דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי – לִיתְנֵי: חוּץ מִשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר,

who says that a renter is considered like an unpaid bailee with regard to his responsibility for the rented item, let it teach that bailees are liable to compensate the owner, with the exception of an unpaid bailee and a renter.

וְאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי – נִיתְנֵי: חוּץ מִשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְכוּלָּן בְּמוּעָדִין פְּטוּרִין לְעִנְיַן כּוֹפֶר!

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee, let it teach: With the exception of an unpaid bailee, as it in fact states; but it should also state that in a case where the oxen are forewarned, all of them are exempt with regard to ransom, as Rabbi Yehuda says in the next mishna that a forewarned ox requires only a reduced level of safeguarding. Therefore, this baraita does not appear to be in accordance with the opinion of either tanna .

אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין, וּלְעִנְיַן שׂוֹכֵר סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita ? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that an ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife; i.e., there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox’s owner, or in the context of the baraita , the bailee, from liability if the ox causes damage or kills. And with regard to a renter, the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee.

אַבַּיֵי אֲמַר: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכִדְמַחֲלִיף רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ וְתָנֵי: שׂוֹכֵר כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

Abaye said: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; and it is as Rabba bar Avuh reversed the two opinions and taught: How does a renter pay? In other words, what is his degree of responsibility? Rabbi Meir says: Like a paid bailee. Rabbi Yehuda says: Like an unpaid bailee.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מָסַר שׁוֹרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, הִזִּיק – חַיָּיב, הוּזַּק – פָּטוּר.

§ Rabbi Elazar says: If the owner conveyed his ox to an unpaid bailee, if the ox caused damage, the bailee is liable to pay damages; but if the ox was injured, he is exempt.

אָמְרִי: הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו – אֲפִילּוּ הוּזַּק נַמִי לִיחַיַּיב, וְאִי דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו – אֲפִילּוּ הִזִּיק נַמִי לִיפָּטֵר!

The Sages said: What are the circumstances? If Rabbi Elazar was referring to a bailee who accepted responsibility upon himself for guarding it from causing damage, even if the ox was injured he should be liable. And if he was referring to a bailee who did not accept responsibility for guarding it from causing damage, even if it causes damage he should be exempt from payment.

אֲמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכִּיר בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא נַגְּחָן. וּסְתָמָא דְּמִילְּתָא, דְּלָא אָזֵיל אִיהוּ וּמַזִּיק אַחֲרִינֵי – קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ, דְּאָתֵי אַחֲרִינֵי וּמַזְקִי לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ – לָא אַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.

Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case where he accepted responsibility upon himself for guarding it from causing damage; but here we are dealing with a case where the bailee recognized that the ox was a goring ox, and in that case the normal way of things is that the bailee accepted upon himself responsibility for safeguarding it so that it would not go and injure others, since he knew that it was dangerous. But it presumably did not enter his mind that other oxen would come and injure it. Therefore, he did not accept responsibility for safeguarding against such an occurrence.

מתני׳ קְשָׁרוֹ בְּעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵרָה וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק, אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד – חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר;

If the ox’s owner tied it with reins to a fence or locked the gate before it in an appropriate manner, but nevertheless the ox emerged and caused damage, whether the ox is innocuous or forewarned the owner is liable, since this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּם – חַיָּיב, וּמוּעָד – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו״, וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה;

Rabbi Yehuda says that if the ox is innocuous the owner is liable even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous ox. But if the ox is forewarned, the owner is exempt from paying compensation for damage, as it is stated in the verse describing damage by a forewarned ox: “And the owner has not secured it” (Exodus 21:36), and this ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate was secured.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.

Rabbi Eliezer says: An ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife; there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox’s owner from liability.

גמ׳ מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? קָסָבַר: סְתַם שְׁוָורִים לָאו בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קַיְימִי, וַאֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא: תָּם נִיחַיַּיב, דְּנִיבְעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה, הֲדַר אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״ גַּבֵּי מוּעָד, דְּנִבְעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה, וְיָלֵיף נְגִיחָה לְתָם נְגִיחָה לְמוּעָד;

What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? He holds that ordinary oxen are not presumed to be under safeguarding, as their owners do not ordinarily safeguard them; and the Merciful One stated in the Torah that one will be liable even for damage caused by an innocuous ox inasmuch as it requires at least a reduced level of safeguarding, such as with reins. The Merciful One then stated with regard to a forewarned ox: “And the owner has not secured it,” to indicate that it is not sufficient to provide it with only a reduced level of safeguarding, as it requires superior safeguarding. And Rabbi Meir derives this requirement with regard to an innocuous ox from a verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox. In both cases superior safeguarding is required; otherwise the owner is liable.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: סְתַם שְׁוָורִים בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קַיְימִי, אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא: תָּם נְשַׁלֵּם, דְּנִיבְעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה, הֲדַר אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״ גַּבֵּי מוּעָד, דְּנַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט – מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב לִשְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה.

