## Bava Kamma Daf 47b

###### Bava Kamma 47b:1
[Bava Kamma 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:1)

בִּרְשׁוּת, וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כַּלְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – פָּטוּר. נָגַח הוּא שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיב. נָפַל לְבוֹרוֹ, וְהִבְאִישׁ מֵימָיו – חַיָּיב. הָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ בְּנוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת – בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**permission, and the homeowner’s ox gored it or the homeowner’s dog bit it,** the homeowner is **exempt.** If it **gored the homeowner’s ox,** the owner of the goring ox is **liable.** Furthermore, if the ox that he brought into the courtyard without permission **fell into** the owner’s **pit and contaminated its water,** the owner of the ox is **liable** to pay compensation for despoiling the water. If the homeowner’s **father or son were inside** the pit at the time the ox fell and the person died as a result, the owner of the ox **pays the ransom. But if he brought** the ox into the courtyard **with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable** for the damage caused.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:2
[Bava Kamma 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:2)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוּלָּן אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב, עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִשְׁמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The homeowner **is not liable in any** of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, **unless he** explicitly **accepts** responsibility **upon himself to safeguard** them.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:3
[Bava Kamma 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, הָא בִּרְשׁוּת – לָא מִיחַיַּיב בַּעַל קְדֵירוֹת בְּנִזְקֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ דְּבַעַל חָצֵר, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן קַבּוֹלֵי קַבֵּיל בַּעַל קְדֵירוֹת נְטִירוּתָא דִּבְהֶמְתּוֹ דְּבַעַל חָצֵר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** From the first case of the mishna, it can be inferred that **the reason** the potter is liable **is** that he brought his pots into another’s courtyard **without permission. But** if he brought them in **with permission, the potter would not be liable for damage** caused **to the courtyard owner’s animal; and we do not say** that **the potter accepted** responsibility for the **safeguarding of the courtyard owner’s animal** from his own pots.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:4
[Bava Kamma 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:4)

מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל בִּסְתָמָא – לָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ נְטִירוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Whose** opinion is this? **It is** that of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who says** at the conclusion of the mishna that **any case** where permission is granted to allow an item into one’s premises **without specification,** i.e., without an explicit agreement as to who is responsible for safeguarding the item, it is assumed that with regard to each party, he **has not accepted upon himself** the responsibility of **safeguarding** the item. Therefore, the potter who received permission to bring his pots into the owner’s courtyard similarly did not accept responsibility to safeguard against damage to the property of the owner of the courtyard.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:5
[Bava Kamma 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:5)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת – בַּעַל חָצֵר חַיָּיב. אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: בִּסְתָמָא נָמֵי קַבּוֹלֵי קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ נְטִירוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **say the latter clause: If** the potter **brought them into** the courtyard **with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.** In this case, **we arrive at** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who** disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and **say** that, even **in** a case where permission is granted to allow an item into one’s premises **without specification,** where the owner merely said he could bring them into the courtyard, the homeowner **accepts upon himself** responsibility for **safeguarding** the items to ensure that they are not damaged, **as well.**


###### Bava Kamma 47b:6
[Bava Kamma 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:6)

וְתוּ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוּלָּן אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב, עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִשְׁמוֹר. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** the end of the mishna states: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that the owner of the courtyard **is not liable in any** of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, **unless the homeowner** explicitly **accepts** responsibility **upon himself to safeguard** them. Therefore, it emerges that **the first clause and the last clause** of the mishna are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **but the middle clause** of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** Is this a reasonable way to read the mishna?


###### Bava Kamma 47b:7
[Bava Kamma 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תִּבְרַהּ; מִי שֶׁשָּׁנָה זוֹ – לֹא שָׁנָה זוֹ. רָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבָּנַן הִיא, וּבִרְשׁוּת – שְׁמִירַת קְדֵירוֹת קִבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִשְׁבְּרוּ בָּרוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Zeira said:** This mishna is **disjointed** and doesn’t follow a single opinion. Rather, the one **who taught this** clause of the mishna **did not teach that** clause of the mishna. **Rava said:** The beginning of the mishna **is entirely** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** In the case **where** the potter received **permission** to place his pots there, **the owner of the courtyard accepted** responsibility **upon himself** for the **safeguarding of the pots, and even** to the extent that if the pots **broke due to the wind,** he would be liable. The owner of the pots, by contrast, did not accept any responsibility to ensure that his items would not cause damage.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:8
[Bava Kamma 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:8)

