** conversely, **there is** a stringency **pertaining to** an animal that **gores that does not pertain to** an animal that **engaged in bestiality.**


###### Bava Kamma 40b:19
[Bava Kamma 40b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:19)

רוֹבֵעַ – עָשָׂה בּוֹ אוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן, נוֹגֵחַ – לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ אוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן. נוֹגֵחַ – מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר, רוֹבֵעַ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר. לְפִיכָךְ הוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר רוֹבֵעַ, וְהוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר נוֹגֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He clarifies: With regard to an animal that **engaged in bestiality,** the Torah **renders** a case where **it** is a victim of **circumstances beyond its control like** a case where it acted **willfully,** as it is disqualified in either case. By contrast, with regard to an animal that **gores,** the Torah **does not render** a case where **it** is a victim of **circumstances beyond its control like** a case where it acted **willfully.** Conversely, with regard to an animal that **gores,** its owner **pays** the **ransom;** whereas the owner of an animal that **engaged in bestiality does not pay a ransom. Therefore,** the Torah **had to state** that an animal that **engaged in bestiality** is disqualified **and had to state** that an animal that **gores** is disqualified.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:20
[Bava Kamma 40b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:20)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, רוֹבֵעַ – עָשָׂה בּוֹ אוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן, נוֹגֵחַ – לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ אוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לָאו לְקׇרְבָּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that with regard to an animal that **engaged in bestiality,** the Torah **renders** a case where **it** is a victim of **circumstances beyond its control like** a case where it acted **willfully.** By contrast, with regard to an animal that **gores,** the Torah **does not render** a case where **it** is a victim of **circumstances beyond its control like** a case where it acted **willfully. With regard to what *halakha*** is this stated? Is it **not with regard to** the animal’s eligibility to be brought as **an offering?** Accordingly, a stadium ox, which is considered a victim of circumstances beyond its control, is fit to be brought as an offering, contrary to Shmuel’s opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:21
[Bava Kamma 40b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:21)

לָא, לִקְטָלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No, it is with regard to** the animal being put to **death,** i.e., the ox is not killed if it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:22
[Bava Kamma 40b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:22)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא; דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ לְקׇרְבָּן, ״נוֹגֵחַ לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ אוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן״?! לָאו אוֹנֶס דִּידֵיהּ כְּתִיב, וְלָאו רָצוֹן דִּידֵיהּ כְּתִיב! אֶלָּא לָאו לִקְטָלָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**So too, it is reasonable, as if you say** that the ruling of the *baraita* is **with regard to** the animal’s eligibility to be brought as **an offering,** how can the *baraita* state the following: By contrast, with regard to an animal that **gores,** the Torah **does not render** a case where **it** is a victim of **circumstances beyond its control like** a case where it acted **willfully. Neither** are **circumstances beyond its control written** in that context, **nor is its willingness written;** the issue is not mentioned in the Torah at all. **Rather,** is the ruling of the *baraita* **not** stated **with regard to** the animal being put to **death,** where this distinction is indicated in the Torah? The mishna interprets the phrase: “And if an ox gores” (Exodus 21:28), as indicating that the ox is not put to death in a case where it is induced to gore; therefore, this distinction is mentioned in the Torah with regard to the animal being put to death. Accordingly, the *baraita* does not address the topic of dispute between Rav and Shmuel.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:23
[Bava Kamma 40b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:23)

אָמַר מָר: נוֹגֵחַ – מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר, רוֹבֵעַ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּרַבְעַהּ וְקַטְלַהּ – מָה לִי קַטְלַהּ בְּקַרְנָא, מָה לִי קַטְלַהּ בִּרְבִיעָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the same *baraita*: With regard to an animal that **gores,** its owner **pays the ransom,** whereas the owner of an animal that **engaged in bestiality does not pay a ransom. What are the circumstances** under which the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality is not liable to pay the ransom? **If we say that it** is when the animal **engaged in bestiality with** a woman **and killed her** in the process, **what** is the difference **to me** whether **it killed her with its horn,** and **what** is the difference **to me** whether **it killed her through bestiality?**


###### Bava Kamma 40b:24
[Bava Kamma 40b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:24)

וְאֶלָּא דְּרַבְעַהּ וְלָא קַטְלַהּ? הַאי דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קַטְלַהּ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And rather,** if the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the animal **engaged in bestiality with her but did not kill her,** in that case, **this** *halakha* **that he does not pay a ransom is** simply **due to** the fact that **it did not kill her,** so paying ransom is irrelevant; it is not a feature associated with the *halakhot* of an animal that engaged in bestiality.


###### Bava Kamma 40b:25
[Bava Kamma 40b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/40b:25)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם דְּרַבְעַהּ וְלָא קַטְלַהּ, דְּאַתְיוּהָ לְבֵי דִינָא וְקַטְלוּהָ; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Actually,** it is referring to a case **where** the animal **engaged in bestiality with her but did not kill her,** and it is still noteworthy that its owner is not liable to pay ransom, **as** the woman **was brought to court, and they executed her** for her transgression. **Lest you say**