Bava Kamma

[No exception was made in this case] so that the sinner  should not profit thereby. But let him pay the amount of the fine to the poor?  — R. Mari said: It would [in that case have remained] a pecuniary obligation without definite claimants  [and would thus never have been discharged]. MISHNAH. IF AN OX OF AN OWNER WITH UNIMPAIRED FACULTIES GORES AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR,  THE OWNER IS LIABLE. WHERE, HOWEVER, AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR HAS GORED AN OX OF AN OWNER WHOSE FACULTIES ARE UNIMPAIRED, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.  IF AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE AN IDIOT OR A MINOR  HAS GORED, THE COURT OF LAW APPOINT A GUARDIAN, IN WHOSE PRESENCE WITNESSES WILL BE ABLE TO TESTIFY [THAT THE OX HAS GORED SO THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DECLARED MU'AD]. IF THE DEAF-MUTE RECOVERS HIS HEARING [OR SPEECH], OR IF THE IDIOT BECOMES SANE, OR IF THE MINOR COMES OF AGE, THE OX PREVIOUSLY DECLARED MU'AD WILL RETURN TO THE STATE OF TAM: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT THE OX WILL REMAIN IN STATUS QUO. IN THE CASE OF A STADIUM OX  [KILLING A PERSON], THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSED [UPON THE OX], AS IT IS WRITTEN: IF AN OX GORE,  EXCLUDING CASES WHERE IT IS GOADED TO GORE. GEMARA. Is not the text in contradiction with itself? [In the first clause] you state, IF AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR GORES AN OX BELONGING TO ONE WHOSE FACULTIES ARE UNIMPAIRED THERE IS NO LIABILITY, implying that a guardian is not appointed in the case of Tam to collect [the payment of half-damages] out of its body.  But read the following clause: IF AN OX OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR HAS GORED, THE COURT OF LAW APPOINT A GUARDIAN IN WHOSE PRESENCE WITNESSES WILL BE ABLE TO TESTIFY [SO THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DECLARED MU'AD]. Now, does this not prove that a guardian is appointed in the case of Tam to collect [the payment of half-damages] out of its body? — Raba replied [that the text of the concluding clause] should be understood thus: If the oxen are presumed to be gorers, then a guardian is appointed and witnesses will give evidence for the purpose of having the cattle declared Mu'ad, so that should another goring take place,  the payment would have to come from the best [of the general estate]. From the best of whose estate [would the payment have to come]? — R. Johanan said: From the best [of the estate] of the orphans;  R. Jose b. Hanina said: From the best [of the estate] of the guardian. But did R. Johanan really say so? [Has it not been stated that] R. Judah said in the name of R. Assi:  The estate of the orphans  must not be distrained upon unless where usury is consuming it, and R.. Johanan said: [Unless there is a liability] either for a bond bearing interest or to a woman for her kethubah,  [so as to save from further payment] on account of [her] maintenance?  — You must therefore reverse names [to read as follows]: R. Johanan said: From the best [of the estate] of the guardian, whereas R. Jose b. Hanina said: From the best [of the estate] of the orphans. Raba, however, objected, saying: Because there is a contradiction between R. Johanan in one place and R. Johanan in another place, are you to ascribe to R. Jose b. Hanina an erroneous view?  Was not R. Jose b. Hanina a judge, able to penetrate to the innermost intention of the Law? — We must therefore not reverse the names, [and the contradiction between the two views of R. Johanan  can be reconciled by the consideration that] a case of damage is altogether different.  R. Johanan stated that the payment must be made out of the best [of the estate] of the orphans, because if you were to say that it is to be out of the best [of the estate] of the guardians