Bava Kamma - Daf 45
- A שומר returning an ox after it is condemned to death
A Baraisa teaches that if a שומר was guarding an ox when it killed someone, he can return it before it is sentenced to avoid paying for it (since it is currently a valuable ox). If he returned it after it was condemned, the Tanna Kamma says: אינו מוחזר – it is not considered returned, because it is now worthless, but Rebbe Yaakov says it is considered returned. After Rabbah rejects an initial explanation,
he says they argue about גומרין דינו של שור שלא בפניו – if [Beis Din] can rule on the case of an ox not in its presence. If it can only be condemned when it is present, the owner can claim that the שומר caused the ox to become forbidden by placing it under Beis Din’s control. They argue about the principle of כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור. The Tanna Kamma holds that just as a person must be present to be condemned to death, an ox does as well. Rebbe Yaakov argues that only a person, who can make a claim in his defense, must be present, as opposed to an ox.
- ארבעה נסנכו תחת הבעלים
A Baraisa elaborates on the Mishnah on Daf 44b: ארבעה נכנסו תחת הבעלים – Four people take the owner’s place to be liable for an animal’s damages, and they are שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר – an unpaid שומר, a borrower, a paid שומר, and a renter. If the ox killed, then a tam would be killed and no kofer is paid. If it is a mu’ad, נהרגין ומשלמין את הכופר – [the ox] is killed and [the שומר] pays kofer, וחייבין להחזיר דמי שור לבעליו – and must return the ox’s value to its owner, חוץ משומר חנם – except for an unpaid שומר, who is exempt. The Gemara explains that he guarded the ox with שמירה פחותה – an inferior guarding, so a שומר חנם, who is only liable for negligence, is exempt. Still, kofer must be paid, because the Baraisa follows the opinion of Rebbe Eliezer (below), that a mu’ad’s owner is always liable, regardless of how well he guarded it, or possibly the opinion of Rebbe Meir, that a superior guarding is required for a mu’ad.
- Machlokes about the level of guarding required for tam and mu’ad
The next Mishnah states: קשרו בעליו במוסרה – If the owner tied [his ox] with a rein, ונעל בפניו כראוי – or locked the gate before it, such that it can withstand a normal wind, yet it went out and damaged, Rebbe Meir holds: אחד תם ואחד מועד חייב – whether it is a tam or a mu’ad, he is liable, because these lesser forms of guarding do not exempt the owner from paying damages of either. Although Rebbe Yehudah agrees that a tam is liable with such guarding, he is exempt for a mu’ad, because the Torah says about a mu’ad, "ולא ישמרנו בעליו" – and its owner did not guard it, ושמור הוא זה – and this one was guarded, at least somewhat. Rebbe Eliezer says: אין לו שמירה אלא סכין – [A mu’ad] has no sufficient guarding except the knife of shechitah, and he is liable for damages even when he guarded it in a superior way. After the Gemara explains Rebbe Meir’s and Rebbe Yehudah’s sources, it presents a fourth opinion. Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov says: אחד תם ואחד מועד ששמרו שמירה פחותה פטור – Both a tam or a mu’ad which its owner guarded with an inferior guarding and it damaged, he is exempt.
