(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


POINT BY POINT SUMMARY

Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama 44

1) LIABILITY FOR MINORS

(a) (Mishnah): And similarly for a boy or girl.
(b) (Beraisa): "Or if it will gore a boy or girl" - (we kill the ox) for minors as for adults.
1. Suggestion: We should be able to learn from man, who is liable for minors as adults!
i. A person that kills a minor is (killed) as one who kills an adult - also, an ox that kills a minor should be (killed) as an ox that kills an adult!
ii. Moreover, there is a Kal va'Chomer: a child that kills is not (killed) as an adult that kills, yet people are killed for killing children - a young ox that kills a person is (killed) as a mature ox, all the more so, an ox that kills a minor is as one that kills an adult!
2. Rejection: No - a man that kills is more stringent, he pays 4 (additional) damages - we cannot learn to an ox that only pays Nezek - we need "A boy or a girl".
(c) Question: This was said by a Mu'ad - how do we know regarding a Tam?
(d) Answer #1: The Torah said that we kill the ox for goring a man or woman, and for a boy or girl. Just as regarding a man or woman, Tam is as Mu'ad, also regarding a boy or girl.
1. Moreover, it is a Kal va'Chomer: men and women have less privileges regarding damages (when they damage, they are liable), Tam is liable for them as Mu'ad - minors, who are privileged regarding damages (they are exempt for damage), all the more so Tam is liable for them as Mu'ad!
2. Question: Can we make such a Kal va'Chomer, to be stringent?
i. We are stringent for killing adults, for they are commanded to keep Mitzvos - perhaps we are lenient for killing minors,who are exempt from Mitzvos!
(e) Answer #2: "If it will gore a boy, if it will gore a girl" - it says "gore" twice, the verse speaks of a Mu'ad and a Tam that gore, regarding death and damages.
2) KILLING UNINTENTIONALLY
(a) (Mishnah): In the following cases, an ox is exempt:
1. It was scratching on the wall, and it fell on a man;
2. It intended to kill an animal, a Nochri, or a non-viable baby, and killed a (healthy) Yisrael.
(b) (Gemara - Shmuel): The animal is not killed, but it pays Kofer.
(c) (Rav): It is exempt from both.
(d) Question: Why does Shmuel say it pays Kofer - it is Tam!
(e) Answer: Just as Rav said (elsewhere), the case is, the ox is Mu'ad to fall on people in pits - the ox is Mu'ad to kill people when scratching on walls.
(f) Question: If so, we kill the ox!
1. By the pit, we can say it saw food, and therefore fell in - but here, it intended to kill!
(g) Answer: No, it was scratching for its own benefit.
(h) Question: How do we know this?
(i) Answer: After it fell, it resumed scratching.
44b---------------------------------------44b

(j) Question: This is only pebbles (the ox made the wall fall, the wall killed)!
(k) Answer (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): The ox was weighing down on the wall the entire time it was falling.
(l) A Beraisa supports Shmuel, and refutes Rav.
1. (Beraisa): Sometimes the ox is killed and pays Kofer; sometimes the ox is not killed but it pays Kofer; sometimes the ox is killed but it is exempt from Kofer; sometimes it is exempt from both.
i. A Mu'ad that intended to kill - the ox is killed and pays Kofer;
ii. A Mu'ad that did not intend - the ox is not killed but it pays Kofer;
iii. A Tam that intended - the ox is killed but it is exempt from Kofer;
iv. A Tam that did not intend - the ox is exempt from both.
2. Damages without intent - R. Yehudah obligates, R. Shimon exempts.
(m) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(n) Answer: He learns from Kofer - just as one pays Kofer even without intent, also damages.
(o) R. Shimon learns from stoning - just as we only kill the ox when it intended, also payment of damages.
1. Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn as R. Shimon?
2. Answer: He prefers to learn payments from payments, not from death.
3. Question: Why doesn't R. Shimon learn as R. Yehudah?
4. Answer: He prefers to learn damages from stoning, which are both liabilities of the ox, not from Kofer, which is an atonement for the owner.
3) KILLING AN UNINTENDED VICTIM
(a) (Mishnah): It intended to kill an animal, and killed a Yisrael...it is exempt.
(b) (Inference): Had it intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon, it would be liable!
(c) Our Mishnah is not as R. Shimon.
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Even if it intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon, it is exempt.
(d) Question: What is his reason?
(e) Answer: "The ox will be stoned, and also its owner will die" - death of the ox is as of the owner;
1. Just as a man is only killed for killing his intended victim, also an ox.
(f) Question: How does he know that a man is only killed for killing his intended victim?
(g) Answer: "He waited in ambush for him, and rose upon him" - he must intend for his victim.
(h) Question: What do Chachamim learn from that verse?
(i) Answer (d'vei R. Yanai): It excludes one who throws a rock into a group and kills someone.
(j) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: If there are 9 Nochrim and 1 Yisrael there - obviously he is exempt, the majority are Nochrim (he did not expect to kill a Yisrael).
i. Even if half were Nochrim, for an even doubt we do not kill!
(k) The case is, there are 9 Yisraelim and 1 Nochri there - even though the majority are Yisraelim, the minority is considered 'fixed', it is as an even doubt, we do not kill when in doubt.
4) WHICH KILLER-OXEN ARE KILLED?
(a) (Mishnah): The following oxen are killed (for killing): the ox of a woman, of orphans (without an Apotropus), of (orphans with) an Apotropus, an ox of the wilderness, a Hekdesh ox, and the ox of a convert that died without heirs;
1. R. Yehudah says, we do not kill an ox of the wilderness, of Hekdesh, or of a convert that died without heirs, because it has no owner.
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa): It says 'ox' 7 times in the Parsha - 6 are extra, to teach about 6 special oxen we kill: the ox of a woman, of orphans, of an Apotropus, an ox of the wilderness, a Hekdesh ox, and the ox of a convert that died without heirs;
1. R. Yehudah says, we do not kill the last 3, because they have no owners.
(c) (Rav Huna): R. Yehudah exempts even if it had an owner, and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored.
(d) Question: How do we know that?
(e) Answer: Since the Mishnah teaches an ox of the wilderness and the ox of a convert that died without heirs as separate cases.
1. Question: Both are Hefker!
2. Answer: Both are taught to teach that even if it had an owner, and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored, R. Yehudah exempts.
(f) Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Even if it had an owner, and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored, it is exempt - "The owner heard testimony on it, and it killed (again...the ox will be stoned)" - the trial of the ox must be as the goring, (i.e. when it has an owner).
(g) Question: Don't we also need an owner at the time of the verdict? "The ox will be stoned" is the verdict!
(h) Correction: Yes, it should say 'the goring, the trial, and the verdict must be the same' (when it has an owner).
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il