## Bava Kamma Daf 45b

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

דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי, לִיתְנֵי: חוּץ מִשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**who says** that **a renter is** considered **like an unpaid bailee** with regard to his responsibility for the rented item, **let it teach** that bailees are liable to compensate the owner, **with the exception of an unpaid bailee and a renter.**


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

וְאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי – נִיתְנֵי: ״חוּץ מִשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְכוּלָּן בְּמוּעָדִין פְּטוּרִין לְעִנְיַן כּוֹפֶר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **a renter is** considered **like a paid bailee, let it teach: With the exception of an unpaid bailee,** as it in fact states; **but** it should also state that **in** a case where the oxen are **forewarned, all of them are exempt with regard to ransom,** as Rabbi Yehuda says in the next mishna that a forewarned ox requires only a reduced level of safeguarding. Therefore, this *baraita* does not appear to be in accordance with the opinion of either *tanna*.


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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין; וּלְעִנְיַן שׂוֹכֵר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who says** that an ox **has no** sufficient **safeguarding** at all **other than** slaughtering it with **a knife;** i.e., there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox’s owner, or in the context of the *baraita*, the bailee, from liability if the ox causes damage or kills. **And with regard to a renter,** the *baraita* **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **a renter is** considered **like a paid bailee.**


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

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – וְכִדְמַחְלִיף רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, וְתָנֵי: שׂוֹכֵר כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Actually,** the *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir; and** it is **as Rabba bar Avuh reversed** the two opinions **and taught: How does a renter pay?** In other words, what is his degree of responsibility? **Rabbi Meir says: Like a paid bailee. Rabbi Yehuda says: Like an unpaid bailee.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מָסַר שׁוֹרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, הִזִּיק – חַיָּיב, הוּזַּק – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Elazar says:** If the owner **conveyed his ox to an unpaid bailee,** if the ox **caused damage,** the bailee is **liable** to pay damages; but if the ox **was injured,** he is **exempt.**


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

אָמְרִי: הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו – אֲפִילּוּ הוּזַּק נָמֵי לִיחַיֵּיב! וְאִי דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו – אֲפִילּוּ הִזִּיק נָמֵי לִיפְּטַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said: What are the circumstances? If** Rabbi Elazar was referring to a bailee **who accepted** responsibility **upon himself** for **guarding it from** causing **damage, even** if the ox **was injured he should be liable. And if** he was referring to a bailee **who did not accept** responsibility for **guarding it from** causing **damage, even if it causes damage he should be exempt** from payment.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכִּיר בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא נַגְחָן. וּסְתָמָא דְּמִילְּתָא, דְּלָא אָזֵיל אִיהוּ וּמַזִּיק אַחֲרִינֵי – קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ, דְּאָתֵי אַחֲרִינֵי וּמַזְּקִי לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ – לָא אַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually,** Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case **where he accepted** responsibility **upon himself** for **guarding it from causing damage; but here we are dealing with** a case **where** the bailee **recognized that** the ox **was a goring** ox, **and** in that case **the normal way of things is that** the bailee **accepted upon himself** responsibility for safeguarding it so **that it would not go and injure others,** since he knew that it was dangerous. But **it** presumably **did not enter his mind that other** oxen **would come and injure it.** Therefore, he did not accept responsibility for safeguarding against such an occurrence.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** קְשָׁרוֹ בְּעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵרָה וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק – אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **the** ox’s **owner tied it with reins** to a fence **or locked** the gate **before it in an appropriate manner, but** nevertheless the ox **emerged and caused damage, whether** the ox is **innocuous or forewarned** the owner is **liable,** since this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּם חַיָּיב, וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו״ – וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says** that if the ox is **innocuous** the owner is **liable** even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous ox. **But** if the ox is **forewarned,** the owner is **exempt** from paying compensation for damage, **as it is stated** in the verse describing damage by a forewarned ox: **“And the owner has not secured it”** (Exodus 21:36), **and this** ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate **was secured.**


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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says:** An ox **has no** sufficient **safeguarding** at all **other than** slaughtering it with **a knife;** there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox’s owner from liability.


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

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? קָסָבַר: סְתָם שְׁווֹרִים – לָאו בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי; וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא תָּם נִיחַיַּיב – דְּנִיבְעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה, הֲדַר אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״ גַּבֵּי מוּעָד – דְּנִבְעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה; וְיָלֵיף נְגִיחָה לְתָם – נְגִיחָה לְמוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Meir? He holds** that **ordinary oxen are not presumed to be under safeguarding,** as their owners do not ordinarily safeguard them; **and the Merciful One stated** in the Torah that one **will be liable** even for damage caused by **an innocuous** ox inasmuch **as it requires** at least **a reduced** level of **safeguarding,** such as with reins. **The Merciful One then stated with regard to a forewarned** ox: **“And** the owner **has not secured it,”** to indicate that it is not sufficient to provide it with only a reduced level of safeguarding, **as it requires superior safeguarding. And** Rabbi Meir **derives** this requirement with regard to an innocuous ox from a verbal analogy between the term **goring** stated **with regard to an innocuous** ox and the term **goring** stated **with regard to a forewarned** ox. In both cases superior safeguarding is required; otherwise the owner is liable.


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: סְתָם שְׁווֹרִים – בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי; אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא תָּם נְשַׁלֵּם, דְּנִיבְעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה; הֲדַר אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״ גַּבֵּי מוּעָד – דְּנַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה. הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט – מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב לִשְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **ordinary oxen are presumed to be under** some reduced level of **safeguarding.** Since **the Merciful One stated** nevertheless that even for damage caused by **an innocuous** ox the owner **will pay,** it may be inferred **that it requires superior safeguarding. The Merciful One then states with regard to a forewarned** ox: **“And** the owner **has not secured it,”** emphasizing again **that one must provide it with superior safeguarding. This constitutes** one **amplification following** another **amplification, and** the principle is that **an amplification following an amplification is** stated **only** in order **to restrict** its extent. Accordingly, **the verse excludes** the requirement of **superior safeguarding** with regard to a forewarned ox, and therefore reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner from liability.


###### Bava Kamma 45b:13
[Bava Kamma 45b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45b:13)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: נְגִיחָה לְתָם נְגִיחָה לְמוּעָד – הָא מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״ – לָזֶה, וְלֹא לְאַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that through the verbal analogy between the term **goring** stated **with regard to an innocuous** ox and the term **goring** stated **with regard to a forewarned** ox the Torah compares their *halakhot*, nevertheless, **the Merciful One restricted** this *halakha* by emphasizing: **“And** the owner **has not secured it,”** referring specifically **to it,** a forewarned ox, **and not to the other,** i.e., innocuous, ox.


###### Bava Kamma 45b:14
[Bava Kamma 45b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45b:14)

וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְלָאו! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמוֹר״, מַאי ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״? לָזֶה וְלֹא לְאַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t this** phrase **necessary for the negative [*lav*]** statement that if the owner does not provide superior safeguarding he is liable? The Gemara answers: **If that is so, let the Merciful One write: And** the owner **has not secured. What** is the purpose of the added emphasis: **“And** the owner **has not secured it”?** It is to indicate that the restriction of this *halakha* relates specifically **to it,** a forewarned ox, **and not to the other,** i.e., innocuous, ox.


###### Bava Kamma 45b:15
[Bava Kamma 45b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45b:15)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד שֶׁשְּׁמָרוֹ שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* that there is a fourth opinion. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:** In the cases of **both an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox in **which** its owner **provided reduced safeguarding,** he is **exempt from liability.**


###### Bava Kamma 45b:16
[Bava Kamma 45b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45b:16)

מַאי טַעְמָא? סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: מוּעָד – בִּשְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה סַגִּי לֵיהּ, וְיָלֵיף נְגִיחָה לְתָם וּנְגִיחָה לְמוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for his opinion? **He holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned** ox, **and he derives** from the verbal analogy between the term **goring** stated **with regard to an innocuous** ox **and** the term **goring** stated **with regard to a forewarned** ox that just as reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox, it is sufficient for an innocuous ox as well.


###### Bava Kamma 45b:17
[Bava Kamma 45b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45b:17)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לָא פָּטַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא צַד הַעֲדָאָה שֶׁבּוֹ, אֲבָל צַד תַּמּוּת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Yehuda deemed only the forewarned element of** the ox **exempt.** Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner of a forewarned ox relates only to the additional half of the damage that is paid for a forewarned ox beyond the half of the damage that one is liable to pay for an innocuous ox. **But** the liability for its **element of innocuousness remains in place.** Therefore, if the owner did not provide superior safeguarding for the forewarned ox he is still liable to pay half the cost of the damage as he would if it were innocuous.


###### Bava Kamma 45b:18
[Bava Kamma 45b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45b:18)

אָמַר רַב: מוּעָד לְקֶרֶן יָמִין – אֵינוֹ מוּעָד לְקֶרֶן שְׂמֹאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says:** If an ox is **forewarned with regard to** goring with its **right horn,** it **is not** thereby **forewarned with regard to** goring with its **left horn.**


###### Bava Kamma 45b:19
[Bava Kamma 45b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/45b:19)

אָמְרִי: אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָאָמַר: אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה בָּעֵי! אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי אִרְיָא קֶרֶן שְׂמֹאל? אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָמִין נָמֵי – אִית בֵּיהּ צַד תַּמּוּת, וְאִית בֵּיהּ צַד מוּעָדֻת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said: In accordance with whose** opinion is Rav’s statement made? **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir, doesn’t** Rabbi Meir **say** that **both an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox **require superior safeguarding? If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, why** did he state that the ox still has an innocuous element **specifically** with regard to **the left horn? Even with regard to the right horn** itself it has both elements; **it has an element of innocuousness and it** also **has a forewarned element.**


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

אָמְרִי: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה; וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא הוּא דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ בֵּיהּ צַד תַּמּוּת וּמוּעָדֻת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said: Actually,** Rav’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and he does not hold** in accordance with the opinion **of Rav Adda bar Ahava** that the ox’s innocuous element remains. **And this is what he is saying: You find an element** both **of innocuousness and of a forewarned** status in the same ox specifically **in a case like this,** where an ox is forewarned with regard to one horn but not with regard to the other.