By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that ordinary oxen are presumed to be under some reduced level of safeguarding. Since the Merciful One stated nevertheless that even for damage caused by an innocuous ox the owner will pay, it may be inferred that it requires superior safeguarding. The Merciful One then states with regard to a forewarned ox: “And the owner has not secured it,” emphasizing again that one must provide it with superior safeguarding. This constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that an amplification following an amplification is stated only in order to restrict its extent. Accordingly, the verse excludes the requirement of superior safeguarding with regard to a forewarned ox, and therefore reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner from liability.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, נְגִיחָה לְתָם נְגִיחָה לְמוּעָד – הָא מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״, לָזֶה וְלֹא לְאַחֵר.

And if you would say that through the verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox the Torah compares their halakhot , nevertheless, the Merciful One restricted this halakha by emphasizing: “And the owner has not secured it,” referring specifically to it, a forewarned ox, and not to the other, i.e., innocuous, ox.

וְהָא מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְלָאו! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמוֹר״, מַאי ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ״? לָזֶה וְלֹא לְאַחֵר.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t this phrase necessary for the negative [ lav ] statement that if the owner does not provide superior safeguarding he is liable? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the Merciful One write: And the owner has not secured. What is the purpose of the added emphasis: “And the owner has not secured it”? It is to indicate that the restriction of this halakha relates specifically to it, a forewarned ox, and not to the other, i.e., innocuous, ox.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד שֶׁשְּׁמָרוֹ שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה – פָּטוּר.

It is taught in a baraita that there is a fourth opinion. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the cases of both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox in which its owner provided reduced safeguarding, he is exempt from liability.

מַאי טַעֲמָא? סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: מוּעָד בִּשְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה סַגִּי לֵיהּ, וְיָלֵיף נְגִיחָה לְתָם וּנְגִיחָה לְמוּעָד.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for his opinion? He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox, and he derives from the verbal analogy between the term goring stated with regard to an innocuous ox and the term goring stated with regard to a forewarned ox that just as reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox, it is sufficient for an innocuous ox as well.

אֲמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לֹא פָּטַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא צַד הַעֲדָאָה שֶׁבּוֹ, אֲבָל צַד תַּמּוּת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Yehuda deemed only the forewarned element of the ox exempt. Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that reduced safeguarding is sufficient to exempt the owner of a forewarned ox relates only to the additional half of the damage that is paid for a forewarned ox beyond the half of the damage that one is liable to pay for an innocuous ox. But the liability for its element of innocuousness remains in place. Therefore, if the owner did not provide superior safeguarding for the forewarned ox he is still liable to pay half the cost of the damage as he would if it were innocuous.

אָמַר רַב: מוּעָד לְקֶרֶן יָמִין אֵינוֹ מוּעָד לְקֶרֶן שְׂמֹאל.

Rav says: If an ox is forewarned with regard to goring with its right horn, it is not thereby forewarned with regard to goring with its left horn.

אָמְרִי: אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – הָאָמַר: אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָּה בָּעֵי, אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – מַאי אִרִיָּא קֶרֶן שְׂמֹאל? אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָמִין נַמִי אִית בֵּיהּ צַד תַּמּוּת וְאִית בֵּיהּ צַד מוּעֶדֶת!

The Sages said: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav’s statement made? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn’t Rabbi Meir say that both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox require superior safeguarding? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why did he state that the ox still has an innocuous element specifically with regard to the left horn? Even with regard to the right horn itself it has both elements; it has an element of innocuousness and it also has a forewarned element.

אָמְרִי: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא הוּא דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ בֵּיהּ צַד תַּמּוּת וּמוּעֶדֶת,

The Sages said: Actually, Rav’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava that the ox’s innocuous element remains. And this is what he is saying: You find an element both of innocuousness and of a forewarned status in the same ox specifically in a case like this, where an ox is forewarned with regard to one horn but not with regard to the other.