## Bava Kamma Daf 45a

###### Bava Kamma 45a:1
[Bava Kamma 45a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:1)

מָכוּר, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁחָטוֹ – בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר, הֶחְזִירוֹ שׁוֹמֵר לְבֵית בְּעָלָיו – מוּחְזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**it is** considered legally **sold** and belongs to the purchaser for all purposes. Similarly, if **he consecrated it, it is** halakhically **consecrated,** and all the *halakhot* of consecrated property apply to it. If **he slaughtered it,** one **is permitted** to eat **its meat.** If **a bailee** charged with safeguarding it **returned it to its owner’s house** before the verdict **it is** considered to be **returned,** and the owner has no further claim against the bailee.


###### Bava Kamma 45a:2
[Bava Kamma 45a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:2)

מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ – מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ אֵינוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁחָטוֹ – בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר, הֶחְזִירוֹ שׁוֹמֵר לְבֵית בְּעָלָיו – אֵינוֹ מוּחְזָר. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אַף מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ – הֶחְזִירוֹ שׁוֹמֵר לִבְעָלָיו, מוּחְזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **once its verdict has been issued,** if the owner **sells it, it is not** considered **sold,** since the ox is no longer his. Similarly, if **he consecrates it, it is not** considered **consecrated.** If **he slaughters it, its meat is forbidden.** If **a bailee returns it to its owner’s house it is not** considered to have been **returned,** since the ox is considered to have been killed. **Rabbi Ya’akov says: Even once its verdict has been issued,** if **the bailee returns it to its owner it is** considered to have been **returned.**


###### Bava Kamma 45a:3
[Bava Kamma 45a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:3)

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין אוֹמְרִין בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״, וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: אוֹמְרִין בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that they disagree about this: The Rabbis hold** that **with regard to items from which it is prohibited to** derive **benefit one does not say: That which is yours is before you,** and no compensation is required. Once the deposited item was rendered forbidden, the bailee cannot return it as is to its owner, claiming that since it has not been physically damaged he has fulfilled his obligation to return it and therefore the owner has no further claims against him. **And Rabbi Ya’akov holds** that **one does say, with regard to items from which it is prohibited to** derive **benefit: That which is yours is before you.**


###### Bava Kamma 45a:4
[Bava Kamma 45a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אוֹמְרִין בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״, דְּאִם כֵּן – נִפְלוֹג לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** Clearly, according **to everyone, one says with regard to items from which it is prohibited to** derive **benefit: That which is yours is before you; as, if** this was the subject of disagreement, **let them dispute** this matter **with regard to leavened bread on Passover,** which is a more common case of an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit.


###### Bava Kamma 45a:5
[Bava Kamma 45a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:5)

אֶלָּא הָכָא, בְּגוֹמְרִין דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹר שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין גּוֹמְרִין דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹר אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו; דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַהְדַּרְתֵּיהּ נִיהֲלִי – הֲוָה מַעְרֵקְנָא לֵיהּ לְאַגְמָא, הַשְׁתָּא – אַתְפַּשְׂתֵּיהּ לְתוֹרַאי בִּידָא דְּלָא יָכֵילְנָא לְאִשְׁתַּעוֹיֵי דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, here they disagree with regard to** the matter of **issuing the verdict for an ox in its absence. The Rabbis hold that the verdict for an ox can be issued only in its presence.** Therefore, the bailee is not exempt by returning it after the verdict, **as** the owner **could say to him: If you had returned** the ox **to me** before the verdict **I would have smuggled it to the marsh,** and the court would not have been able to sentence it to stoning. **Now you** have **let my ox be seized by** the court, **with whom I cannot engage in litigation.**


###### Bava Kamma 45a:6
[Bava Kamma 45a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:6)

וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: גּוֹמְרִין דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹר שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: סוֹף סוֹף מִיגְמָר הֲווֹ גָּמְרִי לֵיהּ לְדִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ya’akov holds** that **the verdict for an ox can be issued in its absence.** Therefore, the bailee is exempt, **as he can say to** the owner in response to his claim: **Ultimately, they would have issued the verdict** anyway, so I did not cause your ox to be stoned by not returning it to you before the verdict.


