Previous daf

1)

(a)

1. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Korban Shevu'as ha'Pikadon by Gezel ha'Ger) "Ish O Ishah Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam" - that a woman is equal to a man regarding all punishments (La'avin [Chayvei Malkos]) in the Torah.
2. de'Bei Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk ... "ve'Eileh ha'Mishpatim Asher Tasim Lifneihem" - that they are equal to men as regards civil laws.
3. de'Bei Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Im Shor Nagach Hu ... ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah" - that one is Chayav Miysah for killing a woman just as one is for killing a man.

(b) Having taught us that women are compared to men regarding ...

1. ... punishments, we nevertheless need a second Pasuk to compare them as regards civil laws - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only in the former case that the Torah compares them to men, because they, like men, require atonement.
2. ... civil laws, we nevertheless need the first Pasuk to compare them as regards punishments - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only in the former case that the Torah compares them to men, because if it did not, they would be shunned by the business world, and precluded from ever being able to buy and sell anything.
3. ... both of these cases, we nevertheless need a third Pasuk to compare them as regard the death penalty - because we would otherwise have thought that it is for killing a man who is Chayav all Mitzvos (including Torah-study) that one receives the death-sentence, but not for killing a woman.
4. ... the latter case, we nevertheless need the first two Pesukim - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only in the last case that the Torah compares a woman to a man, because it has pity on the soul of the deceased woman, but not in other regards.

(a) According to Rav Papa, Palga Nizka (Chatzi Nezek) is Mamon. Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua says - that it is a K'nas (a penalty).

(b) The reason of ...

1. ... Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua is - because oxen are generally considered guarded, and the owner cannot therefore be blamed for his ox's damage.
2. ... Rav Papa is - because oxen are generally not considered guarded, and the owner is therefore obligated to guard it (in which case he is guilty if he fails to do so).

(c) Nevertheless, the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay only half - because it has pity on him, presumably because his responsibility is constant, and it is impossible to assess when the animal is likely to get excited.

(d) The Halachic ramifications of the Machlokes - are regarding the Halachah 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur', should the Mazik admit to his ox having damaged (according to Rav Papa, he will of course, be obligated to pay).

(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik be'Tashlumin', he means, according to ...

1. ... Rav Papa ('Palga Nizka Mamona') - that the Nizak must literally share in the loss (since he really ought to receive full damage, yet he receives only half).
2. ... Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua ('Palga Nizka K'nasa') - that he must accept the 'P'chas Neveilah', because, as we learned above 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak'.

(b) Having taught us that 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak' ...

1. ... in our Mishnah by a Shor Tam, the Tana nevertheless needs to have said it earlier by a Shor Mu'ad - to teach us that even though the Mazik who allowed the ox to become a Mu'ad, it is still the Nizak who must bear the brunt of P'chas Neveilah.
2. ... earlier by a Shor Mu'ad, the Tana need to repeat it here by a Shor Tam - to teach us that even though the Mazik only pays half, we still place the onus of P'chas Neveilah on the Nizak.

(c) The Tana of the Mishnah (later) lists two differences between a Tam and a Mu'ad - that a Tam pays half the damage from the body of the ox, whereas a Mu'ad pays full damage from his pocket.

(a) According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, the Tana not add to the list that whereas a Shor Tam does not pay on his own admission, a Shor Mu'ad does - because he also omits the case of Chatzi Kofer.

(b) Chatzi Kofer is - when a Shor Tam kills a person and the owner is Patur, even though he would have been Chayav if the ox had been a Mu'ad.

(c) We then go on to say that this is not really an omission, since the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who says - 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.

(d) We find it necessary to immediately retract from our original explanation - to accommodate Rav Papa, according to whom a Shor Tam does pay on his own admission, in which case it is not an omission, and we would otherwise need to explain why the Tana omitted Chatzi Kofer.

5)

(a) The Beraisa states 'Heimis Shori es P'loni O Shoro shel P'loni, Harei Zeh Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo'. Assuming that the Tana is referring to a Tam ...

1. ... the author of the first statement - will be Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who holds 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.
2. ... we will prove from the second statement - that 'Palga Nizka Mamon' (like Rv Papa).

