## Bava Kamma Daf 46b

###### Bava Kamma 46b:1
[Bava Kamma 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:1)

וְאִי לֵיכָּא לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מִינֵּיהּ, לִישְׁקְלֵיהּ לְתוֹרָא בְּזוּזֵי! דְּאָמְרִי אֱנָשֵׁי: מִמָּרֵי רַשְׁווֹתָךְ פָּארֵי אִפְּרַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if** the loss to the purchaser **cannot be reimbursed from** the purchasing money by returning it, e.g., if the seller spent it already, **let** the purchaser **take the ox** itself **in lieu of the money, as people say:** Allow yourself to be **repaid by your debtors** even in **bran,** since anything may be used as payment for a debt. In the event that the seller has no money with which to reimburse the purchaser, even if it is a mistaken transaction the result may be that the purchaser keeps the ox in lieu of having his money returned. Accordingly, there would be no practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:2
[Bava Kamma 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:2)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** for them to engage in a dispute in a case **where** the seller **does have** sufficient funds **from** which **to repay** the purchaser, and the purchaser demands that his money be returned as opposed to keeping the ox as payment.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:3
[Bava Kamma 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:3)

רַב אָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה מִקָּח טָעוּת – זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא, וְרוּבָּא דְאִינָשֵׁי לְרִדְיָא הוּא דְּזָבְנִי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר, יָכוֹל שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ ״לִשְׁחִיטָה מְכַרְתִּיו לָךְ״ – וְלָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא. כִּי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא – בְּאִיסּוּרָא, אֲבָל בְּמָמוֹנָא – לָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא, אֶלָּא הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now explains the logic of Rav and Shmuel: **Rav says** that **this is** a case of **a mistaken transaction,** due to the principle: **Follow the majority, and the majority of people buy oxen for plowing. And Shmuel says** that the seller **can say to him: I sold it to you for slaughtering, and we do not follow the majority** in this case. **When do we follow the majority** according to Shmuel? Only **in** determining the **prohibited** or permitted status of an item. **But in monetary matters** such as this, **we do not follow the majority. Rather,** the operative principle is that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.**


###### Bava Kamma 46b:4
[Bava Kamma 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:4)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה וְנִמְצָא עוּבָּרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נְגָחָהּ יָלְדָה אִם מִשֶּׁנְּגָחָהּ יָלְדָה – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק לַפָּרָה, וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק לַוָּלָד; דִּבְרֵי סוֹמְכוֹס. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That** which Rav Yehuda stated above, that the mishna follows the opinion of Sumakhos, **is also taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **an ox that gores a cow, and its fetus is found** dead **at its side, and he does not know whether it gave birth before** the ox **gored it or it gave birth after** the ox **gored it,** the owner of the ox **pays half** the cost of **the damage for the cow and one-quarter** of the cost of **the damage for the offspring;** this is **the statement of Sumakhos. The Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant.**


###### Bava Kamma 46b:5
[Bava Kamma 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי: מִנַּיִין לְהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִי בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם״ – יַגִּישׁ רְאָיָה אֲלֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: From where** is it derived **that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? As it is stated** in the Torah when Moses appointed Aaron and Hur to judge the people: **“Whoever has a cause, let him come near [*yiggash*] to them”** (Exodus 24:14). This is interpreted to mean that whoever has a claim against another **should submit [*yaggish*] proof to them.** According to this interpretation, this verse demonstrates clearly that the claimant is responsible for supplying the proof.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:6
[Bava Kamma 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:6)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא? סְבָרָא הוּא – דְּכָאֵיב לֵיהּ כְּאֵיבָא, אָזֵיל לְבֵי אָסְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi objects to this: Why do I** need **a verse** to derive this? It **is** based on **logical reasoning that one who suffers from pain goes to the doctor.** Just as here the individual with the problem has the responsibility to resolve it, so too, someone with a claim against another must bring a proof to corroborate his claim.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:7
[Bava Kamma 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:7)

אֶלָּא קְרָא לְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין נִזְקָקִין אֶלָּא לַתּוֹבֵעַ תְּחִלָּה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִי בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם״ – יַגִּישׁ דְּבָרָיו אֲלֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, the verse** is needed **for that which Rav Naḥman** says that **Rabba bar Avuh says, as Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: From where** is it derived **that** a court **first attends only to** the arguments of **the claimant** and only afterward attends to the counterclaims of the defendant and discusses them? **As it is stated: “Whoever has a cause, let him come near [*yiggash*] to them,”** which is interpreted to mean that whoever has a claim against another **should submit [*yaggish*] his claim to them** first before the defendant.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:8
[Bava Kamma 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:8)

אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: פְּעָמִים שֶׁנִּזְקָקִין לַנִּתְבָּע תְּחִלָּה. וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דְּקָא זִילִי נִכְסֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **of Neharde’a say** that despite this principle, **sometimes** a court **attends to the defendant first** and listens to his defense before discussing the arguments of the claimant. **What are the circumstances** where this occurs? This occurs in a case **where his assets are depreciating** because of the claim against him. In that situation, the court allows him to present his arguments first so that he can sell his assets at their true price.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:9
[Bava Kamma 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:9)

