Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 15b

בבא קמא ט״ו ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 15b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 15b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether a תם's חצי נזק is ממון or קנס, its practical results in בבל, and the new משנה on five תמין and five מועדין.

Overview

There is a key rule: a person who admits on his own to something that carries a קנס does not pay, but if it is ממון, his own admission makes him pay. The גמרא tries twice to prove from a משנה in כתובות that the חצי נזק of a תם is ממון. The first proof, from 'my ox killed so-and-so's ox,' is pushed off: the whole משנה is about a מועד. The second proof, from the rule that only someone paying MORE than the damage is exempt on admission, ends in a תיובתא. Even so, the גמרא rules פלגא נזקא קנסא. It explains that the משנה could not make a blanket rule about paying less, because חצי נזק צרורות is ממון. The practical result: an unusual attack by a dog or cat is not collected in בבל, but the victim keeps what he seizes, can force a hearing in ארץ ישראל, and the owner is placed in נידוי until he removes the danger, based on רבי נתן. A new משנה then lists five תם acts and five מועד cases, including wild animals. The גמרא shows that the first part of that list follows the רבנן and the later part follows רבי טרפון, as שמואל taught. Finally, רבי אלעזר in the name of רב begins a different explanation, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִי״

"My ox killed so-and-so"

אוֹ ״שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ –

or "[my ox killed] so-and-so's ox"

הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

this person pays based on his own admission.

מַאי, לָאו בְּתָם?

What, is it not [talking] about an innocuous ox?

The steps (32)

  1. StatementThe source: admitting your ox killed
  2. ProofSuggesting the source is about a תם ox
  3. RejectionNo, it is about a מועד ox
  4. QuestionSo would a תם not pay on admission?
  5. ChallengeThen the משנה should have split the same case
  6. ResolutionThe whole משנה is about a מועד
  7. ProofNew proof from 'paying more than the damage'
  8. RejectionMaybe only the exact amount pays on admission
  9. QuestionSo would 'less' not pay either?
  10. ChallengeThen the משנה should have used broader wording
  11. ConclusionRefuted: חצי נזק is not a penalty
  12. StatementThe ruling: half damages is a fine
  13. ChallengeHow can a refuted view be the law?
  14. ResolutionPinpointing what the refutation rested on
  15. ResolutionThe pebbles case blocks a sweeping rule
  16. StatementUnusual attacks by dogs and cats are not collected in Babylonia
  17. StatementSmall animals are normal food, so the payment is collected
  18. StatementIf the victim seized payment, we do not take it back
  19. StatementSetting a time to go to court in ארץ ישראל
  20. StatementThe owner is placed in נידוי until he removes the danger
  21. ProofThe source for removing dangers: רבי נתן and the פסוק
  22. StatementNew משנה: five acts of a תם and five of a מועד
  23. StatementThe five acts for which an animal starts out as a תם
  24. StatementThe five cases where the owner pays in full
  25. StatementWild animals are forewarned from the start
  26. Statementרבי אלעזר: tame wild animals are not forewarned, except the snake
  27. StatementThe גמרא infers the משנה is set in the victim's courtyard
  28. ResponseThe משנה follows the רבנן
  29. ChallengeThe end of the list sounds like רבי טרפון
  30. ChallengeCan one משנה switch opinions midway?
  31. ResolutionYes, as שמואל told רב יהודה
  32. Statementרבי אלעזר quoting רב opens a new explanation