Bava Kamma - Daf 46
- שור שנגח את הפרה ונמצא עוברה בצדה
The fifth Perek begins: שור שנגח את הפרה ונמצא עוברה בצדה – If an ox gored a cow and its fetus was found dead at its side, ואין ידוע אם עד שלא נגחה ילדה – and it is unknown if [the cow] gave birth before [the ox] gored it, and the ox’s owner is not responsible, אם משנגחה ילדה – or if it gave birth after [the ox] gored it, causing the loss of the fetus, משלם חצי נזק לפרה ורביע נזק לולד – he pays half damages for the cow and one-quarter damages for the fetus. The Mishnah also discusses a case where a pregnant cow gored an ox, and it is unknown if the cow gave birth before the attack, or afterward (in which case the fetus participated in the damage). Shmuel explains that this Mishnah reflects the opinion of Sumchos, who holds: ממון המוטל בספק חולקין – money whose ownership is inherently in doubt is divided by the two parties. Since it is unknown if the fetus was damaged by the ox, its owner is only paid half of the normal half damages. But the Chochomim hold: זה כלל גדול בדין – This is a great rule in judgement: המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה – The one attempting to extract payment from his fellow, the burden of proof is upon him.
- המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה: even regarding ברי ושמא, or אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב
The Gemara asks why the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה is called a "כלל גדול בדין" – a great rule in judgement. It first answers that it teaches: דאפילו ניזק אומר ברי ומזיק אומר שמא – that even if the victim says, “You are definitely liable,” and the damager only says, “I am possibly exempt,” the victim cannot collect without proof. The Gemara additionally answers that the principle includes a case where the litigant is supported by the majority: If one sold an ox which was discovered to have been violent, and is not usable for plowing, Rav says: הרי זה מקח טעות – this is a purchase made in error and must be refunded. Shmuel says that the seller can claim: לשחיטה מכרתיו לך – I sold it to you for shechting (i.e., meat), and the sale is valid. The case is where most people purchase oxen for plowing, but some purchase for meat. Rav says we follow the majority, so the buyer can demand a refund, since the ox was not usable for plowing. But Shmuel says: כי אזלינן בתר רובא – when do we follow the majority? באיסורא – only for questions concerning prohibitions, אבל בממונא לא אזלינן בתר רובא – but regarding monetary disputes, we do not follow the majority. Rather, we say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.
- The source for המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani asked: מניין להמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה – From where do we derive that one attempting to extract payment from his fellow, the burden of proof is upon him? The Torah says: מי בעל דברים יגש אליהם – whoever has a claim should approach them, meaning: יגיש ראיה אליהם – he should present proof to them, and cannot collect payment without proof. Rav Ashi objected that no source is necessary: סברא הוא – It is simple logic: דכאיב ליה כאיבא אזיל לבי אסיא – the one suffering from pain goes to a doctor to be cured. Similarly, anyone attempting to litigate a claim against his fellow must substantiate his claim to Beis Din. The passuk brought above is darshened by Rabba bar Abuha to teach: שאין נזקקין אלא לתובע תחלה – that Beis Din only addresses the claim of the plaintiff first, even where the defendant makes a counterclaim reducing his debt.
