תלמוד על בבא קמא 4:1

HALAKHAH: “For tort victims one estimates with best quality land,” etc. “By an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property³A statement by R. Aqiba in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 14, also quoted by the Babli, 48b..” Rebbi Abba bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Yose, where do we hold⁴What does the statement about Temple property mean?? If to qualify as damages, is that not what we stated “his neighbor’s ox⁵Ex. 21:35; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3. The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a.” but not the ox of Temple property? If for bodily damages, is that not what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A private person can claim damages but not the Temple⁶The formulation is ambiguous; it also could mean that the Temple never pays damages.? But we must deal with one who said, I obligate myself to give 100 minas to the Temple, ⁷The following clause is missing in the quote of the passage by Tosaphot Giṭṭin 49a, s. v. שור, and in the Constantinople edition of the Yerushalmi. If one accepts the text as it stands, one has to explain that the person making the vow thought that he could pay his vow in cash, but before he could do this, he had to pay damages and now he is short of cash. If one does not read the clause, then there is a straightforward statement that debts to the Temple in all cases are privileged like debts for damages (a statement considered and rejected by the Babli, 49a). The interpretation of the Babli, that damages inflicted on Temple property always must be paid in full, is incompatible with the Yerushalmi. when his ox went and did damage. You should not say, [the Temple] is a creditor and should collect from average quality land. Therefore, it was necessary to say that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land, by an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property.”

“His field¹²Ex. 22:4: “If a person destroys a field or a vineyard through animals by sending his livestock to graze on another’s field, the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall give in payment.” This is the basis of the Mishnah requiring that damages be paid with best quality real estate.”, except if it was mortgaged¹³“His field” excludes third-party interests.. “His vineyard”, except Temple property. Where do we hold¹⁴What relation can Temple property have with damages due from a private person?? If somebody caused damage and then dedicated to the Temple, that is what we have stated¹⁵Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:2: “If somebody dedicated his property to the Temple while he owed a ketubah to his wife or a debt to a creditor, neither the woman nor the creditor can collect from the Temple; but the redeemer redeems on condition to pay the ketubah to the woman or the debt to the creditor. If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the redeemer] adds another denar and redeems these properties on condition to pay the debt to the creditor.” In order to combine two conflicting principles, viz., that vows cannot be used to escape obligations towards third parties, and that Temple obligations override all others, it is decreed that the Temple has to put the dedicated properties up for sale but collects only for the amount by which the value of the properties exceeds the obligation, with the third party buyer accepting the obligation to pay off the liens on the property. (It has to be a third party buyer since the person making the dedication would have to add another 25% to the redemption amount, Lev. 27:19.) Claims for damages have to be handled in the same way.: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas.” If somebody dedicated to the Temple and then caused damage, that is what we have stated: “ ‘His neighbor’s ox⁵Ex. 21:35; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3. The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a.’ but not the ox of Temple property.” Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if an ox of Temple property grazed on a private field. Rebbi Mana told him, we require Temple real estate and you say “on a private field”? But we must hold about one who said: I am obligating myself for 100 minas to the Temple; then went and caused damage. You should not say that between damages and a loan given before witnesses¹⁶Not in documented form; the witnesses do not sign anything. Such a loan is not a mortgage and is not privileged. damages are privileged, and here damages are privileged against the Temple; therefore it was necessary to say “his vineyard”, except Temple property¹⁷The statement about Temple property is not to exclude Temple property from damage claims but to privilege Temple property relative to all civil claims..

“Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” ⁷³This paragraph has a differently worded parallel in Baba qama 4:1 (by a different editorial team) which explains the somewhat cryptic wording here:
תַּמָּן תְּנִינָן. הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מְנָה וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז וּשְׁנַיִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דִּינָרֵי זָהָב. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעֵירָא, וְכֵן לְשָׂכָר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא דְּרִבִּי זֵירָא פְּלִיגָא עַל דְּרַבִּי לָעָזָר. אָמַר רַבִּי מַנִּי. קַשְׁיָתָהּ קוֹמֵי רְבִּי יוּדָן. אָמַר לִי. לֹא מוֹדֶה רְבִּי לָעָזָר שֶׁאִם הִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן שֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִּיסוֹ וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִּיסוֹ. שְׁוָרִים כְּמֻתָּנִים הֵן. חָזַר וְאָמְרָה קוֹמֵי רְבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּפִירוּשׁ פְּלִיגֵי. רִבִּי לָעָזָר אָמַר. סְתַמָּן חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. רְבִּי זְעֵירָא אָמַר, סְתַמָּן זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִּיסוֹ וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִּיסוֹ.
וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִיטִּילוּ לַכִּיס פָּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים אִם נָֽטְלוּ מַרְגָּלִית. דְּיָכוֹל מֵימַר לֵיהּ אִילּוּלֵי עֲשַׂרְתָּא דֵינָרַיי לֹא הֲוִיתָה מְזַבִּין כְּלוּן. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֵחָלֵק מֵבִיאִין לָאֶמְצָע וְחוֹלְקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וַאֲפִילוּ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֵחָלֵק. דְּיָכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ אַתְּ פְּרַגְמָטַּיָּא דִידָךְ סַגִּין וְאַתְּ מַנְעָא מַזְבִּנְתָּא. אֲנָא פְּרַגְמָטַּיָּא דִידִי קָלִיל וַאֲנַא הֲפַךְ וּמִתְהַפֵּךְ בְּדִידִי וּמַטִּי בָךְ. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהָייְתָה פְּרַגְמָטַּייוֹ נְתוּנָה כָאן. תָֽיְתָה פְּרַגְמָטַּייוֹ נְתוּנָה בְּרוֹמֵי. דְּיָכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. עַד דְּאַתְּ סְלִיק לְרוֹמֵי אֲנַא הֲפַךְ וּמִתְהַפֵּךְ בְּדִידִי וּמַטִּי בָךְ.
"Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner." Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital) one adds together and splits (proportionally to the capital invested). Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. 1 have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly and make as much as you do.
There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution. {This paragraph is a direct quote from Ketubot since the quote from “there” refers to here, Baba qama 4:1}. Rebbi Eleazar said: You say that in case the tetradrachma lost or added value. But for earnings or losses they split evenly⁷⁴Only results of financial operations are split per share. Results of personal effort by the shareholders are split evenly; they are socii pro aequa parte of Justinian’s legislation.. That is difficult! One gave 100 denars and the other gave ten, and you say so? The colleagues say, he may say to him, by my contribution the merchandise rose. So far, if they ran after little merchandise⁷⁵Expensive items, as explained in the parallel text.. If there was much merchandise? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he may say to him, by the time you sold one piece, I am selling ten. That is, at a nearby place. If it was far away? Rebbi Hila said, he may say to him, by the time you go and return once, I am going and returning ten times. There⁷⁶Mishnah Baba qama 4:1. Ex. 21:35 decrees that if an ox kills another ox, the owner of the attacking animal and the owner of the victim become co-owners of both the living and the dead animal. If the attacking ox attacks another one before it can be slaughtered, its co-owners now become co-owners with the owner of the second victim. The case quoted in the Mishnah is about an ox worth 200 zuz which attacks three oxen, each of which was worth 200 zuz but whose carcasses are not worth anything after the attack. Then the owner of the ox which was killed last takes half the combined value of the attacker and its victim as prescribed in the verse, 100 zuz. The owner of the second ox has a claim of 50% of the value of the combined value of the attacker and its victim. But since only 100 zuz remain of the value of the attacker and the victim is not worth anything, the second owner gets only 50 zuz. By the same argument, the owner of the first ox gets 25 zuz, the same amount as the owner of the attacker retains., we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi [Ze‘ira]: The same holds for earnings⁷⁷R. Ze‘ira interprets the Mishnah in Baba qama that in the company created by the attacking ox, the owner of the third victim contributed 200, the owner of the second 100, the owners of the first and of the attacker 50 each, and 50% of the value was lost as prescribed in the verse. Therefore, the Mishnah precribes proportional appropriations for a case which is not a financial operation; the Mishnah in Ketubot can be interpreted that in a company, all gains and losses have to be distributed in proportion to the capital invested.. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution⁷⁸Since in money matters, biblical law is not prescriptive.? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution⁷⁹Since R. Ze‘ira is the later and higher authority, the Yerushalmi decides that all distributions must be proportional. The Babli, 93b, quotes the opinion attributed here to R. Eleazar in the name of Samuel as interpreted by Rav Hamnuna, it clearly decides that all distributions must be split equally..