Bava Kamma 34b

בבא קמא ל״ד ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 34b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 34b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

How רבי יהודה divides the dead ox without a תם paying more than a מועד, and a new משנה on an owner's liability for his ox versus himself

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a challenge to רבא's reading of רבי יהודה: on that reading, a תם would come out stricter than a מועד. A משנה about guarding is offered as support, but the גמרא rejects it, because guarding (שמירה) is not payment (תשלומין). A ברייתא then shows, through a קל וחומר, that on payment רבי יהודה never lets a תם pay more than a מועד. So רבי יוחנן gives a new explanation: רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה argue about who gets the carcass's increase in value, and רבי יהודה lets the מזיק share in it. Even so, a מזיק may never profit, and the פסוק ״שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם״ covers even the case where the ניזק loses nothing. Next, רב אחא בר תחליפא asks whether a תם would then pay more than half. The answer is that only the loss caused by the death is split, which the extra word ״וְגַם״ teaches. A new משנה then lists cases where an owner is liable for his ox's act but not his own, or the reverse. The death-penalty cases are among them. The גמרא discusses destructive acts on שבת and begins a challenge to רבי יוחנן from the haystack case, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (22)

1. ChallengeThe problem: a תם would end up stricter than a מועד
2. ResolutionPossible answer: רבי יהודה does hold a תם can be stricter
3. RejectionPushing back: that משנה is about guarding, not payment
4. ProofA ברייתא: what if both owners split the living and the dead ox?
5. Proofרבי יהודה's קל וחומר: a תם cannot pay more than a מועד
6. Resolutionרבי יוחנן: The argument is about the carcass going up in value
7. ProofWhy רבי יהודה worried: a case where the damager would profit
8. ProofA damager never profits, and the פסוק says the owner only pays
9. QuestionWhy was the פסוק needed on top of the logic?
10. ResponseA case where the ניזק loses nothing: does the damager still share the gain?
11. ResponseThe פסוק shows the damager never gains
12. ChallengeWould a תם end up paying more than half?
13. ResolutionOnly the loss from the death is split
14. ChallengeWhere does רבי יהודה learn this limit?
15. ResolutionThe extra word 'also' teaches two things
16. StatementNew משנה: ox's act versus the owner's own act
17. StatementExempt for the ox, liable for himself: shame and the slave
18. StatementLiable for the ox, exempt for himself: parents and שבת
19. StatementA teaching: destructive acts on שבת are exempt, except injuring and kindling
20. Rejectionרבי יוחנן rejects the teaching
21. ResolutionIf accepted, it applies only when there is a useful purpose
22. ChallengeSetting up a challenge from the משנה's haystack case