Bava Kamma - Daf 4
- Why intentional damages of slaves are exempt
The Gemara suggests that keren, where the animal intends to damage, cannot be derived from shein, where the damage was unintended. Tosafos explains that keren is more difficult to watch, and the owner is less liable. When the Gemara objects that intentional damage is more of a reason to obligate the owner, it attempts to defend its original premise from the damages inflicted by slaves: עבד ואמה לאו אף על גב דכוונתן להזיק אפ"ה פטירי – a slave and slavewoman, is it not so that although their intent is to damage, [their master] is nonetheless exempt from paying? Rav Ashi responds that there is a unique reason to exempt the master for his slave’s damages: שמא יקניטנו רבו – perhaps his master will anger him, וילך וידליק גדישו של חבירו – and in retaliation, he will go and ignite the grain stack of [the master’s] friend, ונמצא זה מחייב את רבו מאה מנה בכל יום – and it would emerge that he can obligate his master one hundred maneh every day! Therefore, the Rabbis exempted a master from his slave’s damages.
- Relative stringencies of shein vs. regel, and “shor” vs. “man”
Rava concludes that according to Rav, “shor” refers to regel, and mav’eh refers to shein. The next section of the Mishnah, which says that they cannot be derived from each other, means: לא ראי הרגל שהזיקה מצוי – Regel, whose damage is common, is not similar כראי השן שאין הזיקה מצוי – to shein, whose damage is not as common. ולא ראי השן שיש הנאה להזיקו – And shein, where there is physical benefit for the damaging animal from its damage, is not similar כראי הרגל שאין הנאה להזיקו – to regel, where there is no benefit for the animal in its damage. According to Shmuel, that “shor” refers to all types of damages of animals, and mav’eh refers to damages of man, the Mishnah means: לא ראי השור שמשלם את הכופר – The ox, which pays kofer (i.e., obligates its owner to pay kofer when it kills a person), is not similar כראי האדם שאין משלם את הכופר – to man, which does not pay kofer when he kills someone. Intentional killing is punished by death, and unintentional killing incurs galus. ולא ראי האדם שחייב בארבעה דברים – And man, who pays four additional things (payments) when damaging another person (צער – pain, רפוי – healing, שבת – unemployment, and בושת – embarrassment), is not similar כראי השור שאין בו ארבעה דברים – to the shor, which does not have to pay four additional things.
- Rebbe Oshaya’s list of thirteen avos, and Rebbe Chiya’s list of twenty-four avos
Rebbe Oshaya taught a Baraisa: שלשה עשר אבות נזיקין – There are thirteen primary damagers: שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר – the unpaid custodian, the borrower, the paid custodian, and the renter, נזק צער וריפוי שבת ובושת – damages themselves, pain, healing expenses, unemployment, and embarrassment, in addition to the four avos listed by the Mishnah. According to Shmuel (that mav’eh of the Mishnah refers to shein), the Mishnah did not list Rebbe Oshaya’s additional nine avos because it only listed damages inflicted by one’s property, not damages inflicted by one’s self. According to Rav, that the Mishnah did mention the damages of man with the word mav’eh, this term is intended to include all of Rebbe Oshaya’s avos. Rebbe Oshaya listed the two types of man’s damages separately, because one’s damages to another person have different payments than those done to property. Rebbe Chiya taught a Baraisa listing twenty-four avos, which include different penalty payments, thieves, unrecognizable damages, and the thirteen listed by Rebbe Oshaya.
