Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 3

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 3 Mishnah 9

בבא קמא פרק ג׳ משנה ט׳

9
With regard to an innocuous ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass of the dead ox is not worth anything, its owner takes the entire ox that gored it, since it is worth half the value of the damage. With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing, Rabbi Meir said: It is about this type of case that it is stated: “Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value” (Exodus 21:35). Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And that is the halakha, yet your interpretation of the verse is incorrect. You have upheld the clause: “Then they shall sell the live ox and divide its monetary value,” which fits your interpretation of the case. But you have not upheld the latter clause of the verse: “And the dead they shall also divide,” since in the case you mentioned the carcass is worthless. Rather, to which case is the verse referring? It is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars. In this case, this party takes half the value of the living ox, one hundred dinars, and half the value of the dead ox, twenty-five dinars; and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox.

שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה כְלוּם, נוֹטֵל אֶת הַשּׁוֹר. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה כְלוּם, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (שמות כא) וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְכֵן הֲלָכָה, קִיַּמְתָּ וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ, וְלֹא קִיַּמְתָּ (שם) וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן, וְאֵיזֶה, זֶה שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְהַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, שֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת:

ט׳

וכן הלכה – certainly it is the Halakha that he gives him a Maneh which is one-half the damages, but this ox is not mentioned in the Torah , for you have fulfilled and sold the living ox, etc. And there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the profit of the carrion, such as at the time of death, it was not worthy anything, but it increased in value afterwards and it was worthy of being fed to dogs or to be sold to a heathen. Rabbi Meir holds that there is raise in the value of the carrion of the ox that had suffered damages, and the one (i.e., the owner of the ox) who did the damage didn’t give anything other than providing one-half of his damage, and that is identical with that which Rabbi Meir said regarding this, as it states (Exodus 21:35): “[When a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies,] they shall sell the live ox and divide its price,” meaning to say, that he (i.e., the owner of the ox that did the damage) gives him half his damages from the monetary value of the living ox, and he doesn’t deduct for himself anything on account of the increase in value that the carrion gained. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that the one-half of the increased value of the carrion that caused damages and when [the owner of] the ox that caused damages pays to [the owner of] the ox that suffered damages his one-half damage, he deducts for himself one-half the increase in value of the carrion (according to the condition of the animal) from the time of [its] death until the time of their appearance in court (see Talmud Bava Kamma 34a), and that is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda stated to Rabbi Meir: You have fulfilled the Biblical verse in that you have sold the living animal, but you have not fulfilled [the Biblical mandate] (Exodus 21:35): “they shall also divide the dead animal,” for he has to divide the increase In value of the dead carrion and the [owner of the] one who did damage must give him [the owner of the one whose ox died] one-half. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

וכן הלכה. ודאי כן הלכה דמנה נותן לו דהיינו חצי נזק. אבל אין זה שור האמור בתורה, דקיימת ומכרו את השור החי וגו׳. ופלוגתא דר״מ ורבי יהודה הוא בשבח נבלה, כגון שבשעת מיתה לא היתה שוה כלום ונתייקרה אחר כך והיא שוה להאכילה לכלבים או למכרה לנכרי, ר״מ סבר שבח נבלה דניזק הוי, ולא שקיל בה מזיק כלום אלא נותן לו חצי נזקו, והיינו דקאמר ר״מ על זה נאמר ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו, כלומר, שצריך ליתן לו דמי חצי נזקו מדמי שור החי ואינו מנכה לו כלום בעבור השבח שהשביחה הנבלה. ור׳ יהודה סבר דחצי שבח נבלה דמזיק הוי, וכשבא מזיק לשלם לניזק דמי חצי נזקו, מנכה לו חצי שבח שהשביחה הנבלה משעת מיתה עד שעת העמדה בדין, והיינו דקאמר ר׳ יהודה לרבי מאיר קיימת ומכרו את השור החי ולא קיימת וגם את המת יחצון, שצריך לחלק השבח שהשביח המת ושקל ליה מזיק פלגא. והלכה כרבי יהודה: