Bava Kamma - Daf 33
- A tam which injures a person
The next Mishnah discusses two animals or people damaging each other. If a person and a mu’ad damaged each other, then the one who inflicted greater damage pays the excess in full (since a mu’ad pays full damages). If a person and tam damaged each other, and the person damaged more, he pays the excess full damages. If the tam damaged more, משלם במותר חצי נזק – he pays the excess half-damages. Rebbe Akiva disagrees: אף תם שחבל באדם משלם במותר נזק שלם – Even a tam which injured a person pays the excess full damages, because he holds a tam which damages a person always pays full damages.
The Torah says regarding an animal which gores a person: כמשפט הזה יעשה לו – like this law shall be done to it. The Tanna Kamma darshens it to say that the same laws governing an animal inuring another animal (i.e., a mu’ad pays full and a tam pays half) apply when it injures a person. Rebbe Akiva says that "הזה" teaches to follow only the law just mentioned, that of a mu’ad paying in full. Still, he darshens another phrase that it pays מגופו – from its body, and not more.
- Machlokes if יושם השור or הוחלט השור
The next Mishnah teaches that if an ox worth one hundred zuz kills an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worthless, נוטל את השור – [the damaged party] takes the damaging ox, which equals half the damages. In a Baraisa, Rebbe Yishmael says: יושם השור בב"ד – the ox should be assessed by Beis Din, and its owner pays the victim up to its value. Rebbe Akiva says: הוחלט השור – the ox is automatically transferred to the possession of the victim. Our Mishnah, which says the victim “takes” the ox, follows Rebbe Akiva’s view. The Gemara explains that Rebbe Yishmael holds: בעל חוב הוא וזוזי הוא דמסיק ליה – [the victim] is merely the damager’s creditor, and has a monetary claim against him, but no claim to the ox itself. Rebbe Akiva holds: שותפי נינהו – they are partners in the ox, proportionate to the amount owed. They disagree if the phrase "ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו" – they shall sell the live ox and divide its money is a directive to Beis Din, or the מזיק and ניזק. The Gemara notes that they disagree if the ניזק is able to be makdish the ox.
- שחטו...מה שעשה עשוי, המזיק שעבודו של חבירו
A Baraisa states: שחטו ונתנו במתנה מה שעשה עשוי – If the owner shechted [the damaging ox] or gave it away as a gift, what he has done is done. The Gemara asks, ליתי ולשתלם מבשריה – let him come and collect from its meat! Rav Shizvi explained that the difference pertains to פחת שחיטה – the depreciation caused by shechting, for which the מזיק does not have to pay. Rav Huna the son of Rebbe Yehoshua said: זאת אומרת המזיק שעבודו של חבירו פטור – This tells us that one who damages his fellow’s lien is exempt from paying the creditor, because the damage is indirect. Here, although he reduced the value of the ox which the victim would collect, he does not pay the difference. The Gemara asks that this extrapolation is obvious, and answers that one might have thought that specifically here, the מזיק is not liable for damaging the ox (which the ניזק stands to collect), because he can say "לא חסרתיך ולא
מידי" – I did not take anything from you, because he can argue: זיקא בעלמא הוא דשקלי מינך – I merely took away “wind” from you (i.e., the ox’s life breath), but the item is still here, as opposed to actually destroying a lien property.
