Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHICH KODSHIM KALIM ARE CONSIDERED PERSONAL MONEY?

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "He transgressed in Hash-m" - this includes Kodshei Kalim, which are a person's property;

1. Ben Azai says, this only includes Shelamim;
2. Aba Yosi ben Dosta'i says, ben Azai only referred to a firstborn.

(b) [Version #1 - Question: When ben Azai said, 'this only includes Shelamim' - what did he come to exclude?

1. Suggestion: A firstborn.
2. Rejection: Shelamim requires Semichah (pressing on the animal's neck), accompanying flour and wine offerings, and waving the chest and foreleg - and still, we say it is the owner's money;

i. All the more so, a firstborn is the owner's money!

(c) Answer (R. Yochanan): He excludes Ma'aser of animals.

1. (Beraisa): It says "It will not be redeemed" by a firstborn, yet it may be sold unblemished when alive, and if blemished, alive or slaughtered;

i. By Ma'aser it says "It will not Yiga'el (be redeemed)" - (we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah) that it may not be sold, alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished.]

(d) [Version #2 (Ravina) Question: When Aba Yosi ben Dosta'i said, 'ben Azai only said regarding a firstborn' - what did he come to exclude?

1. Suggestion: A Shelamim.
2. Rejection: A firstborn is Kodesh from the moment it is born, and still, it is the owner's money - all the more so, a Shelamim!

(e) Answer (R. Yochanan): He excludes Ma'aser.

1. (Beraisa): It says "It will not be redeemed" by a firstborn, yet it may be sold unblemished when alive, and if blemished, alive or slaughtered;

i. By Ma'aser it says "It will not Yiga'el (be redeemed)" - (we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah) that it may not be sold, alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished.]

(f) Question: But ben Azai said 'only a firstborn' (implying, nothing else)!

1. This is left difficult.

(g) (Rava): When the Mishnah says 'Property by which there is no Me'ilah, it means property by which there is no law of Me'ilah, i.e. a person's property.
(h) Question: The Mishnah should have said that!

1. This is left difficult.

(a) (R. Aba): If a Shelamim damaged, we collect from the meat, not from the Eimurim (the parts of a sacrifice offered on the Altar).
(b) Question: This is obvious - the Eimurim are to Hash-m!
(c) Answer: One might have thought, we collect from the meat the complete (half or full) damage, even though the Eimurim were partners in the damage - we hear, this is not so.
(d) Question: According to which Tana is this?

1. Suggestion: If according to Chachamim - this is obvious!

i. Chachamim say that when we cannot collect from 1 of 2 damagers, we may not collect the full damage from the other.

2. Suggestion: If according to R. Noson - he says, when we cannot collect from 1 of 2 damagers, we do collect the full damage from the other!

(e) Answer: This can be as either Tana.

1. It can be as Chachamim - they only said by 2 damagers, 1 does not pay the other's share - by 1 damager, they can admit, we collect from wherever we can!
2. It can be as R. Noson - he only said by a pit, for the damagee can claim, my ox is in your pit - what I cannot collect from the ox that pushed my ox, I will collect from you;

i. Here, one cannot say that the meat without the Eimurim caused all the damage!

(f) (Rava): A Todah (thanksgiving offering) that damaged - we collect from the meat, not from the bread brought with it.
(g) Question: This is obvious!
(h) Answer: The Chidush is in the end of his words - the damagee eats the meat, and the one getting atonement (the damager) brings the bread.
(i) Question: This is also obvious!
(j) Answer: One might have thought, since the sacrifice is invalid without the bread, the one who will eat the meat must bring the bread - we hear, this is not so, the bread is the obligation of the owner of the sacrifice.

(a) (Mishnah): Property of members of the covenant.
(b) Question: What does this come to exclude?

1. Suggestion: If to exclude that of Nochrim - a later Mishnah teaches, if the ox of a Yisrael gores the ox of a Nochri, he is exempt!

(c) Answer: That Mishnah explains our Mishnah.
(d) (Mishnah): Specific property.
(e) Question: What does this come to exclude?
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): When we do not know which animal damaged.

1. Question: A later Mishnah teaches, 2 oxen of 2 men were chasing an animal, we do not know which damaged it - they are exempt.
2. Answer: That Mishnah explains our Mishnah.

(g) Answer #2 (Beraisa): It excludes Hefker property.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If a man's ox gored a Hefker ox - of course he is exempt, no one can ask him to pay!

2. Answer: Rather, a Hefker ox gored a man's ox.
3. Question: Let the man take the ox that damaged!
4. Answer: The case is, someone else took it before the damagee.

(h) Answer #3 (Ravina): It excludes Reuven's ox that damaged, and Reuven made it Hekdesh or Hefker - he is exempt.

1. Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Even if the owner made his animal Hekdesh or Hefker after it damaged, he is exempt.

i. We learn from "The owner was warned, and it killed" - the killing and bringing to trial must be the same (the animal belongs to its owner).
ii. Question: Is this enough - don't we also need the final verdict in the same status - "The ox will be stoned" is the final verdict!
iii. Correction: True, the killing, bringing to trial and final verdict must be the same (the animal belongs to its owner).

(a) (Mishnah): Except in the premises of the damager.
(b) This is because he can say, your ox had no right to be on my property.
(c) (Mishnah): ...And the joint property of the damager and damagee.
(d) (Rav Chisda): One is liable for Shen and Regel in the joint property of the damager and damagee;

1. The Mishnah reads thusly: Except in the premises of the damager (where he is exempt); in the joint property of the damager and damagee, when he damages, he must pay.

(e) (R. Elazar): One is exempt for Shen and Regel in the joint property of the damager and damagee;

1. The Mishnah reads thusly: Except in the premises of the damager, or in the joint property of the damager and damagee (where he is exempt); and when he damages, he must pay - this comes to include Keren.

(f) This fits Shmuel (who says that Keren was not yet mentioned in the Mishnah - 'ox' refers to Regel);
(g) Question: Rav says that 'ox' includes all damages of an ox - what does 'when he damages, he must pay' come to include?
(h) Answer (Beraisa): 'When he damages, he must pay' comes to include a free watchman, a borrower, a paid watchman, and a renter, when an animal in their domain damaged (explained below);

1. A Tam pays half-damage, a Mu'ad pays full damage.
2. If the wall broke down at night, or robbers made an opening and the animal went out and damaged - the watchman is exempt.