|
If an ox [Tam] of the value of one hundred zuz has gored an ox of the
value of two hundred zuz and the carcass had no value at all, the
plaintiff will take possession of the [defendant`s] ox [that did the
damage]. Where an ox of the value of two hundred [zuz] gored an ox of the same value of two hundred [zuz] and the carcass had no value at all, R. Meir said that it was with reference to this case that it is written, and they shall sell the live ox and divide the money of it. R. Judah, however, said: this is certainly the Halachah, but while you fulfil [by this ruling the injunction], `and they shall sell the live ox and divide the money of it,` you do not fulfil [the next injunction], `and the dead ox also they shall divide.` the case dealt with by Scripture is therefore where an ox of the value of two hundred [zuz] gored an ox of the same value of two hundred [zuz] and the carcass was worth fifty zuz: one party would here Get half of the living ox together with half of the dead ox and the other party would similarly Get half of the living ox together with half of the dead ox. |
קמא 3.9 שור שווה מנה שנגח לשור שווה מאתיים, ואין הנבילה יפה כלום-- נוטל את השור׃ שור שווה מאתיים שנגח לשור שווה מאתיים, ואין הנבילה יפה כלום-- אמר רבי מאיר, על זה נאמר ''ומכרו את השור החי, וחצו את כספו'' (שמות כא,לה) ׃ אמר לו רבי יהודה, וכן הלכה, קיימת ''ומכרו את השור החי, וחצו את כספו''; ולא קיימת ''וגם את המת, יחצון'' (שם) ׃ ואיזה׃ זה שור שווה מאתיים שנגח לשור שווה מאתיים, והנבילה יפה חמישים זוז-- זה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת, וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת |
| There are cases where there is liability for offences committed by one`s cattle though there would be no liability should these offences be committed by oneself. There are, again, cases where there is no liability for offences committed by one`s cattle though there would be liability were these offences committed by oneself. For instance, if cattle has brought indignity [upon a human being] there is no liability, whereas if the owner causes the indignity there would be liability. So also if an ox puts out the eye of the owner`s slave or knocks out his tooth there is no liability, whereas if the owner himself has put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth he would be liable [to let him go free]. Again, if an ox has injured the father or mother of the owner there is liability, though were the owner himself to injure his father or his mother there would be no [civil] liability. So also where cattle has caused fire to be set to a barn on the day of Sabbath there is liability, whereas were the owner to set fire to a barn on Sabbath there would be no [civil] liability, as he would be subject to a capital charge. |
קמא 3.10 יש חייב על מעשה שורו, ופטור על מעשה עצמו; חייב על מעשה עצמו, ופטור על מעשה שורו׃ שורו שבייש, פטור; והוא שבייש, חייב׃ שורו שסימא את עין עבדו, והפיל את שינו-- פטור; והוא שסימא את עין עבדו, והפיל את שינו-- חייב׃ שורו שחבל באביו ובאימו, חייב; והוא שחבל באביו ובאימו, פטור׃ שורו שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת, חייב; והוא שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת, פטור-- מפני שהוא נידון בנפשו |
Click here for the hebrew/english of Perek 3 from emishna.com
To subscribe
click here
To unsubscribe,
click here
To view our archived/previous mesechtos
click here
To learn about our program for Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi
click here