ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 44
(a) The Pasuk "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach" is written by a Mu'ad. We
initially try to extend the Chiyuv for goring a child to a Tam from a 'Mah
Matzinu' - because if, when the Torah obligates an ox for goring a grown-up,
it makes no distinction between a Tam and a Mu'ad, the same should apply to
when the ox gores a child.
(b) We then add a 'Kal va'Chomer', on the grounds that if, when an animal
gores a man or a woman, 'whose strength is weak by Nezikin', the Torah does
not differentiate between a Tam and a Mu'ad, then it should certainly not
differentiate by a young boy or girl, 'whose strength is strong by
Nezikin' - meaning whereas grownups are Chayav for injuring one another, a
child who wounds a grown-up is Patur, even though a grown-up is Chayav for
injuring a child. The 'Kal va'Chomer' then means that just as they don't
lose as Mazikin, they ought to gain as Nizakin.
(c) We know that a child who injures a grown-up is Patur - from a Mishnah in
ha'Chovel, which exempts a 'Chashu' from damages.
(d) The problem with ...
1. ... the 'Mah Matzinu' is - that we cannot use a 'Mah Matzinu' (le'Chumra)
to learn something which is inherently lenient (a Tam) from something which
is inherently strict (a Mu'ad).
2. ... the 'Kal va'Chomer' is - that by the same token, we cannot Darshen
from a 'Kal va'Chomer' something which is inherently lenient (a child, who
is Patur from Mitzvos) from something which is inherently strict (a
grown-up, who is inherently strict).
(a) We reject the explanation that the first Pircha ('ve'Chi Danin Kal
me'Chamur ... ') is a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer, too - on the grounds
that it would be wrong to presume Ben and Bas to be inherently lenient (on
the basis of their being Patur from Mitzvos), seeing as they also contain
the inherent Chumra 'she'Kein Yafeh Kochan be'Nizakin'.
(b) We finally learn the Chiyuv of a Tam that gores a child - from the extra
"Yigach" (in the Pasuk "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach").
(a) Our Mishnah exempts an ox that intended to kill another ox but
inadvertently killed a person, that intended to kill a Nochri, but killed a
Yisrael, or that intended to kill a Nefel, but killed a healthy baby. The
first case in the Mishnah that the Tana exempts is - that of an ox that was
scratching against a wall, when it fell on a person and killed him.
(b) The animal is not stoned, says Shmuel, but the owner is Chayav to pay
Kofer. Rav says - that he is Patur from Kofer, too ...
(c) ... because of the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel ... " ('Kol Z'man she'ha'Shor
bi'Sekilah, ha'Ba'alim Meshalmin Kofer', as Rabah Darshened on the previous
(a) We ask why Rav even needs to Darshen "Im Kofer", and why Shmuel
obligates the ox that was scratching .... . The problem is - that we only
require a Pasuk to exempt she'Lo be'Kavanah Kofer by a Mu'ad, whereas we are
talking about a Tam (see Rashash)?
(b) In a similar case, where the ox is Chayav Sekilah for falling into a pit
and killing someone in the pit, Rav establishes the case when it jumped into
the pit because it saw some vegetables there. The problem with establishing
our case too, when the ox became a Mu'ad by constantly scratching against
walls and knocking them down on people is - that in that case, why is it not
Chayav to be stoned?
(c) We answer that here too, the ox scratched against the wall (not in order
to knock it down on the people who happened to be standing next to it, but)
because its back was itching - which we know because, after the wall had
fallen, it continued to scratch against it.
(d) We ask that the owner should nevertheless be Patur from Kofer, seeing as
the damage occurred through Tzeroros, and the Torah only obligates Kofer
that occurred through the body of the ox. Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana
replies - that the Tana is speaking when the ox pushed the wall bit by bit,
and the wall slowly fell with the pressure.
(a) All computations regarding the Chiyuv and P'tur of Miysah and Kofer are
possible. Mu'ad be'Kavanah is Chayav by both. The Tana says that ...
1. ... Mu'ad she'Lo be'Kavanah" is - Chayav Kofer, but Patur from Miysah.
