## Bava Kamma Daf 7a

###### Bava Kamma 7a:1
[Bava Kamma 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:1)

וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the *halakha* of **a creditor** is to collect only **from intermediate-quality** land, not from superior-quality land.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:2
[Bava Kamma 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:2)

וְכִי תֵּימָא סָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: בַּעַל חוֹב נָמֵי בְּעִידִּית; אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְבַעַל חוֹב – שֶׁכֵּן יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּנִזָּקִין, תֹּאמַר בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ – שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּנִזָּקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **Rabbi Akiva holds** that **a creditor** can **collect** the money owed him **from superior-quality** land **as well,** there is still a difficulty; the *a fortiori* inference **can** still **be refuted** in the following manner: **What** is notable **about** an ordinary **creditor?** He is notable **in that** the Torah **enhanced his power with regard to payment of damages,** as an ordinary person can collect payment of damages for loss or injury caused by another’s ox. But **can you say** the same about the Temple treasury of **consecrated** property, with regard to which the Torah **weakened its power with regard to payment of damages,** not allowing it to collect such compensation? Accordingly, even if a creditor collects from superior-quality land, it does not necessarily follow that a Temple treasurer would also do so. It is therefore apparent that Rabbi Akiva’s *a fortiori* inference is not referring to the case of one who donates money to the Temple.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:3
[Bava Kamma 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:3)

לְעוֹלָם דִּנְגַח תּוֹרָא דִידַן לְתוֹרָא דְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: ״שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Actually,** we can explain that we are dealing here with a case **where our ox gored an ox that is consecrated** property. **And** with regard to that **which** posed **a difficulty for you** about this explanation, i.e., that **the Merciful One states: “**The **ox of another”** (Exodus 21:35), which indicates that liability is incurred only for damaging another person’s ox **but not** for **an ox consecrated** to the Temple, **Rabbi Akiva** disagrees with that interpretation and **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.**


###### Bava Kamma 7a:4
[Bava Kamma 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:4)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט – פָּטוּר; שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says:** If **an ox that is consecrated** property **gored an ox belonging to a common person [*hedyot*],** the Temple treasury is **exempt** from liability. By contrast, in the case of **an ox belonging to a common person that gored an ox that is consecrated** property, **whether** the ox that gored the other ox was **an innocuous** ox, i.e., an ox with no consistent history of causing damage with the intent to injure, **or** it was **a forewarned** ox, i.e., an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox had already gored another ox three times, the ox’s owner **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 7a:5
[Bava Kamma 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:5)

אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – מִמַּאי דִּבְעִידִּית דְּנִיזָּק וְזִיבּוּרִית דְּמַזִּיק פְּלִיגִי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּדְנִיזָּק שָׁיְימִינַן, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא וְרַבָּנַן קָמִפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, from where** do you know to say that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael **disagree about** a case where **the superior-quality** land belonging to **the injured** party **and the inferior-quality** land belonging to **the one liable for the damage** are equal in quality, and the one liable for the damage also has land of superior quality, as the dispute was previously interpreted by Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov? **Perhaps everyone,** including Rabbi Akiva, **agrees** that **we appraise** the value of the land **of the injured** party, **and here they disagree with regard to** the **dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and the Rabbis.**


###### Bava Kamma 7a:6
[Bava Kamma 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:6)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר כְּרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya,** that in the case of damage caused by the ox of a common person to the property of the Temple treasury, compensation is collected from superior-quality land belonging to the one liable for the damage. **And Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that the owner of the ox bears no liability. In other words, perhaps in the *baraita* recording the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva (see 6b), Rabbi Yishmael first taught that land is appraised based on the quality of the injured party’s land, and then, although it is not explicit in the *baraita*, he continued to state his opinion that the Temple treasury is unable to collect damages. Accordingly, Rabbi Akiva can be understood as having first expressed his agreement concerning the valuation of land and then proceeding to dispute Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the Temple treasury.


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

אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **If it is so** that this is the disagreement, then **what** is the meaning of Rabbi Akiva’s statement: **The verse comes only** to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land? This indicates that Rabbi Akiva disagrees about how to understand this verse.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:8
[Bava Kamma 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:8)

וְעוֹד, מַאי ״קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** if the subject is the Temple treasury, **what** is the meaning of: **And** by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference one can derive that the Temple treasury of **consecrated** property collects from superior-quality land. If, as suggested, Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, then he maintains that damage to consecrated property is dealt with more stringently than damage to another person’s property, in that if one’s ox damages consecrated property one is liable for the full cost of the damage even if the ox was considered innocuous. If damage to consecrated property is dealt with more stringently, there is no basis to derive an *a fortiori* inference.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:9
[Bava Kamma 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:9)

