Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE SOURCE FOR WHAT MAKES A MU'AD

(a) Question: What is R. Meir's reason?
(b) Answer: If it becomes Mu'ad after intermittent gorings, all the more so when the gorings are close together!

1. Chachamim: A Zavah (a woman that experienced post-menstrual bleeding) disproves this - if she sees blood on 3 consecutive days, she is a Zavah, but not for 3 sightings on 1 day!
2. R. Meir: "This is the law of his Tum'ah through his emissions" - the Torah attributes the Tum'ah of a Zav (a man that sees emissions) to sightings, and that of a Zavah to the days she sees.
3. Question: How do we know that the verse excludes a Zavah (that she is not Teme'ah through sightings, unless they are on consecutive days) - perhaps it excludes a Zav from Tum'ah if he sees on consecutive days!
4. Answer: "And one that has a flow, a man or a woman" - the Torah equates them.

i. Just as a woman becomes a Zavah through sightings on consecutive days, also a man.

5. Suggestion: We should also equate a woman's law to that of a man - just as a man becomes a Zav through sightings on 1 day, also a woman!
6. Rejection: "This is" excludes a woman.
7. Question: Why not learn the other way? (That a woman becomes a Zavah through sightings on 1 day, as a man, and "This is" excludes a man who sees on consecutive days)
8. Answer: The verse "This is" speaks of sightings (on 1 day) - it is more reasonable that it comes to exclude sightings (of a woman) on 1 day, than to exclude sightings (of a man) on consecutive days.

(c) (Beraisa - R. Yosi): An animal is Mu'ad after witnesses testify that it gored on 3 days; an animal that does not gore when children play with it is Tam;

1. R. Shimon says, after witnesses testify 3 times that it gored, it is Mu'ad;

i. Three days are only needed to revert to being Tam (if it doesn't gore in 3 days).

(d) (Rav Nachman): The law is as R. Yehudah by a Mu'ad and as R. Meir by a Tam, because R. Yosi holds that way.

1. Rava: Why not say the law is as R. Meir by a Mu'ad and as R. Yehudah by a Tam, because R. Shimon holds that way!

(e) Rav Nachman: I hold as R. Yosi because he has superb reasons and proofs.

(a) Question: Why are 3 days needed - to establish that the ox gores, or to warn the man?

1. Question: What difference does it make?
2. Answer: If 3 sets of witnesses testify on 1 day about gorings on 3 days.

i. This suffices to establish that the ox gores, but not to warn the man - he can say, I only learned of the gorings now.

(b) (Beraisa): An ox does not become Mu'ad unless they testify about it in front of the owner and in front of Beis Din;

1. If 2 witnesses testified about the first goring, 2 about the second, and 2 about the third, they are 3 testimonies, but they are considered 1 testimony regarding Hazamah:

i. If the first 2 witnesses are found to be Edim Zomemim (witnesses that testified about something they were not present to see) - the latter 2 testimonies stand, the lying witnesses are not punished (for trying to make the ox Mu'ad);
ii. If the next 2 witnesses are also found to be Zomemim - the last testimony stands, the ox is not Mu'ad, the lying witnesses are not punished;
iii. If all the witnesses are found to be Zomemim - they are all punished - "You will do to him as he plotted".

(c) This fits the opinion that the testimony is to establish the ox as a gorer.

(d) Question: If we need 3 days to warn the man - why are the first 2 pairs of witnesses punished?

1. They can say, (we didn't intend to make it Mu'ad,) we didn't know that more witnesses would come!

(e) Question (Rav Kahana): We can similarly ask if the testimony is to establish the ox as a gorer!

1. The witnesses on the last goring can say, we only came to make the owner pay half-damage - we didn't know why the other witnesses were in Beis Din! (Rashi - the case is, the third damagee asked all 6 witnesses to testify - the witnesses on the previous gorings know, he wants to make the ox Mu'ad. Tosfos - the case is, the witnesses on the previous gorings only testified after the witnesses on the last goring. Ra'avad - even the witnesses on the last goring can claim, they only came to obligate half-damage.)

(f) Answer #1: The witnesses gestured to each other. (Rashi - this (and the coming) answers are as the opinion that the testimony is to establish the ox as a gorer; Tosfos - the answers also work for the opinion that the testimony is to warn the man.)
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The witnesses came together.
(h) Answer #3 (Ravina): The witnesses do not know which ox gored (so they cannot obligate half-damage), but they know whose ox gored.
(i) Question: If so, how can they make it Mu'ad?
(j) Answer: They say, since the man has a goring ox, he must guard his whole herd.

(a) Question: Levi incited Reuven's dog to bite Shimon - what is the law?

1. Surely, Levi is exempt (he only caused damage) - is Reuven liable?

i. Can he say - I didn't do anything!
ii. Or - since he knows that his dog can be incited, he should not have such a dog!

(b) Answer (R. Zeira - Mishnah): An animal that does not gore when children play with it is Tam;

1. (Inference): If it does gore other oxen (when incited by children), it is liable!
2. Rejection (Abaye): No - if it gores when incited, it is a Mu'ad ox - but it is exempt for that goring.

(c) (Mishnah): A man incited a dog or snake to bite - he is exempt.
(d) Question: Who is exempt?

1. Suggestion: The inciter is exempt, but the owner of the dog or snake is liable.

(e) Answer: No, even the enciter is exempt.
(f) (Rava): If you will say that when Levi incited Reuven's dog to bite Shimon, Reuven is liable - but if it bit the inciter, Reuven is exempt.

1. This is because if 1 party does something abnormal, and another party acts abnormally and damages the first, the second party is exempt.

(g) (Rav Papa): Reish Lakish supports Rava.

1. (Reish Lakish): A cow was crouching in a public domain; another cow was walking. If the walking cow kicked the crouching cow - it is exempt;

i. If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow - it is liable.

(h) (Rava): I say, even in the first case, it is liable - the walking cow has the right to walk over the crouching cow, it may not kick it.

(a) (Mishnah): An ox that damages in the damagee's premises:

1. If it gored, pushed, bit, crouched or kicked in the public domain, it pays half-damage;
2. In the damagee's premises - R. Tarfon says it pays full damage, Chachamim say, half-damage.
3. R. Tarfon: In a public domain, the Torah is lenient to exempt Shen and Regel, but they pay full damage in the damagee's premises - Keren, which pays half-damage in a public domain, all the more so it pays full damage in the damagee's premises!
4. Chachamim: Dayo (the most we can learn from a Kal va'Chomer is the same as the source) - just as Keren pays half-damage in a public domain, also in the damagee's premises.
5. R. Tarfon: I need not learn Keren from Keren - I can learn Keren from Regel!

i. In a public domain, the Torah is lenient to exempt Shen and Regel, but Keren pays half-damage - in the damagee's premises, where Shen and Regel pay full damage, all the more so Keren pays full damage!

6. Chachamim: Dayo - it only pays half-damage, as in a public domain.