###### Bava Kamma 45a:7
[Bava Kamma 45a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? ״הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת״ – כְּמִיתַת הַבְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר; מָה בְּעָלִים בִּפְנֵיהֶם, אַף שׁוֹר בְּפָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to this explanation, **what is the reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis** that the ox’s verdict can be issued only in its presence? The verse states: **“The ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death”** (Exodus 21:29), indicating that **as the death of the owner,** i.e., a person, for killing another person, **so** is **the death of the ox** for killing a person. **Just as the owner** is sentenced to death only **in his presence, so too, an ox** is sentenced to death only **in its presence.**


###### Bava Kamma 45a:8
[Bava Kamma 45a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:8)

וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב – בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּעָלִים, בְּנֵי טַעֲנָה נִינְהוּ; אֶלָּא שׁוֹר, בַּר טַעַנְתָּא הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ya’akov** holds that the owner and the ox cannot be compared. **Granted, the owner** must be present when the verdict is issued, as people **are able to present claims** in their defense; **but** as for **an ox, is it capable of presenting claims?** Consequently, it makes no difference whether or not the verdict is issued in its presence.


###### Bava Kamma 45a:9
[Bava Kamma 45a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:9)

מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וּלְשׁוֹאֵל כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַרְבָּעָה נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. הָרְגוּ תַּמִּין – נֶהֱרָגִין, וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַכּוֹפֶר. מוּעָדִין – נֶהֱרָגִין, וּמְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר. וְחַיָּיבִין לְהַחֲזִיר דְּמֵי שׁוֹר לִבְעָלָיו, חוּץ מִשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the ox’s owner **conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, or** to a paid bailee, or to a renter, they enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner. **The Sages taught:** There are **four** people who **enter into** the responsibilities and liabilities **in place of the owner, and they are: An unpaid bailee, and a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter.** If the oxen **killed** people while in the possession of one of these people, if the oxen were **innocuous** at the time they killed, **they are killed and** the bailees are **exempt from** paying **ransom.** If they were **forewarned, they are killed and** the bailees **pay ransom. And** regardless if they were innocuous or forewarned, the bailees **are liable to return the value of the ox to its owner, with the exception of an unpaid bailee.**


###### Bava Kamma 45a:10
[Bava Kamma 45a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:10)

אָמְרִי: הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּנַטְרֵיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי לִיפַּטְרוּ! וְאִי דְּלָא נַטְרֵיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said: What are the circumstances** in which the bailees are liable, with the exception of an unpaid bailee? **If he safeguarded** the ox appropriately but the ox killed a person anyway, **all of the** other bailees **should also be exempt** from reimbursing the owner for the ox and not just an unpaid bailee, as they did everything that was required of them. **And if he did not safeguard it** properly, **even the unpaid bailee should be liable,** as he was also required to safeguard it.


###### Bava Kamma 45a:11
[Bava Kamma 45a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:11)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּנַטְרֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה, וְלָא נַטְרֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – כָּלְתָה לוֹ שְׁמִירָתוֹ, הָנָךְ – לָא כָּלְתָה שְׁמִירָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the bailee **provided reduced safeguarding and did not provide superior safeguarding.** In this case **the unpaid bailee has fulfilled his safeguarding** duties; since he does not receive anything in exchange this level of safeguarding is sufficient. **Those** other bailees, who have a greater responsibility, **have not fulfilled their** required level of **safeguarding.**


###### Bava Kamma 45a:12
[Bava Kamma 45a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45a:12)

אָמְרִי: כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said,** in clarification of the *baraita*: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this *baraita*? **If it is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,**