וְעוֹד, הָא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל מַזִּיק, וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל מַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ashi say:** It is **taught explicitly** in a *baraita*: The verse: **“The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay”** (Exodus 22:4), teaches that the appraisal is of **the best of the field of the injured** party, **and** of **the best of the vineyard of the injured** party. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:** The appraisal is of **the best of the field of the one liable for the damage, and** of **the best of the vineyard of the one liable for the damage.** This clearly indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva compensation is collected from the superior-quality land belonging to the one liable for the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:10
[Bava Kamma 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:10)

רָמֵי לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא, כְּתִיב: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – מֵיטַב אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara considers others issues concerning the form in which restitution should be paid: **Abaye raises a contradiction** and addresses it **to Rava: It is written: “The best of his field and of the best of his vineyard he shall pay”** (Exodus 22:4), which indicates that from his **best**-quality land, **yes,** he shall pay, but from **something else, no,** he shall not pay.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:11
[Bava Kamma 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:11)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״יָשִׁיב״ – לְרַבּוֹת שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף, וַאֲפִילּוּ סוּבִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay; **he shall recompense** money to its owners” (Exodus 21:33–34)? Since the verse states: “The owner of the pit shall pay,” the additional term “he shall recompense” is superfluous. It therefore serves **to include** any item **worth money, and even bran,** a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of restitution.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:12
[Bava Kamma 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:12)

לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן מִדַּעְתּוֹ, כָּאן בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava resolves the contradiction: This is **not difficult. Here,** the term “he shall recompense” is referring to a case where he pays **of his own volition,** without being taken to court, and he may therefore use any form of payment. **There,** the phrase “of the best of his field” is referring to a case where he pays **against his will,** after the injured party has sued him in court. Since he caused the injured party additional trouble, he must pay using his best-quality land.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:13
[Bava Kamma 7a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:13)

אָמַר עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילַּאי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יְשַׁלֵּם״ – בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said:** According to this explanation, the language of the verse **is also precise, as it is written: “He shall pay,”** a term that, as opposed to: “He shall recompense,” connotes that he is forced to pay **against his will.**


###### Bava Kamma 7a:14
[Bava Kamma 7a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי כְּתִיב ״יְשׁוּלַּם״?! ״יְשַׁלֵּם״ כְּתִיב – מִדַּעְתּוֹ מַשְׁמַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him** that the precise meaning of the verse does not indicate that he is paying against his will: **Is it written: He shall be paid,** in the passive form, which would clearly indicate that he did not voluntarily initiate the payment himself but rather is paying against his will? No; **“he shall pay” is written,** which can also **indicate** that he pays **of his own volition.**


###### Bava Kamma 7a:15
[Bava Kamma 7a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּדְמָר – דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָּתִּים שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים, וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא לְמוֹכְרָן – מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, עַד מֶחֱצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said** an alternative resolution, **similar to that** with which the **Master,** i.e., Abaye’s teacher, Rabba, employed in order to resolve a different difficulty. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: A wealthy person is not entitled to take a poor man’s tithe. He is instead expected to sell his assets and purchase food with the proceeds. But in the case of an individual **who owns houses, fields, and vineyards, but** at the present time **cannot find** buyers **to** whom he can **sell them,** one **may feed him** with food from the **poor man’s tithe up until half** the value of his assets.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:16
[Bava Kamma 7a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:16)

וְהָוֵי בָּהּ מָר: הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי (הוּזַל) [דְּזוּל] אַרְעָתָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, וְדִידֵיהּ נָמֵי זָל בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ – אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי לִיסְפֵּי לֵיהּ, דְּהָא זוּל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Master **discussed it** and asked: **What are the circumstances** that led to him being unable to sell his land? **If everyone’s land depreciated** in value, **and his** land **also depreciated along with theirs, let us provide him** with **even more** than half the value of his assets, **as,** since **everyone’s land also depreciated,** the market value of his property is low and he is genuinely classified as a poor person, who may take as much poor man’s tithe as is given to him.


###### Bava Kamma 7a:17
[Bava Kamma 7a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/7a:17)

אֶלָּא דְּאוֹקִיר אַרְעָתָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, וְדִידֵיהּ – אַיְּידֵי דְּעָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק אַזּוּזֵי, זָל אַרְעֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be **that everyone** else’s **land appreciated** in value, **and** with regard to **his land, since** people see **that he goes in and goes out for money,** i.e., he is in need of money, they reason that he will be forced to accept a lower offer for his property. Consequently, **his land depreciated** in value.