(b) This Beraisa is a proof - for Shmuel, who includes Kofer she'Lo
be'Kavanah from "Im Kofer".
2. ... Tam be'Kavanah is - Chayav Miysah but Patur from Kofer.
3. ... Tam she'Lo be'Kavanah - is Patur with regard to both.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah obligates an ox to pay for damage she'Lo be'Kavanah. He
learns it from - Kofer.
(b) And Rebbi Shimon's source for exempting him is - 'Miysas ha'Shor'.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah learns from Kofer and not from 'Miysas ha'Shor' - because
he prefers to learn one case of payment from another case of payment (rather
than from Miysas ha'Shor, which is one of punishment).
(d) And Rebbi Shimon learns from the death of the ox - because he prefers to
learn a case where the liability is on the ox from one where the liability
is on the ox (rather than from Kofer, which is the liability of the owner).
(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah, which exempts an ox that meant to kill
another ox but inadvertently killed a person from stoning - that if it meant
to kill one person but inadvertently killed another, it would nevertheless
(b) Our Mishnah does not conform with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who
learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Shoftim "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav" - that a person is not Chayav
Miysah unless he actually aimed to kill the person that he hit.
(c) The Rabbanan hold - that 'Niskaven La'harog es Zeh ve'Harag es Zeh' is
2. ... "ha'Shor Yisakel, ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas" - that an animal that did not
kill the person that it meant to kill is Patur from Miysah too ('ke'Miysas
ha'Ba'alim ... '), a D'rashah with which the Rabbanan agree on principle.
(d) Rebbi Yanai explains that the Rabbanan learn from "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam
Alav" a case of 'Zarak Even le'Gav' - meaning that if someone threw a stone
into a group of Jews and Nochrim, and killed a Jew, he is Patur.
(a) The case of 'Zarak Even le'Gav' cannot be speaking when ...
1. ... there were a majority of Jews in the group - because then we would
naturally go after the majority (and he would be Chayav).
(b) The case must therefore be - when there were a majority of Jews, in
spite of which he is Patur.
2. ... the group was half fifty-fifty - because then, we would apply the
principle (based on the Pasuk in Mas'ei) "ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah' (which
teaches us 'Safek Nefashos Lehakel').
(c) The Pasuk is then coming to teach us the principle 'Kol Kavu'a
ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' (whenever the minority is fixed, we consider
it to be fifty-fifty).
(a) What the ox belonging to a woman, orphans, in the charge of an
Apotropus, an ox that roams in the desert, and an ox belonging to Hekdesh or
to a Ger who died without leaving relatives have in common, according to the
Tana Kama is - that they are all subject to stoning.
The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
(b) Rebbi Yehudah argues with - an ox that roams in the desert, an ox
belonging to Hekdesh and one belonging to a Ger who died without leving
relatives, since they all have no owner.
(c) The Rabbanan derive that all six cases in our Mishnah are Chayav to be
stoned - from the seven times "Shor" that appear in the Parshah of an ox
goring a person (one for an ox which has an owner, and six to include the
six above cases).
(d) Rav Huna extrapolated from the fact that Rebbi Yehudah found it
necessary to list both Shor ha'Midbar and Shor shel Ger she'Meis ... (seeing
as both are Hefker) - that the ox is Patur, even if the owner declared it
Hekdesh or Hefker after the goring, the Hekdesh and the Hefker are not
valid. We know this to be correct, because it is supported by a Beraisa.
1. ... "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav ve'Heimis" - that the ox must belong to the
owner from the time that it gores until the time of the court-case, in order
to be subject to stoning.
2. ... "ha'Shor Yisakeil" - that it must even belong to him up to the time
of the court sentence.
(a) Our Mishnah says that in a case where the owner declared his ox Hekdesh
or Shechted it ...
1. ... after it was sentenced to stoning - his Hekdesh and Shechitah are
(b) He also says - that in a case where the owner handed his Tam or Mu'ad ox
to one of the four Shomrim to look after - the Shomer takes his place to
become Chayav full damages if it is a Mu'ad, and Chatzi Nezek, if it is a
2. ... before the sentence - they are valid.