Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN THE OXEN CHANGE IN VALUE

(a) (Beraisa): An ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200. The damage was 50; the ox rose in value to 400 - if not for the damage, it would now be worth 800;

1. The damager pays according to the time of damage (50 - if it is Tam, 25).
2. If the damagee went down in value, payments are according to the time of judgment.
3. If the damager rose in value, it pays according to the time of damage; if it went down in value, it pays as the time of judgment.

(b) 'If the damager rose in value, it pays as the time of damage' - this is as R. Yishmael, who says that the damagee is a regular creditor (he has no partnership in the animal);
(c) Question: But the Beraisa ends 'If it went down in value, it pays as the time of judgment' this is as R. Akiva, who says they are partners!

1. Is the beginning as R. Yishmael, and the end as R. Akiva?!

(d) Answer: The whole Beraisa is as R. Akiva; the case is, he fattened the ox.
(e) Question: If so, why must the beginning of the Beraisa teach, if the damaged ox rose in value to 400, the damager pays according to the time of damage - this is obvious!
(f) Answer (Rav Papa): The beginning of the Beraisa applies whether or not he fattened it - the Chidush is when it rose in price by itself;

1. The end of the Beraisa is only when he fattened it.

(g) Question: What is the case when the damaged animal went down in value?

1. Suggestion: If this was because he overworked it - that is no reason for the damager to pay more!

(h) Answer (Rav Ashi): It went down because of the wound, it is all on account of the goring.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): An ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200, the carcass is worthless - on this case the Torah said "They will sell the live ox and split the money."

1. R. Yehudah: You fulfilled that verse, but not "Also the dead ox they will split"!
2. Rather, an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200, the carcass is worth 50 - each gets half the live ox and half the dead ox.

(b) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): An ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200, the carcass is worth 50 - each gets half the live ox and half the dead ox - this is the case the Torah spoke of;
(c) R. Meir: No, the case of the Torah is when both were worth 200, and the carcass is worthless - "They will sell the live ox and split the money";

1. "Also the dead ox they will split" teaches that the damager pays half the difference between the value of the gored ox when alive and after death.

(d) Question: Both Tana'im agree (when the carcass is worth 50) that both parties end up with 125 - on what do they argue?
(e) Answer #1 (Rava): When the value of the carcass declines: R. Meir says that the damagee loses, R. Yehudah says that the damager shares the loss.
(f) Question (Abaye): If so, R. Yehudah holds that a Tam is more stringent than a Mu'ad (we learned on 10A that by a Mu'ad, the damagee suffers the entire loss)!

1. Suggestion: That is true!

i. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (If the owner guarded the animal poorly) a Tam is liable, a Mu'ad is exempt.

2. Rejection R. Yehudah only said that regarding guarding the ox, for the verses say so;

i. We have no source that Tam should be more stringent regarding payments!
ii. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One might have thought that a (Tam) ox worth 100 (Zuz) that gores an ox worth 20, and the carcass is worth 4, that each gets half the live ox and half the dead ox;
iii. This cannot be, for Mu'ad is more stringent than Tam, and Mu'ad does not pay more than the damage!

(g) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): They argue when the carcass rose in value.

1. R. Meir holds that the damagee profits, R. Yehudah holds that the damager shares the profit (i.e. he pays less).
2. This explains what was difficult to R. Yehudah: the Torah was lenient on the damager, to allow him half the increased value of the carcass - one might have thought that an ox worth 20 that gores an ox worth 100, and the carcass is worth 50, that each gets half the live ox and half the dead ox;

i. Where do we find that the damager profits? Also - it says "He will pay", he will not receive!
ii. Question: Why must we also bring the verse?
iii. Answer: One might have thought, when the damagee has no loss - for example, his animal was worth 20, and the carcass is worth 30, then both damagee and damager would gain 5 - the verse teaches, the damager never gains.

(h) Question (R. Acha bar Tachlifa): If so, R. Yehudah (has no source that the damagee gets half the decrease in value as a result of the goring, he) holds that Tam sometimes pays more than half-damage (i.e. when the damager is worth more than the damagee) - but the Torah says "They will sell the live ox and split the money"!
(i) Answer (Rava): No - R. Yehudah agrees that the damagee gets half the decrease in value.

1. Question: But this is learned from "Also the dead ox they will split";

i. R. Yehudah learned from there that each gets half the live ox and half the dead ox!

2. Answer: If it only came to teach that, it should have said 'And the dead ox they will split';

i. It says "Also the dead ox they will split" to teach both laws.

(a) (Mishnah): Sometimes Reuven is liable for his ox' action and exempt for his own; sometimes, just the opposite.

1. If his ox caused embarrassment, he is exempt; if he embarrassed, he is liable;
2. If his ox destroyed a limb of Reuven's slave, he is exempt; if he did so, he is liable;
3. If his ox wounded his father or mother, or burned something on Shabbos, he is liable; if Reuven did so, he does not pay, for he is judged to die.