Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 3 Mishnah 11
Change text layout:
בבא קמא פרק ג׳ משנה י"א
With regard to an ox that was pursuing another ox, and the ox being pursued became injured, but there are no witnesses as to how it was injured, and this one, the owner of the injured ox, says to the owner of the pursuing ox: Your ox injured my ox, and you are liable to pay me damages, and that one, the owner of the pursuing ox, says in response: No; rather, it was hurt by a rock, and I am not liable, then in this case, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. As long as the owner of the injured ox cannot prove that the injury was inflicted by the pursuing ox, the owner of the pursuing ox is not liable. In a case where two oxen, belonging to two different owners, were pursuing one ox belonging to a third person, and that ox was injured by one of the pursuing oxen, and this one, the owner of one of the pursuing oxen, says to the owner of the other: It was your ox that caused the injury, and that one, the owner of the other pursuing ox, says: No, it was your ox that caused the injury, the two of them are exempt, since each of them rejects the claim of the injured party that his ox caused the injury. If both oxen belonged to one person, both are liable, as will be explained in the Gemara. If the pursuing oxen both belonged to one person, and were both innocuous, so that restitution is paid exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, and one was large and the other one small, in this case, if the injured party says that the large ox caused the damage, and he is therefore entitled to receive restitution for half the damage from the value of the large ox, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small ox caused the damage, and half of its value is not sufficient to cover half the damage; or, similarly, in a case where one ox is innocuous and one is forewarned, and the injured party says: The forewarned ox caused the damage, and the injured party is therefore eligible to receive full damages, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the innocuous ox caused the damage, in which case he is liable to pay only half the damage; in both of the above cases, the principle is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. If the injured animals were two oxen, one large and the other one small, and the ones that caused the damage were also two oxen, one large and one small, and the injured party says: The large one injured the large one and the small one injured the small one, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small one injured the large one, in which case, if half the value of the belligerent ox does not cover half the damage, he is not required to pay more, and the large one injured the small one; or, similarly, if one of the belligerent oxen was innocuous and one forewarned, and the injured party says: The forewarned ox injured the large one, and the innocuous ox injured the small one, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the innocuous ox injured the large one and the forewarned ox injured the small one; here too, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר שׁוֹר אַחֵר, וְהֻזַּק, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא בְסֶלַע לָקָה, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִים אַחַר אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד, שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין. הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן הִזִּיק. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם הִזִּיק, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ הַנִּזּוֹקִין שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיקִים שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְקָטָן אֶת הַקָּטָן, וּמַזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְגָדוֹל אֶת הַקָּטָן. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְתָם אֶת הַקָּטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וּמוּעָד אֶת הַקָּטָן, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה:
Bartenura
בסלע לקה. מתחכך היה בסלע ולקה:
היו שנים רודפין אחר אחד. שני שוורים של שני בני אדם רודפים אחר שור של אדם אחד:
שניהם פטורים. דתרוייהו מדחו ליה:
שניהם חייבים. בגמרא מפרש למתניתין כגון ששניהם תמין, שאין התם משלם אלא מגופו. וכי איתנהו לתרוייהו קמן משתלם הניזק חצי נזקו מבין שניהם, אבל ליתנהו לתרוייהו מצי אמר ליה זיל אייתי ראיה דהאי תורא אזקך ואשלם לך:
גדול הזיק. ויש בגופו שוה חצי נזק:
קטן הזיק. ודמי הקטן תקח, ומותר חצי נזקך תפסיד:
קטן הזיק את הגדול. ואע״פ שחצי נזקו של גדול מרובה, לא תקח אלא קטן שלי. וחצי נזקו של קטן שלך, קח מן הגדול. וכל הנך המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה דתנינן במתניתין, אם לא הביא ראיה אין לו כלום ואפילו דמי תם, ואפילו קטן שהודה לו אין לו, שהטוען את חברו חטין והודה לו בשעורים פטור אף מדמי שעורים. ואי תפס הניזק שיעור מה שהודה לו המזיק, לא מפקינן מיניה:
בסלע לקה – it rubbed itself against a rock and was damaged.
היו שנים רודפין אחר א' – two oxen [belonging to] two people are pursuing/running after the ox of another person.
שניהם פטורים – since both pushed it aside.
שניהם חייבים – In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 36a) it explains our Mishnah as for example that both of them (i.e., the oxen) are innocuous for the [owner of the] innocuous ox does not pay other than from his own funds. But when both are present, the first one pays the [owner of the] damaged ox one-half damages between the two of them. But where both are not present, one can say to him: Go bring proof that this ox caused you damage and I will pay you.
גדול הזיק – that there is in his body the equivalent of half-damages.
קטן הזיק – and you will take the worth of the small ox, and the excess one-half of your damages, you will lose.
קאן הזיק את הגדול – and even though that half of the damages of he larger ox is greater, you will not take other than my small one. And half of his damages of the small one is yours. Take from the large one, and all of this is “he who seeks reparation from his fellow must produce evidence,” as we have taught in our Mishnah. But if he did not bring proof, he has nothing and even the value of he innocuous [ox, and even if the [owner of the] small ox who admitted to him, he lacks, for the person who makes a claim on his fellow for wheat and admits to him regarding barley is exempt even from the monetary value of the barley. But if the [owner of the ox] who suffered damage grabbed a measure of what the [owner of the] ox who caused the damages admitted to him, we don’t take it from him.