Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) KOFER

(a) (Beraisa): An Apotropus pays from the Aliyah (not from the animal); he does not pay Kofer.
(b) Question: Who is this Tana, that holds that Kofer is for atonement, and orphans do not need atonement?
(c) Answer (Rav Chisda): R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah.

1. (Beraisa): "He will give the redemption of his soul" - the value of the victim;

i. R. Yishmael says, the value of the (owner of the) damager.

2. Suggestion: Chachamim hold, Kofer is a payment for damage; R. Yishmael holds, it is an atonement.
3. Rejection (Rav Papa): No, all hold it is an atonement - they argue, how do we assess how much is paid.
4. Question: Why do Chachamim say the value of the victim?
5. Answer: Shisa (an assessment) is said by compensation for an aborted fetus, and by Kofer (when a Mu'ad killed); just as by the fetus, we evaluate by the victim, also by Kofer.
6. R. Yishmael learns from "He will give the redemption of his soul" (the damager needs to redeem his soul).
7. Chachamim agree (that the damager needs to redeem his soul) - but the payment is as the value of the victim.

(d) Question (R. Acha bar Yakov): The ox of 2 partners - how does it pay Kofer?

1. Each cannot pay - the Torah said (1) Kofer, not 2!
2. Each cannot pay half - the Torah said (a full) Kofer, not a half-Kofer!

(e) Question #2 (R. Acha bar Yakov - Mishnah): The Gizbar (treasurer of Hekdesh) take pledges from people that pledged Erchin (to give a person's value to Hekdesh), but not from people who are obligated to bring sin-offerings or burnt-offerings.

1. Question: Does he take pledges from people obligated to pay Kofer?

i. Since it is an atonement, people are concerned to bring it, it is as sin and burnt-offerings, he need not take pledges;
ii. Or - since it is paid to a person and not to Hekdesh, people take it lightly, he takes pledges!
iii. Alternatively - since the person himself did not damage, people take it lightly, he takes pledges!

(f) Rav Nachman: I am still struggling with the first question!

(a) (Beraisa): Reuven lent Shimon an ox. He told him that it is Tam; it was found to be Mu'ad. (It damaged) - each pays half-damage.

1. If it was Tam and became Mu'ad by Shimon and he returned it (and then it damaged), Reuven pays half-damage, Shimon is exempt.

(b) Question: In the first case, why does Shimon pay half - he can say, I didn't know this was a gorer!
(c) Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, he knew it was a gorer (but not that it had gored 3 times).

1. Question: Still, he can say, I only intended to borrow a Tam!
2. Answer: In any case, he would be responsible for half-damage - that is all we ask him to pay!
3. Question: Shimon can say, a Tam only pays from the animal (not from my money)!
4. Answer: In any case, if the animal was collected, Shimon could not return it and would have to compensate Reuven!

5. Question: Shimon can say, by a Tam, I could have admitted to the damage, and be exempt!

i. Even according to the opinion that half-damage is principle (and one who admits also pays) - he could have hid the animal from Beis Din, to evade payment! (Tosfos - i.e. by a Tam, one can persuade the damagee to agree to a small payment).

(d) Answer #2: Rather, the case is, Beis Din seized the animal.
(e) Question: If so, why does Reuven pays half - he can say, you put my animal where I cannot retrieve it!
(f) Answer: Shimon can say, even if I returned it to you, Beis Din would have taken it.
(g) Question: Reuven can say, I could have hidden the animal!
(h) Answer: That doesn't help by a Mu'ad.
(i) Question: That answer is only if Reuven has other property Beis Din can collect from;

1. If Reuven has no other property, what can we say?

(j) Answer: Shimon can say, just as I owe you (the return of your animal), I owe the damagee (since you owe him), by R. Noson's law (so you cannot blame me for letting Beis Din take it).

1. (R. Noson): "He will give to the one he sinned against" - this shows that if Levi owes David and David owes Moshe, we take from Levi to pay Moshe.

(a) (Beraisa): If it was Tam and became Mu'ad by Shimon and he returned it (and then it damaged), Reuven pays half-damage, Shimon is exempt.
(b) Question: The end of the Beraisa holds that a change in jurisdiction changes status of the ox, the beginning of the Beraisa says it does not!
(c) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Different Tana'im taught the 2 clauses.
(d) Answer #2 (Rabah): It is all as 1 Tana. From the first clause, we see that a change in jurisdiction does not change status of the ox;

1. The reason for the second clause is that Shimon's negligence cannot cause Reuven's ox to be considered Mu'ad by Reuven.

(e) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): It is all as 1 Tana. From the last clause, we see that a change in jurisdiction changes status of the ox;

1. The reason for the first clause is that it is always considered Reuven's ox (giving to a watchman is not a change in jurisdiction).

(a) (Mishnah): An Itztadin (stadium) ox is not killed...
(b) Question: May it be offered as a sacrifice?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav): Yes - it was forced (to gore).
(d) Answer #2 (Shmuel): No - a sin was done with it.
(e) Question (Beraisa): "From the animals" - to exclude a Rove'a or Nirva (an animal that had relations with a woman or man); "from the cattle" - to exclude an animal served as idolatry; "from the flock" - to exclude an animal designated for idolatry; "and from the flock" - to exclude a gorer (that killed).

1. R. Shimon: It must exclude both a Rove'a and a gorer, for each has different laws.

i. By a Rove'a, the law is the same whether it was forced or not; this is not so by a gorer.
ii. A gorer pays Kofer, a Rove'a does not.

2. Suggestion: When R. Shimon says that by Rove'a, the law is the same whether it was forced or not; this is not so by a gorer - this refers to (being disqualified as) a sacrifice.

(f) Answer: No - it refers to being killed.

1. Support: Presumably, it does not refer to a sacrifice - the Torah did not explicitly distinguish that it is only disqualified when it was not forced (and R. Shimon considers this distinction obvious).

(g) (Beraisa): A gorer pays Kofer, a Rove'a does not.
(h) Question: What is the case (when a Rove'a does not pay Kofer)?

1. Suggestion: If it killed through relations - why should this be different than killing with its horns?
2. Suggestion: If it had relations and did not kill - it is exempt from Kofer because it did not kill (this is not a stringency of a gorer)!

(i) Answer #! (Abaye): Really, it had relations and did not kill; the woman (it had relations with) was killed by Beis Din.

1. One might have thought, this is as killing her - we hear, this is not so.

(j) Answer #2 (Rava): Really, it killed through relations; this is different than goring, for a gorer intends to kill, this animal intended for its own benefit.
(k) Question: On what do they argue?
(l) Answer: If an ox trampled a baby in the damagee's premises.

1. According to Abaye, it pays Kofer; according to Rava, (the Tana of the Beraisa says) it does not.

(m) Support (for Rav (4:c) - Beraisa): An Itztadin ox is not killed, and it is acceptable as a sacrifice, because it is as if it is forced.