Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 40b

בבא קמא מ׳ ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 40b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 40b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

A borrowed ox's liability, change of custody, and whether a stadium ox may be a קרבן

Overview

The amud continues the case of a borrowed ox that turned out to be a מועד, where the borrower and the owner each pay half the damage. The גמרא asks why the borrower pays at all, since with a תם he could have admitted or hidden the ox. It answers that the court seized the ox first. It then defends the owner's half through a series of claims and counter-claims, ending with רבי נתן's rule that a creditor can collect directly from his debtor's debtor. Next, the רישא and סיפא of the ברייתא seem to disagree about whether a change of custody changes an ox's status. רבי יוחנן, רבה and רב פפא each resolve this differently. The גמרא then asks whether a שור האצטדין that killed a person may be brought as a קרבן: רב says כשר, שמואל says פסול. A ברייתא seems to challenge שמואל, but the גמרא shows that its line about a forced goring refers to putting the ox to death. Finally, the גמרא asks why the owner of a רובע pays no כופר, and אביי begins an answer that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

אִם תָּם – הֲוָה מוֹדֵינָא,

If it were a תם, I would have admitted it,

וּמִפְּטַרְינָא!

and I would have been exempt!

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר

And even according to the one who says

פַּלְגָא נִזְקָא מָמוֹנָא,

half-damage is ordinary money,

The steps (27)

  1. ChallengeThe borrower could have admitted and gone free
  2. ChallengeEven if half-damage is regular money, he could have hidden the ox
  3. ResolutionThe court seized the ox first
  4. ChallengeThen why should the owner pay?
  5. ResolutionThe court would have taken it from the owner anyway
  6. ChallengeThe owner says he would have hidden the ox
  7. ResolutionHiding the ox would not have helped
  8. ChallengeWhat if the owner has no other property?
  9. ResolutionThe borrower is directly obligated to the injured party
  10. ProofThe source for רבי נתן's rule
  11. StatementThe last clause: an ox that became forewarned at the borrower's house
  12. ChallengeThe first and last clauses seem to contradict each other
  13. Resolutionרבי יוחנן: the two clauses come from different תנאים
  14. Resolutionרבה: custody never changes the status, but the owner can reject the borrower's effect
  15. Resolutionרב פפא: Custody does change the status, but the owner's name stays on the ox
  16. QuestionMay a stadium ox that killed someone be offered on the altar?
  17. Responseרב says fit, שמואל says disqualified
  18. ChallengeA ברייתא disqualifies a goring animal from the altar
  19. Questionרבי שמעון asks why the Torah lists both the bestiality animal and the goring animal
  20. ResponseEach case has a rule the other lacks, so both had to be written
  21. ChallengeThe line about forced goring must be about קרבנות, which challenges שמואל
  22. ResolutionThe line is about putting the ox to death, not about a קרבן
  23. ProofProof that the line must be about putting the ox to death
  24. QuestionWhich case of a רובע is exempt from כופר?
  25. ChallengeIf the animal killed her, killing is killing
  26. ChallengeIf the animal did not kill her, the rule teaches nothing about a רובע
  27. Resolutionאביי: The woman was executed by בית דין