6a
{Bava Kamma 14b}
Mishna:
שום כסף ושוה כסף בפני בית דין ע"פ עדים בני חורין ובני ברית והנשים בכלל
הנזק והניזק והמזיק בתשלומין:
הנזק והניזק והמזיק בתשלומין:
THE VALUATION [IS MADE] IN MONEY [BUT MAY BE PAID] BY MONEY'S WORTH, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT AND ON THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES WHO ARE FREE MEN AND PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW.
WOMEN ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF TORTS. [BOTH] THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT.
WOMEN ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF TORTS. [BOTH] THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT.
Gemara:
מאי שום כסףאמר רב יהודה שום זה לא יהא אלא בכסף
תנינא להא דתנו רבנן פרה שהזיקה טלית וטלית שהזיקה פרה אין אומרים תצא פרה בטלית וטלית בפרה אלא שמין אותה בדמים:
What is the meaning of THE VALUATION IN MONEY?
Rav Yehuda said: The valuation should only be made in money.
We have learned this. For the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A cow that damaged a garment, and a garment damaged a cow, we do not say that the cow will offset the garment and the garment will offset the cow, but rather we assess its monetary value.
Rav Yehuda said: The valuation should only be made in money.
We have learned this. For the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A cow that damaged a garment, and a garment damaged a cow, we do not say that the cow will offset the garment and the garment will offset the cow, but rather we assess its monetary value.
שוה כסף כדתניא
שוה כסף מלמד שאין ב"ד נזקקין אלא לנכסים שיש להם אחריות
מאי משמע אמר רבא בר (רב) עולא דבר השוה כל כסף ומאי ניהו קרקע דאין להן אונאה
אי הכי עבדים ושטרות נמי
אלא אמר רב אשי שוה כסף ולא כסף עצמו והני כולהו כסף נינהו
"BY MONEY'S WORTH":
As they learnt {in a brayta}: "money's worth" -- this teaches that bet din does not have recourse for distraint {=seizing property} except for assets which have responsibility {=not movable property}.
What implied this?
Rava bar (*Rav*) Ulla said: Something which is worth {שוה} all the money. And what is that? Land, which does not have onaah {deception}.
If so, slaves and documents as well?!
Rather, Rav Ashi said: shaveh kesef {money's worth} and not money itself. Meanwhile, these {slaves and documents} are all considered money.
As they learnt {in a brayta}: "money's worth" -- this teaches that bet din does not have recourse for distraint {=seizing property} except for assets which have responsibility {=not movable property}.
What implied this?
Rava bar (*Rav*) Ulla said: Something which is worth {שוה} all the money. And what is that? Land, which does not have onaah {deception}.
If so, slaves and documents as well?!
Rather, Rav Ashi said: shaveh kesef {money's worth} and not money itself. Meanwhile, these {slaves and documents} are all considered money.
והתניא ישיב לרבות שוה כסף ואפילו סובין
הכא במאי עסקינן ביתמי
כלומר הא דתניא אין ב"ד נזקקין אלא לנכסים שיש להם אחריות ביתמי הוא דמטלטלי [דיתמי] לבעל חוב לא משתעבדי
אימא סיפא קדם ותפס מטלטלין בית דין גובין לו מהן ואי ביתמי אמאי גובין לו מהן
כדאמר רבא אמר רב נחמן בשתפס מחיים הכא נמי בשתפס מחיים
But they learnt {in a brayta}: {Shemot 21:34}:
In what are we dealing? By orphans {=heirs}.
That is to say, this that they learned {in a brayta} that
But then the sefa says that if one preempted and grabbed movable objects, bet din collects for him out of them {since they are already in his possession}, and if it were referring to orphans, why would they collect for him from them?
Just as Rava cited Rav Nachman {in a different context}: Where he grabbed them while {the father of these heirs} was alive. So too here, where he grabbed them while he {=the defendant} was still alive.
בפני ב"דIn what are we dealing? By orphans {=heirs}.
That is to say, this that they learned {in a brayta} that
"bet din does not have recourse for distraint {=seizing property} except for assets which have responsibility {=not movable property}"is by orphans -- that the movable objects [of orphans] are not under lien to the creditor.
But then the sefa says that if one preempted and grabbed movable objects, bet din collects for him out of them {since they are already in his possession}, and if it were referring to orphans, why would they collect for him from them?
