POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 34
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;
2) SPLITTING THE OXEN
1. The damager pays according to the time of damage (50
- if it is Tam, 25).
(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
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.
(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.
(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
(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"!
(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;
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.
(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
(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)!
3) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DAMAGE OF MEN AND OXEN
1. Suggestion: That is true!
(g) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): They argue when the carcass rose
i. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (If the owner guarded
the animal poorly) a Tam is liable, a Mu'ad is
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
iii. This cannot be, for Mu'ad is more stringent
than Tam, and Mu'ad does not pay more than the
1. R. Meir holds that the damagee profits, R. Yehudah
holds that the damager shares the profit (i.e. he
(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"!
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.
(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.