Study Bava Kamma folio 34A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Moreover, even if the ox caused damage before he owed them, nevertheless the creditor came first and seized what he rightfully deserved. Should one conclude from the baraita that if a later creditor collected a debt before an earlier creditor, his collection is not valid and payment should instead b
The Talmud answers: No; actually, I could say to you that the collection of the later creditor is valid, and there, in the case where a creditor seized the belligerent ox, it is different, as the injured party can say to the creditor who seized the ox: If the ox was in your possession, would I not
§ A baraita states: With regard to an innocuous ox worth 200 dinars that gored another ox worth 200 dinars and injured it, reducing its value by 50 dinars [zuz], and the injured ox subsequently appreciated in value, and its value stood at 400 dinars, while if the belligerent ox had not injured it,
If the injured ox depreciated in value and its worth is now less than at the time it was injured, the damage is evaluated according to the ox’s worth at the time of standing trial. In other words, the owner of the belligerent ox must pay the difference between its value before it was injured and it
If the ox that caused the injury, from which the owner of the injured ox collects damages, appreciated in value, its owner gives the injured party a share of the ox according to its value at the time of the injury. If it depreciated in value, the owner gives him a share according to its value at t