Bava Kamma

people would certainly refrain from accepting this office and would do nothing at all [in the matter]. R. Jose b. Hanina, however, said that the payment should be made out of the best [of the estate] of the guardians. and that these should be reimbursed out of the estate of the orphans when the latter will have come of age. Whether [or not] guardians could be appointed in the case of Tam to collect payment out of its body, is a point at issue between the following Tannaim: In the case of an ox whose owner has become a deaf-mute, or whose owner became insane or whose owner has gone abroad,  Judah b. Nakosa said on behalf of Symmachus that it would have to remain Tam  until witnesses could give evidence in the presence of the owner. The Sages, however, say that a guardian should be appointed in whose presence the evidence may be given. Should the deaf-mute recover his faculty [of hearing or speech], or the idiot become sane, or the minor come of age, or the owner return from abroad, Judah b. Nakosa said on behalf of Symmachus that the ox would revert to the state of Tam  until evidence is given in the presence of the owner, whereas R. Jose said that it would retain its status quo. Now, we have here to ask, what is the meaning of 'it would have to remain Tam'  in the dictum of Symmachus? It could hardly mean that the ox cannot become Mu'ad at all, for since it is stated in the concluding clause, 'The ox would revert to the state of Tam', it is implied that it had formerly been Mu'ad. What then is the meaning of, 'it would have to remain Tam'?  We must say, 'It would remain Tam [complete],'  that is, we do nothing to diminish its value, which would, of course, show that [Symmachus holds] no guardian is appointed in the case of Tam to collect payment out of its body. 'The Sages, however, say that a guardian should be appointed in whose presence evidence may be given', from which it follows that [they hold] a guardian may be appointed in the case of Tam to collect payment out of its body. And what is the point at issue in the concluding clause? The point at issue there is [whether or not a change of] control  should cause a change [in the state of the ox].  Symmachus maintains that [a change in] control causes a change [in the state of the ox],  whereas R. Jose holds that [a change of] control causes no change [in the state of the ox]. Our Rabbis taught: Where an ox of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor has gored, R. Jacob pays half-damages. What has R. Jacob to do with it?  — But read, 'R. Jacob orders the payment of half-damages.' With what case are we here dealing? If with a Tam, is this not obvious?  For does not any other owner similarly pay half-damages? If [on the other] hand we are dealing with a Mu'ad, then where proper precautions were taken to control it, why should any payment be made at all?  And if no precautions were taken to control it, why should not damages be paid in full? — Raba thereupon said: We are in fact dealing with a Mu'ad, and with a case where precautions of some inferior sort  were taken to control the ox, but not really adequate precautions. R. Jacob concurred with R. Judah who said  that [even in the case of Mu'ad, half of the payment, i.e.] the part due from Tam remains unaffected [being still subject to the law of Tam]; he also concurred with R. Judah in holding  that to procure exemption from the law of Mu'ad even inadequate precautions are sufficient;  and he furthermore followed the view of the Rabbis  who said that a guardian could be appointed in the case of Tam to collect payment out of its body.  Said Abaye to him:  Do they  really not differ? Has it not been taught: 'Where the ox of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor has gored, R. Judah maintains that there is liability to pay and R. Jacob says that the payment will be only for half the damage'? — Rabbah b. 'Ulla thereupon said: The 'liability to pay' mentioned by R. Judah is here defined [as to its amount] by R. Jacob.  But according to Abaye who maintained that they did differ, what was the point at issue between them? — He may tell you that they were dealing with a case of Mu'ad that had not been guarded at all, in regard to which R. Jacob would concur with R. Judah on one point but differ from him on another point. He would concur with him on one point, in that R. Judah lays down that [even with Mu'ad half of the payment, i.e.] the part due from Tam remains unaffected; but he would differ from him on another point, in that R. Judah lays down that a guardian should be appointed in the case of Tam to collect payment out of its body, whereas R. Jacob is of the opinion that a guardian could not be appointed and there could therefore be no payment except the half [which should be subject to the law] of Mu'ad.  Said R. Aha b. Abaye to Rabina: All would be very well according to Abaye who maintained that they differ;  he is quite right [in explaining the earlier statement of R. Jacob  to apply only to Mu'ad].  But according to Raba who maintained that they do not differ, why should the former statement [of R. Jacob] be referred only to Mu'ad? Why not also to Tam,