Bava Kamma — Daf 15a

בני חורין ובני ברית בני חורין למעוטי עבדים בני ברית למעוטי עובדי כוכבים

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן עבד משום דאין לו יחס אבל נכרי דיש לו יחס אימא לא ואי אשמעינן נכרי משום דלא שייך במצות אבל עבד דשייך במצות אימא לא צריכא

והנשים בכלל הנזק מנהני מילי

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אמר קרא (במדבר ה, ו) איש או אשה כי יעשו מכל חטאת השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל עונשין שבתורה

דבי רבי אלעזר תנא (שמות כא, א) ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל דינין שבתורה

דבי חזקיה ורבי יוסי הגלילי תנא אמר קרא (שמות כא, כט) והמית איש או אשה השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל מיתות שבתורה

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן קמייתא התם הוא דחס רחמנא עלה כי היכי דתהוי לה כפרה אבל דינין איש דבר משא ומתן אין אשה לא

ואי אשמעינן דינין כי היכי דתיהוי לה חיותא אבל כפרה איש דבר מצוה אין אשה דלאו בת מצוה לא

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי הכא משום כפרה והכא משום חיותא אבל לענין קטלא איש דבר מצוה לשלם כופר אשה לא

ואי אשמעינן כופר משום דאיכא איבוד נשמה אבל הני תרתי דליכא איבוד נשמה אימא לא צריכא

הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין

אתמר פלגא נזקא רב פפא אמר ממונא רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר קנסא

רב פפא אמר ממונא קסבר סתם שוורים לאו בחזקת שימור קיימן ובדין הוא דבעי לשלומי כוליה ורחמנא הוא דחס עליה דאכתי לא אייעד תוריה

רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר קנסא קסבר סתם שוורים בחזקת שימור קיימי ובדין הוא דלא לשלם כלל ורחמנא הוא דקנסיה כי היכי דלנטריה לתוריה

תנן הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין בשלמא למאן דאמר פלגא נזקא ממונא היינו דשייך ניזק בתשלומין אלא למ"ד פלגא נזקא קנסא השתא דלאו דידיה שקיל בתשלומין איתיה

לא נצרכא אלא לפחת נבילה

פחת נבילה הא תנא ליה רישא תשלומי נזק מלמד שהבעלים מטפלין בנבילה

חדא בתם וחדא במועד

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן תם משום דאכתי לא אייעד אבל מועד אימא לא ואי אשמעינן מועד משום דקא משלם כוליה אבל תם אימא לא צריכא

ת"ש מה בין תם למועד שהתם משלם חצי נזק מגופו ומועד משלם נזק שלם מן העלייה

ואם איתא ליתני נמי הא תם אינו משלם ע"פ עצמו מועד משלם ע"פ עצמו

תנא ושייר מאי שייר דהאי שייר

שייר חצי כופר

אי משום חצי כופר לאו שיורא הוא הא מני רבי יוסי הגלילי היא דאמר תם משלם חצי כופר

ת"ש

FREE MEN AND PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW. 'FREE MAN' excludes slaves;  'PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW'  excludes heathens. Moreover, it was essential to exclude each of them. For if the exemption had been stated only in reference to a slave, we would have thought it was on account of his lack of [legal] pedigree  whereas a heathen who possesses a [legal] pedigree  might perhaps have been thought not to have been excluded. Had, on the other hand, the exemption been referred only to a heathen, we should have thought it was on account of his not being subject to the commandments [of the Law], whereas a slave who is subject to the commandments  might have been thought not to have been excluded. It was thus essential to exclude each of them independently. WOMEN ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF TORTS. Whence is derived this ruling? — Rab Judah said on behalf of Rab, and so was it also taught at the school of R. Ishmael:  Scripture states, When a man or woman shall commit any sin.  Scripture has thus made woman and man equal regarding all the penalties of the Law. In the School of Eleazar it was taught: Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them.  Scripture has thus made woman and man equal regarding all the judgments of the Law. The School of Hezekiah and Jose the Galilean taught: Scripture says. It hath killed a man or a woman.  Scripture has thus made woman and man equal regarding all the laws of manslaughter in the Torah. Moreover, [all the quotations] are necessary: Had only the first inference  been drawn, [I might have said that] the Divine Law exercised mercy towards her so that she should also have the advantage of atonement, whereas judgments which concern as a rule man who is engaged in business, should not include woman. Again, were only the inference regarding judgments to have been made, we might perhaps have said that woman should also not be deprived of a livelihood, whereas the law of atonement should be confined to man, as it is he who is subject to all commandments, but should not include woman, since she is not subject to all the commandments.  Moreover, were even these two inferences to have been available, [we might have said that] the one is on account of atonement and the other on account of livelihood, whereas regarding manslaughter [it might have been thought that] it is only in the case of man, who is subject to all commandments, that compensation for the loss of life must be made, but this should not be the case with woman. Again, were the inference only made in the case of compensation for manslaughter, [it might have been thought to apply] only where there is loss of human life, whereas in the other two cases, where no loss of human life is involved, I might have said that man and woman are not on the same footing. The independent inferences were thus essential. THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT. It has been stated:  The liability of half-damages  is said by R. Papa to be civil, whereas R. Huna the son of R. Joshua considers it to be penal.  R. Papa said that it is civil, for he maintains that average cattle cannot control themselves not to gore.  Strict justice should therefore demand full payment [in case of damage].  It was only Divine Law that exercised mercy [and released half payment] on account of the fact that the cattle have not yet become Mu'ad. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua who said that it is penal, on the other hand maintains that average cattle can control themselves not to gore.  Justice should really require no payment at all.  It was Divine Law that imposed [upon the owner] a fine [in case of damage] so that additional care should be taken of cattle. We have learnt: THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT ARE INVOLVED IN PAYMENT. That is all very well according to the opinion which maintains that the liability of half-damages is civil. The plaintiff [who receives only half his due] is thus indeed involved in the payment. But according to the opinion that the liability of half-damages is penal, in which case the plaintiff is given that which is really not his due, how is he involved in the payment? — This may apply to the loss caused by a decrease in the value of the carcass [which is sustained by the plaintiff].  'A decrease in the value of the carcass'! Has not this ruling been laid down in a previous Mishnah: 'To compensate for the damage'  implying that the owners [plaintiffs] have to retain the carcass as part payment?  — One Mishnah gives the law in the case of Tam whereas the other deals with Mu'ad. Moreover these independent indications  are of importance: For were the ruling laid down only in the case of Tam, it might have been accounted for by the fact that the animal has not yet become Mu'ad, whereas in the case of Mu'ad I might have thought that the law is different; if on the other hand the ruling had been laid down only in the case of Mu'ad, it might have been explained as due to the fact that the damage is compensated in full, whereas in the case of Tam I might have thought that the law is otherwise. The independent indications were thus essential. Come and hear: What is the difference [in law] between Tam and Mu'ad? In the case of Tam, half-damages are paid, and only out of the body [of the tort-feasant cattle], whereas in the case of Mu'ad full payment is made out of the best of the estate.  Now, if it is so [that the liability of half-damages is penal] why not mention also the following distinction, 'That in the case of Tam no liability is created by mere admission,  while in the case of Mu'ad liability is established also by mere admission'? — This Mishnah stated [some points] and omitted [others]. But what else did it omit that the omission of that particular point should be justified?  — It also omitted the payment of half-kofer [for manslaughter].  The absence of half-kofer [for manslaughter], however, is no omission, as the Mishnah may be in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean who maintains that Tam is not immune from half-liability for kofer [for manslaughter]. Come and hear: