Komentarz do Bawa kamma 3:11
שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר שׁוֹר אַחֵר, וְהֻזַּק, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא בְסֶלַע לָקָה, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִים אַחַר אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד, שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין. הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן הִזִּיק. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם הִזִּיק, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ הַנִּזּוֹקִין שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיקִים שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְקָטָן אֶת הַקָּטָן, וּמַזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְגָדוֹל אֶת הַקָּטָן. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְתָם אֶת הַקָּטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וּמוּעָד אֶת הַקָּטָן, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה:
Jeśli jeden wół ścigał drugiego, to (drugi) został ranny — ten (właściciel drugiego) mówi: Twój wół zranił (mój), a drugi (właściciel pierwszego) mówi: Nie, zranił się o kamień —„ciężar dowodu spoczywa na tym, kto pobierze (zapłatę) od swojego sąsiada”. Gdyby dwa [woły dwóch różnych ludzi] ścigały jednego [należącego do innego mężczyzny]—jeden mówi: Twój wół zraniony; drugi: Twój wół zraniony, obaj są zwolnieni, [obaj go odpychają]. Jeśli obaj należeli do jednego mężczyzny, obaj są odpowiedzialni. [Gemara wyjaśnia przypadek Miszny jako jednego z dwóch tamin, tam płacących wyłącznie z ciała. Więc jeśli obaj są przed nami, nizak otrzymuje półnezek spomiędzy obu. Ale jeśli nie ma obu, on (mazik) może powiedzieć: Idź i przynieś dowód, że ten wół wyrządził szkodę, a ja ci zapłacę!] Gdyby jeden był duży, a drugi mały—nizak mówi: Wielki zraniony (mój), [a jego ciało zawiera wartość pół-nezek; a mazik mówi: nie, ten mały wyrządził szkody [weź wartość małego i zgub resztę swojego pół-nezka], jeśli jeden był tam, a drugi muad—nizak mówi: Mud wyrządził szkody; a mazik mówi: Nie, tam to zrobił - „ciężar dowodu spoczywa na tym, który wyciągnie (zapłatę) od bliźniego”. Gdyby rannych (woły) było dwóch—jeden duży i jeden mały; a było ich dwóch, jednego dużego i jednego małego—nizak mówi: Duży zranił dużego, a mały, mały; a mazik mówi: nie, mały zranił dużego, a duży mały, [i chociaż pół-nezek dużego jest duży, możesz go wziąć tylko z mojego małego; a pół-nezek dla swojego małego, weź z mojego dużego]; gdyby jeden był tam, a drugi muad—nizak mówi: muad zranił dużego, a tam - małego; a mazik mówi: Nie, tam zranił dużego, a muad, małego—„ciężar dowodu spoczywa na tym, kto pobierze (zapłatę) od swojego sąsiada”. [Z tymi wszystkimi „ciężarem dowodu itd.” w naszej Misznie, jeśli nie przyniesie dowodu, nie otrzyma nic, nawet wartość tam, a nawet tę małą, do której przyznał (mazik). Bo jeśli ktoś żąda pszenicy od swojego bliźniego i przyznaje się do jęczmienia, nie odpowiada nawet za cenę jęczmienia. Ale jeśli nizak zajmie kwotę, do której dopuścił się mazik, nie zostanie mu ona odebrana.]
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If two oxen were pursuing a third ox: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, and this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, they are both exempt. However, if they were both owned by one man, they are both obligated.
If one was big and was small: the [owner] of injured [ox] says that “The large one caused the injury”, and the [owner] of the injuring [ox] says, “The small one caused the injury”, [or] if one was a harmless ox ( and one was an attested danger ( the [owner] of the injured ox says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger caused the injury, and the owner of the injuring ox says, “The [ox which is] harmless caused the injury”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
If two oxen were injured, one big and one small, and two oxen caused the injury, one big and one small: [the owner] of the injured oxen says, “The big ox injured the big ox and small ox injured the small ox,” and the [owner] of the injuring oxen says, “The small ox injured the big ox and the big ox injured the small ox”; [or] if one was harmless and one was an attested danger: the [owner] of the injured oxen says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger injured the big ox, and the harmless [ox] injured the small ox”, the owner of injuring oxen says, “No rather the harmless [ox] injured the large ox and the [ox which is an] attested danger injured the small ox”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
The final mishnah of the third chapter is concerned with an extremely important principle in Jewish law, that the burden of proof is on the one who wishes to exact compensation. In terms of modern law this means that the plaintiff must bring positive proof that the defendant owes him money in order for the court to find in his favor. In absence of positive proof, the defendant will be found exempt.
We will explain each clause independently. As you read the mishnah notice how the mishnah begins with simple cases and proceeds to the complicated cases. The mishnah is a didactic text: once you learn the principles you can move onto more complicated problems.
This entire lengthy mishnah is based on one principle, that the burden of proof lies on the pursuant.
Section one deals with the simple case of one ox causing injury to another ox. The owner of the injured ox must bring proof that his ox was injured by the other ox and not by a rock. Since the burden of proof lies on him, without proof he will not be able to collect damages.
Section two deals with the case of two oxen chasing after one ox. It is clear that one of the two oxen caused the injury but it is unclear which one. Each of the independent owners of the two pursuing oxen claims that the other ox caused the injury. Since the owner of the injured ox cannot prove which ox caused the injury, he can’t collect damages from either. However, if both of the pursuing oxen were owned by the same person, he is liable.
Section three continues to deal with the situation of two potentially injuring oxen. This time we learn that one of the two was a large, probably expensive ox, and the other was small. They were both harmless oxen, and therefore we are dealing with payment of half damages. It is in the owner of the injured ox’s best interest that the larger ox caused the damage, since when a harmless ox injures the damages paid can be no greater than the worth of the injuring ox. Take for example the case where a large ox was worth 500 and the small ox 100 and the damages were 250. The owner of the damaged ox would like to collect 125, half damages. If the small ox caused the injury the most he could recover is 100, the value of the small ox. However, if the owner of the large ox caused the injury, he can recover the full 125. In our mishnah there is a dispute over which animal caused the injury, and as usual the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
In the second half of section three instead of one of the potentially injuring oxen being large and the other being small, one is a harmless ox, which only pays half damages, and one is an attested danger which pays full damages. Obviously it is in the best interests of the owner of the injured ox that the attested danger caused the damage, thereby allowing him to recover full damages. Again the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
Section four further complicates our scenario. This time two oxen caused injury to two oxen. However, the principles are all similar to the cases in section three. The owner of the injured oxen would like to claim that the large ox injured the large ox or that the attested danger ox injured his large ox, and the owner of the injuring oxen claims the opposite. As expected, the mishnah again declares that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.