וְכֵן פָּרָה שֶׁנָּגְחָה אֶת הַשּׁוֹר [וְכוּ׳]. חֲצִי נֶזֶק וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק?! פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא הוּא דְּבָעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי! כּוּלֵּי נִזְקָא נְכֵי רִבְעָא מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And likewise,** in the case of **a cow that gored an ox,** and the cow’s newborn offspring was subsequently found at its side, half the cost of the damage is paid from the cow and one-quarter of the cost of the damage is paid from the offspring. The Gemara asks: The mishna’s wording indicates that the owner of the cow pays **half** the cost of **the damage and** an additional **one-quarter of** the cost of **the damage,** thereby amounting to three-quarters of the cost of the damage. This is difficult to understand, as **he is required to pay** only **half** the cost of **the damage,** since the ox is innocuous. If the mishna states that he pays **three-quarters of** the cost of **the damage, what is its purpose?**


###### Bava Kamma 46b:10
[Bava Kamma 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲצִי נֶזֶק – אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה בַּנֶּזֶק, וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בַּנֶּזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The phrase: **Half** the cost of **the damage,** actually means **one-fourth** of the cost **of the damage.** Since there are two animals that may have accomplices in the incident, the owner of the cow pays only half of the normal amount from the value of the cow, i.e., one-quarter of the cost of the damage. The other half of the payment, which is **one-quarter of** the cost of **the damage,** should be paid from the value of the newborn, who is the accomplice of the cow. Yet, due to the uncertainty of whether it was born before the goring or afterward, only half of that amount is paid from it, which is **one-eighth of the** cost of the **damage.** Therefore, the owner of the ox receives a total of three-eighths of the cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:11
[Bava Kamma 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:11)

וְאִי פָּרָה וּוָלָד דְּחַד נִינְהוּ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ לְבַעַל פָּרָה: מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, חֲצִי נֶזֶק הַב לִי. אֶלָּא לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּפָרָה דְּחַד, וּוָלָד דְּחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if the cow and the offspring are** owned **by one** person, the injured party **can indeed say to the owner of the cow: Whichever** way **you** look at it, **give me half** the cost of **the damage,** either from the value of the cow or the newborn, which both belong to you. Why is it necessary to give half of the payment specifically from the cow and half from the newborn? **Rather,** this ruling of the mishna **is not necessary** except for the case **where the cow** belongs **to one** person **and the offspring to another,** and so each can claim that he is only partially responsible for the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:12
[Bava Kamma 46b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:12)

וְאִי דִּקְדֵים תַּבְעֵיהּ לְבַעַל פָּרָה תְּחִלָּה – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְבַעַל פָּרָה: פָּרָה דִּידָךְ אַזֵּיקְתַּן, הַב לִי רְאָיָה דְּאִית לָךְ שׁוּתָּפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** even in this case, **if** the injured party **came forward** and **claimed** payment from **the owner of the cow first, he can indeed say to the owner of the cow: Your cow** certainly **caused damage** to **my** property, so **bring me a proof that you have a partner.** The owner of the cow would then have to prove that the newborn calf was still a fetus at the time and therefore a partner in the incident, in order to exempt himself from paying the entire payment of half the cost of the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:13
[Bava Kamma 46b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:13)

אֶלָּא דִּקְדֵים תַּבְעֵיהּ לְבַעַל וָלָד תְּחִלָּה, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: גַּלֵּית אַדַּעְתָּךְ דְּשׁוּתָּפָא אִית לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the case of the mishna is one **where he claimed** payment from **the owner of the offspring first, as** in this case the owner of the cow **can say to him:** Since you claimed payment from the owner of the newborn, **you** thereby **disclosed your opinion** on the matter, **that I have a partner** who is responsible for part of the damage. Therefore, I am not prepared to pay the full amount required, i.e., half the cost of the damage, but only half of that amount, i.e., one-quarter.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:14
[Bava Kamma 46b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:14)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף עַל גַּב דִּקְדֵים תַּבְעֵיהּ לְבַעַל פָּרָה תְּחִלָּה, מָצֵי מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידָּע יְדַעִי אֲנָא דְּשׁוּתָּפָא אִית לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say: Even though** the injured party came forward and **claimed** payment from **the owner of the cow first,** the latter **can dismiss his** claim, **as he can say to him: I know that I have a partner** in this matter, i.e., the owner of the newborn calf.


###### Bava Kamma 46b:15
[Bava Kamma 46b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/46b:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ ״אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה בַּנֶּזֶק״ וְ״אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בַּנֶּזֶק״ קָתָנֵי? ״חֲצִי נֶזֶק״ וּ״רְבִיעַ נֶזֶק״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּפָרָה וּוָלָד דְּחַד, וְהָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: אִיתַהּ לְפָרָה – מִשְׁתַּלַּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִפָּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said,** in challenging Abaye’s explanation: **Is that to say** that the mishna **teaches: One-quarter of** the cost of **the damage and one-eighth of the** cost of the **damage?** The mishna **teaches half** the cost of **the damage and one-quarter of** the cost of **the damage. Rather, Rava said: Actually,** the mishna is referring **to** a case where the **cow and** its **offspring belong to one** person, **and this is what we are saying:** The *halakha* is that with regard to damage caused by an innocuous animal, restitution is paid only from the money realized by selling the belligerent animal. Therefore, if **the cow is here, half** the cost of **the damage is paid from** the value of **the cow** itself;