Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LAWS OF COLLECTING DAMAGES

(a) (Mishnah): According to witnesses...
(b) This excludes one who admits to a fine, and later witnesses come - the person is exempt.

1. This fits the opinion that if one admits to a fine, and later witnesses come, the person is exempt.

(c) Question: According to the opinion that one who admits to a fine, and later witnesses come, the person is liable - what does the Mishnah teach?
(d) Answer: The Chidush is the end of the Mishnah - free men, members of the covenant.

1. Free men - this excludes slaves; members of the covenant - this excludes Nochrim.
2. We need to hear both.

i. If we only heard by slaves - one might have thought, this is because they have no lineage; but Nochrim have lineage, they would collect damages;
ii. If we only heard by Nochrim - one might have thought, this is because he has only 7 Mitzvos; but slaves have Mitzvos (that women have), they would collect damages.

(e) (Mishnah): Women are include in damages.
(f) Question: From where do we know this?
(g) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "A man or woman that will do any sin" - the Torah equates men and women for all punishments;
(h) (D'vei R. Elazar): "These are the judgments that you will put in front of them" - the Torah equates men and women for all (monetary) judgments;
(i) (D'vei Chizkiyah): "And (an ox) will kill a man or woman" - the Torah equates men and women regarding death.
(j) We need to hear all of these.

1. If we only heard by punishments - one might have thought, this is just so she will get atonement - but (monetary) judgments are for men;
2. If we only heard by judgments - this is so she can do business and earn a living, but only men get punishments for atonement, for they are obligated in all the Mitzvos;
3. If we only heard these 2 - for the reasons of atonement and business, but Kofer (ransom) would only be by a man, not a woman - we hear, this is not so.
4. If we only heard by Kofer - this is because a life was lost; but without loss of life, women are not as men - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah): The damager and damagee are both involved in payments.
(b) (Rav Papa): Half-damage paid by a Tam - this is principle (i.e. not a fine).
(c) (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): It is a fine.

1. Rav Papa holds, oxen are not considered guarded; really, the owner should pay full damage;

i. The Torah was lenient, because he was not yet warned to guard it.

2. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua holds, oxen are considered guarded; really, the owner should be exempt;

i. The Torah fined him, to encourage him to guard his ox.

(d) (Mishnah): The damager and damagee are both involved in payments.
(e) This fits the opinion that half-damage is principle - the damagee loses half of what he deserves.
(f) Question: But according to the opinion that it is a fine - the damagee receives what he does not deserve, can we say he is involved in the payments?!
(g) Answer: The Mishnah refers to the decrease in value of a carcass, which the damagee suffers.
(h) Question: A previous Mishnah already taught this - 'Payments of damage', which teaches that the damagee deals with the carcass!
(i) Answer: The Mishnah teaches this by a Tam and Mu'ad; we need to hear by both.

i. If we only heard by a Tam - one might have thought, because the damager was not yet warned to guard his ox, the Torah did not make him lose the decreased value of the carcass (but by a Mu'ad, he would lose this)
ii. If we only heard by a Mu'ad - because he pays full damage, we do not make him suffer the decrease in value of the carcass (but buy a Tam, he would).

(j) (Mishnah): The difference between Tam and Mu'ad, is that a Tam pays half-damage (up to) its own value, and a Mu'ad pays full damage, even above its own value.

1. Question: If half-damage is a fine - the Mishnah should also say, a Tam does not pay according to admission of the owner!
2. Answer: The Tana did not list all differences.
3. Question: Surely, he did not omit only 1 thing - what else did he omit?
4. Answer #1: That only a Mu'ad pays Kofer.
5. Objection: That answer is not acceptable - our Mishnah is as R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that a Tam pays half-Kofer!

(k) (Mishnah): My ox killed Ploni, or Ploni's ox - he pays by his own admission.

1. Suggestion: This refers to a Tam.
2. Rejection No, it is by a Mu'ad.
3. (Inference): But a Tam would not pay by its own admission.

i. Question: If so, why did the end of the Mishnah say 'My ox killed Ploni's slave - he does not pay by his own admission';
ii. The Mishnah could have distinguished within the first case - he pays by his own admission by a Mu'ad, not by a Tam!
iii. Answer: The Mishnah deals only with a Mu'ad.

(l) (Beraisa): The general rule is: any payment more than the damage is not paid by the person's admission.
(m) (Inference): Any payment less than the damage is paid by the person's admission.
(n) Rejection: No - the inference is, any payment equal to the damage is paid by the person's admission.
(o) Question: But less than the damage is paid by the person's admission?

1. If so, why did the Mishnah say 'any payment more than the damage is not paid by the person's admission' - it should have said, any payment not equal to the damage is not paid by the person's admission, implying more or less!
2. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua is refuted.
3. The law is, half-damage is a fine.
4. Question: That was refuted, it cannot be the law!
5. Answer: The refutation was because the Mishnah did not say 'any payment not equal to the damage is not paid by the person's admission' - the Mishnah could not say this, for it is not always true.

i. A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that half-damage of pebbles is not a fine.

(p) Since we say that half-damage is a fine - if a dog ate a sheep, or a cat eats a chicken, this is abnormal (hence a derivative of Keren), we do not collect it in Bavel (as all other fines).

1. This is only if they ate a large sheep or chicken - it is normal for them to eat small ones.
2. If the damagee grabbed payment, we do not make him return it.
3. If the damagee requested to fix a time to go to Eretz Yisrael to judge the case, we comply; if the damager does not agree, we excommunicate him.

(q) In any case, we excommunicate him until he removes the damager.

1. (Beraisa - R. Noson): "Do not put blood in your house" - this forbids one to have a wild dog or rickety ladder in his house.

(a) (Mishnah): There are 5 Tam damagers, and 5 Mu'ad damagers:

1. An animal is not Mu'ad to gore, push, bite, crouch or kick;
2. Shen is Mu'ad to eat food fitting for it; Regel is Mu'ad to break things as it walks;
3. A Mu'ad ox; an ox that damages in the damagee's premises; and man.
4. A wolf, lion, bear, leopard, Bardelus, and snake are Mu'ad;

i. R. Elazar says, if they are domesticated, they are not Mu'ad, except for a snake, which is always Mu'ad.

(b) (Gemara): Since it says Shen is Mu'ad to eat fitting food, this must be in the damagee's premises; and it says, a Tam pays half-damage.

1. This is as Chachamim, who say that Keren pays half-damage in the damagee's premises.
2. Question: The end of the Mishnah includes an ox that damages in the damagee's premises as Mu'ad - this is as R. Tarfon!

i. Is the beginning of the Mishnah as Chachamim, and the end as R. Tarfon?!

3. Answer #1 (Shmuel): Yes!
4. Answer #2 (R. Elazar): The whole Mishnah is as R. Tarfon; the beginning of the Mishnah is in a field in which only the damagee may leave fruit, and both the damagee and damager may have animals;

i. Regarding Shen, it is as the yard of the damagee; regarding Keren, it is as public domain.