(b) What leads us to believe that the Tana is indeed speaking about a Shor Tam is - the fact that instead of going on to differentiate between Mu'ad and Tam, he continues 'Heimis Shori es Avdo shel P'loni, Ein Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo'.

(c) He is Patur in that case - because, seeing as one pays thirty Shekalim for one's ox killing an Eved, it is a K'nas and 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur'.

(d) We refute this proof - by establishing the entire Beraisa by a Mu'ad because the Tana is not concerned with a Tam, and that explains why he prefers to go on to the case 'Heimis Shori Mu'ad es Avdo shel P'loni' rather than a Shor Tam.

(a) We can infer from the Beraisa 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol ha'Meshalem Yoser al Mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo' - 'Ha Pachos mi'Mah she'Hizik, Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo' (a Kashya on Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua).

(b) We refute the suggestion that the Tana really implies 'Ha Kemah she'Hizik Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo' - because then the Tana ought to have said 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol she'Eino Meshalem Kemah she'Hizik' (incorporating both someone who pays more than the damage and someone who pays less).

(c) Nevertheless, we conclude 'Tiyuvta ve'Hilchesa' - because the Tana could not really have said what we just suggested, because of the case of 'Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros', where the Mazik pays by his own admission, in spite of the fact that he pays less than the full damage, even according to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua (because, as we learned earlier, it is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' that it is a Toldah of Regel and not Keren).

(a) Based on 'Palga Nizka' K'nasa, if a dog ate a lamb, or a cat, a chicken - the owner pays only half damages, because it, too is unusual, and is therefore a Toldah of Keren.

(b) These damages cannot be claimed in Bavel - because all Dinim of K'nas require S'muchin, and there is no Semichah in Bavel.

(c) But if the Nizak seized the Mazik - we allow him to retain it (see Tosfos DH 've'I Tafas').

(d) We qualify the previous Halachah - by restricting it to a large lamb and a large chicken respectively; but should the dog eat a small lamb or the cat, a small chicken, they must pay in full, because it is then considered Shen, and not Keren.

(a) If, in the previous case, the Nizak asks for a Din Torah in Eretz Yisrael - the Mazik is obligated to go (together with the rogue animal), and what's more, should he fail to comply, we place a Niduy on him.

(b) Rebbi Nasan extrapolates from the Pasuk "Lo Sasim Damim be'Veisecha" - that one is forbidden to raise a dangerous dog or place a rickety ladder in one's house.

(c) And as long as the Mazik fails to carry this out - we place a Niduy on him (to force him to do so).

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah lists five Tamin and five Mu'adin. The five Tamin are - Negichah, Negifah, Neshichah, Revitzah and Be'itah.

(b) Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is fitting for it, and Regel to break as it walks along. The third Mu'ad is Shor ha'Mu'ad. The fourth is - a Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak (as will be explained in the Sugya), who pays full damage even though it did not gore three times.

(c) The fifth Mu'ad is - Adam ha'Mazik.

(d) Despite the fact that the Tana lists Keren and its four Toldos as *five* Tamin, he lists them as only *one* once they become Mu'adin - because they all become Mu'ad in the same way (through witnesses and warnings).

(a) The Tana Kama states that wild beasts (such as wolves, lions, bears, leopards and panthers) that are privately owned, are considered Mu'ad from the start. According to Rebbi Elazar - once they are trained, they become Tamin.

(b) Rebbi Elazar concedes however - that a snake is always a Mu'ad.

(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah 'ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol ... ' - that the Tana must be speaking in the Reshus ha'Nizak.

(b) And we infer from the next statement 'Beheimah Einah Mu'edes (Leshalem Kuleih)' - that Shor Tam pays half damages even in the Reshus ha'Nizak.

(c) Having just proved that the Tana is speaking in the Reshus ha'Nizak, the author of this statement is - the Rabbanan of Rebbi Tarfon.

(a) The author of the statement 've'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak' - is Rebbi Tarfon (who holds that Keren in the Reshus of the Nizak pays full damages.

(b) We reconcile the discrepancy in the Mishnah - by establishing the Reisha like the Rabbanan, and the Seifa, like Rebbi Tarfon, as we learned earlier from Shmuel.