Just as Rava cited Rav Nachman {in a different context}: Where he grabbed them while {the father of these heirs} was alive. So too here, where he grabbed them while he {=the defendant} was still alive.
והשתא דתקינו רבנן לבע"ח לגבות מן המטלטלין גובה מיתמי בין ממקרקעי בין ממטלטלי
וכן הלכה
ואיכא מאן דפריש דכי תקינו רבנן לבעל חוב משום שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין אבל לניזק לא תקינו מידי הלכך היכא דלית ליה למזיק קרקע ומת אין לניזק כלום ממטלטלין של יתומים:
וכן הלכה
ואיכא מאן דפריש דכי תקינו רבנן לבעל חוב משום שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין אבל לניזק לא תקינו מידי הלכך היכא דלית ליה למזיק קרקע ומת אין לניזק כלום ממטלטלין של יתומים:
And now that the Sages have enacted for the creditor to collect from movable objects, one may collect from orphans {heirs}, whether from land or movable objects.
And so is the halacha.
And there is one who explains that when the Sages enacted for the creditor, this was in order to not shut the door before borrowers, but for a damagee, they did not enact anything at all. Therefore, where the damager does not have land and then he dies, the damagee does not have anything of the movable objects of the orphans.
And so is the halacha.
And there is one who explains that when the Sages enacted for the creditor, this was in order to not shut the door before borrowers, but for a damagee, they did not enact anything at all. Therefore, where the damager does not have land and then he dies, the damagee does not have anything of the movable objects of the orphans.
פרט לב"ד הדיוטות:
"Before bet din":
To exclude a bet din of laymen.
{Bava Kamma 15a}
ע"פ עדים בני חורין ובני בריתTo exclude a bet din of laymen.
{Bava Kamma 15a}
בני חורין למעוטי עבדים
בני ברית למעוטי עובדי כוכבים דהני לאו בני עדות נינהו:
והנשים בכלל הנזק
דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תני דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר קרא איש או אשה כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל עונשים שבתורה:
"on the word of witnesses who are freemen and members of the covenant":
Freemen -- to exclude slaves.
Members of the covenant -- to exclude gentiles, for those are not valid for testimony.
"And women are within the realm of damages" {to have to pay}:
For Rav Yehuda cited Rav, and so did they teach in the academy of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states {Bemidbar 5:6}:
Freemen -- to exclude slaves.
Members of the covenant -- to exclude gentiles, for those are not valid for testimony.
"And women are within the realm of damages" {to have to pay}:
For Rav Yehuda cited Rav, and so did they teach in the academy of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states {Bemidbar 5:6}:
והניזק והמזיק בתשלומין:
ירושלמי מלמד שזה משלם חצי נזק וזה מפסיד חצי נזק:
איתמר פלגא ניזקא
רב פפא אמר פלגא ניזקא ממונא
ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר פלגא ניזקא קנסא
והלכתא פלגא ניזקא קנסא בר מחצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירי לה דממונא הוא:
"And the damager and the damagee are involved in the payment":
Yerushalmi:
This teaches that this one pays half damages and this one loses out on half damages.
{Bava Kamma 15a}
It was stated {by Amoraim}: Half-damages:
Rav Pappa said: Half damages are monetary. {=civil payment}.
And Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: Half damages are a fine.
And the halacha is that half-damages are a fine, {Bava Kamma 15b} except for the half-damages of pebbles, that the halachic tradition is that it is monetary.
Yerushalmi:
This teaches that this one pays half damages and this one loses out on half damages.
{Bava Kamma 15a}
It was stated {by Amoraim}: Half-damages:
Rav Pappa said: Half damages are monetary. {=civil payment}.
And Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: Half damages are a fine.
And the halacha is that half-damages are a fine, {Bava Kamma 15b} except for the half-damages of pebbles, that the halachic tradition is that it is monetary.
והשתא דאמרת פלגא ניזקא קנסא האי כלבא דאכל אימרי ושונרא דאכל תרנגולי רברבין [משונה הוא] ולא מגבינן בבבל ודוקא רברבי אבל זוטרי אורחיה הוא ואי תפס לא מפקינן מיניה
And now that you have said that half-damages are a fine, if a dog eats sheep, or a cat eats large chickens, [it is uncommon,] and we do not collect that in Bavel. And specifically large ones, but small ones, it is common. And if he siezes it {the fine}, we do not take it away from him.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment