Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DOES A "TAM" PAY FOR KILLING A FETUS?

(a) (Beraisa): "The owner of the ox is clean" - R. Yosi ha'Galili says, clean from paying for an fetus aborted (due to the ox goring the mother).

1. R. Akiva: We learn from "When men will fight" - not oxen!

(b) Question: What did R. Yosi ha'Galili think?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Ula brei d'Rav Idi): R. Akiva's verse is not enough!

1. One might have thought, it only excludes oxen that resemble men, i.e. Mu'adim, but a Tam pays - "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches, this is not so.

(d) Objection (Rava): How could one think that Mu'ad is exempt and Tam is liable?!
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, one might have thought, R. Akiva's verse excludes oxen that resemble men, i.e. Mu'adim, all the more so a Tam is exempt;

1. "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches, only a Tam is exempt, but a Mu'ad is liable.

(f) Question (Abaye): If so, we should say the same regarding embarrassment!

1. We exclude (from paying for embarrassment) oxen that resemble men, i.e. Mu'adim, all the more so a Tam;
2. "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches, only a Tam is exempt, but a Mu'ad is liable!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yosi ha'Galili holds thusly!
4. Rejection: If so, R. Yosi ha'Galili should have expounded "The owner of the ox is clean" to exempt from paying for an aborted fetus and embarrassment!

(g) Answer #3 (Abaye and Rava): When men fight, if the woman lives, they pay (for the fetus), if she dies, they are exempt (from paying, since they are worthy of death);

1. By oxen, one might have thought, in either case they are liable - "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches, Tam oxen are always exempt.

(h) Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The exemption of men does not depend on a fatality, rather on intention! (Rashi - men are liable even if she dies, if they did not intend to kill her; Tosfos - Abaye and Rava only exempt oxen as men, i.e. that did not intend for her, but obligate an ox that intentionally gored her.)
(i) Answer #4 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): When men fight, intending for each other, even if the woman dies, they pay (for the fetus), when they intend for her, they are exempt (if she dies);

1. By oxen, one might have thought, in either case they are liable - "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches, (Tam) oxen are always exempt.
2. Rav Chagai taught a Beraisa supporting Rav Ada bar Ahavah.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "The owner of the ox is clean" - from the 30 Shekalim for killing a slave.

(b) Question: R. Akiva should ask on himself as he asked R. Eliezer (41B 3:a:1)- a Tam only pays from itself - since we may not benefit from the damager, obviously it does not pay 30 Shekalim!
(c) Answer (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): The case is, the owner slaughtered it first.

1. One might have thought, the 30 Shekalim are paid from it - we hear, this is not so, since it should be killed, even if it was slaughtered, we do not collect from it.

(d) Question: If so, why did R. Akiva ask against R. Eliezer - there also, one might have thought that if it was slaughtered, we collect from it!
(e) Answer #1: R. Akiva wanted to see if R. Eliezer had a better answer.

1. Question: Why didn't R. Eliezer give this answer?
2. Answer: There, when the ox killed without intention, the ox is not killed at all, one might have thought it pays Kofer - we hear, this is not so.

i. Here, the ox should be killed - no verse is needed to exempt from Kofer, even if it was slaughtered.

3. Question: Surely, R. Akiva agrees to this!

(f) Answer #2 (Rav Asi): Since R. Akiva holds, a Tam that gores a man pays full damage (less what the man damaged it), one might have thought it pays 30 Shekalim of a slave from the Aliyah, as a Mu'ad - "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches, this is not so.
(g) Objection (R. Zeira - Beraisa - R. Akiva): "As this law will be done to it" - a Tam only pays from its own value, not from the Aliyah!
(h) Answer #3 (Rava): We need a verse to teach that a Tam does not pay for a slave, because the Torah was more stringent by a slave than by a free man (and pays from the Aliyah);

1. Kofer is only the person's value - but one pays 30 Shekalim even for a slave worth 1 Sela!

(i) Support (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "The owner of the ox is clean" - from paying for a slave.

1. Question: Doesn't a Kal va'Chomer teach this? One pays the full value of a free man, yet this is only by Mu'ad, Tam is exempt - all the more so by a slave, by which one never pays more than 30!
2. Answer: The Torah was more stringent by a slave! For a free man, one only pays his value - but one pays 30 Shekalim even for a slave worth 1 Sela! Therefore, the verse is needed.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: "And it will kill a man or woman" - why is this needed?

1. If to obligate for a woman as a man - it already says "If an ox will gore a man or woman"!

(b) Answer: Rather, it comes to equate a woman to a man: just as damage payments on account of a man go to his heirs, also by a woman they go to her heirs.
(c) Question: Does R. Akiva hold that a man doesn't inherit his wife?!

1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "He will inherit her" - this teaches that a man inherits his wife.

(d) Answer (Reish Lakish): Since Kofer is not fitting to be paid in her lifetime, only after death, a husband does not inherit it.
(e) Question: Why is Kofer only paid after death? (It should be paid once we anticipate that the victim will die!)
(f) Answer: "And it will kill a man or woman, the ox will be stoned (...Kofer will be placed)" - Kofer is only after stoning, which is after the victim dies.
(g) Question: But R. Akiva also said so regarding damages (that he does not inherit them)!

1. (Beraisa): A man hit a woman, making her lose her fetus - he pays Nezek and pain to her, and compensation for the fetus to her husband;
2. If the husband is dead, his heirs receive his share; if she died, her heirs receive her share (of payments for Nezek and pain).
3. If she was a freed slave or a convert (who has no heirs), the damager need not pay her share.

(h) Answer (Rabah and Rav Nachman): That Beraisa is by a divorcee.
(i) Question: If she is a divorcee, she should share the payment for the fetus!
(j) Answer (Rav Papa): The Torah said that the father gets it, even if she was never married to him.
(k) Question: Why is this?
(l) Answer: "As will place upon him Ba'al of the woman" (we do not explain Ba'al as husband, rather as Bo'el (the one who had relations with her)).
(m) Question: Why did Rabah and Rav Nachman establish the case by a divorcee - they could have explained even if she was not divorced!

1. (Rabah): A firstborn gets an extra share in land given to pay a loan that was owed to his father, but not if it was paid in money, (A husband is as the extra share of a firstborn, he does not inherit what was only fitting).
2. (Rav Nachman): A firstborn gets an extra share in money given to pay a loan that was owed to his father, but not if it was paid in land,

(n) Answer: They only said that according to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, according to Chachamim - here, they explain as Rebbi (who says that a firstborn gets an extra share, whether it was paid in land or money).