הִכְנִיס פֵּירוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּחְלְקָה בָּהֶן, אֲבָל אָכְלָה – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? הֲוָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **he brought his produce into the homeowner’s courtyard** without permission, and the owner’s animal was injured by the produce, he is liable. **Rav says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **where** the animal **slipped on it** and fell, **but** if **it ate** from the produce and was injured, he is **exempt. What is the reason?** The animal **should not have eaten** it, and it was not the owner of the fruit who acted improperly but the animal itself.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:9
[Bava Kamma 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:9)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָמֵינָא, כִּי נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב רַב אֲמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן סַם הַמָּוֶת לִפְנֵי בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם. סַם הַמָּוֶת הוּא דְּלָא עֲבִידָא דְּאָכְלָה; אֲבָל פֵּירוֹת, דַּעֲבִידָא דְּאָכְלָה – בְּדִינֵי אָדָם נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב! וְאַמַּאי? הֲוָיא לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: I say that Rav stated this *halakha* while dozing and lying down,** and it is not entirely precise, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One who places poison before another’s animal** is **exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.** From the above statement, it may be inferred that **it is** specifically where he put **poison** before the animal that he is exempt, **since it is not suitable for eating. But** if he put **produce** before it, **which is suitable for eating,** and the animal dies from eating it, **he is also liable according to human laws.** The Gemara analyzes this ruling: **But why** is he liable? Here also Rav’s logic can be invoked, that the animal **should not have eaten** it. Therefore, this *baraita* poses a difficulty for Rav.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:10
[Bava Kamma 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:10)

אָמְרִי: הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירוֹת – נָמֵי פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם; וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דַּאֲפִילּוּ סַם הַמָּוֶת נָמֵי, דְּלָא עֲבִידָא דְּאָכְלָה – חַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In order to explain Rav’s statement, the Sages **said: The same is true,** that **even** if the animal was injured by eating the produce, he would **also** be **exempt according to human laws, and this** *baraita* **teaches us this, that even** in the case of **poison, which is not suitable for eating,** the one who placed the poison before the animal is **liable according to the laws of Heaven.**


###### Bava Kamma 47b:11
[Bava Kamma 47b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:11)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סַם הַמָּוֶת נָמֵי – בְּאַפְרַזְתָּא, דְּהַיְינוּ פֵּירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the case where the *baraita* exempts from liability according to human laws the one who placed **poison** before the animal is referring **to** an item suitable for eating **as well,** such as ***afrazta*,** a type of herb that appears edible for animals but is actually poisonous. Therefore, this herb **is** halakhically equivalent to any other **produce** for which he is exempt from liability according to human laws, since, as Rav explained, the animal should not have eaten it.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:12
[Bava Kamma 47b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:12)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִטְחוֹן חִטִּים אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וַאֲכָלָתַן בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – פָּטוּר. אִם הוּזְּקָה – חַיֶּיבֶת. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: הֲוָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav’s statement from a *baraita*: In the case of **a woman who entered** the house of **a homeowner without permission** in order **to grind wheat, and the homeowner’s animal ate** the wheat, he is **exempt.** Moreover, **if** the homeowner’s animal **was injured** by the wheat, the woman is **liable.** Now according to Rav’s explanation, **why** is she liable? **Let us say** here as well that the animal **should not have eaten** it.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:13
[Bava Kamma 47b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:13)

אָמְרִי: וּמִי עֲדִיפָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין – דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא שֶׁהוּחְלְקָה בָּהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In order to explain Rav’s statement, the Sages **said:** What is the difficulty here? **Is** this *baraita* **preferable to the mishna that we interpreted** as a scenario **where** the animal **slipped on** the produce? Similarly, the *baraita* is also referring to a case where the animal was injured by slipping on the wheat, not by eating it.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:14
[Bava Kamma 47b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:14)

וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? אָמַר לָךְ: בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתְנִיתִין, קָתָנֵי ״אִם הוּזְּקָה בָּהֶן״ – שֶׁהוּחְלְקָה בָּהֶן הוּא; אֲבָל הָכָא, קָתָנֵי ״אִם הוּזְּקָה״ וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״בָּהֶן״ – אֲכִילָה הוּא דְּקָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And he who asked it, why did he ask it?** This answer seems obvious. The Gemara answers: The questioner could have **said to you: Granted, the mishna** that teaches: **If** it is **injured by them [*bahen*], is** referring to a case **where** the animal **slipped on them [*bahen*]. But here** in the *baraita* it **teaches** the phrase: **If it is injured, and** it **does not teach** the additional term: ***Bahen*.** Since this case is immediately preceded by the case of: And the owner’s animal ate them, it is reasonable to surmise **that** when the *baraita* **teaches** the case of the animal being injured, the injury **is** due to **eating.**


###### Bava Kamma 47b:15
[Bava Kamma 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:15)

וְאִידַּךְ אָמַר לָךְ: לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And the other** one, i.e., the one who provided the answer, could have **said to you** in response: There **is no difference** whether it states: It was injured, or: It was injured by them, as in both cases the injury can be explained as resulting from slipping and not from eating.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:16
[Bava Kamma 47b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וְאָכַל חִטִּין וְהִתְרִיז וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת – בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָּיב. וְאַמַּאי? הֲוָה לֵיהּ שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: If one **brought his ox into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and** the ox **ate wheat** belonging to the homeowner **and** consequently was stricken with **diarrhea and died,** then the homeowner is **exempt.** But **if** the ox’s owner **brought** it **into** the courtyard **with permission, the owner of the courtyard** is **liable.** The Gemara comments: **Why,** in the latter case, is the owner liable for the damage to the ox? Shouldn’t the assertion: The ox **shouldn’t have eaten** it, be invoked, and any injury that follows is the responsibility of the ox’s owner?


###### Bava Kamma 47b:17
[Bava Kamma 47b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: בִּרְשׁוּת אַשֶּׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת קָרָמֵית? בִּרְשׁוּת – שְׁמִירַת שׁוֹרוֹ קִבֵּל עָלָיו, וַאֲפִילּוּ חָנַק אֶת עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in response: **Are you raising a contradiction** from a case **with permission** and applying it **against** a case **without permission?** There is no difficulty here, since **in** the case where the ox’s owner brought the ox into the courtyard **with permission,** the homeowner thereby **accepted** responsibility **upon himself** for **safeguarding** against any damage to the other’s **ox. And even** if the ox **strangled itself,** he would still be liable.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:18
[Bava Kamma 47b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:18)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכָא דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ נְטִירוּתָא, מַהוּ? דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ הוּא דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ נְטִירוּתָא דְּעָלְמָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In a case **where** the owner of the courtyard **accepted upon himself** responsibility for **safeguarding** the items entering his premises, **what is** the *halakha*? **Did he accept upon himself only** the responsibility **of** safeguarding **himself** and his animals from causing damage? **Or, perhaps he even accepted** responsibility **upon himself** for **safeguarding** against all forms of damage that originate **from the outside.**


###### Bava Kamma 47b:19
[Bava Kamma 47b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:19)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן בִּנְזָקִין דְּבֵי קַרְנָא: הִכְנִיס פֵּירוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וּבָא שׁוֹר מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וַאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת – חַיָּיב. מַאן פָּטוּר וּמַאן חַיָּיב? לָאו פָּטוּר – בַּעַל חָצֵר, [וְחַיָּיב – בַּעַל חָצֵר]?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a solution based on **that** which **Rav Yehuda bar Simon taught in** the tractate of ***Nezikin*** from **the school of Karna:** If one **brought his produce into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and an ox came from elsewhere and ate it,** he is **exempt. But if** one **brought** the produce **into** the courtyard **with permission,** he is **liable.** The Gemara clarifies: **Who** is the phrase: He is **exempt,** referring to, **and who** is the phrase: He is **liable,** referring to? **Does it not** mean that **the owner of the courtyard** is **exempt and the owner of the courtyard** is **liable?** This would indicate that by granting permission for the produce to be brought in, he accepts responsibility to safeguard against other damage as well, such as that caused by another ox entering from the outside.


###### Bava Kamma 47b:20
[Bava Kamma 47b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:20)

אָמְרִי: לָא; פָּטוּר בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר, וְחַיָּיב בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response, **they said** that this interpretation should be rejected: **No,** it means that **the owner of the ox** that causes damage is **exempt, and the owner of the ox** is **liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 47b:21
[Bava Kamma 47b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/47b:21)

וְאִי בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if** it is referring to **the owner of the ox,**