Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) POSSIBLE KAL VA'CHOMERIM

(a) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Shen and Regel are liable in a public domain!

1. Keren only pays half-damage in the damagee's premises, and it is liable in a public domain - Shen and Regel, which pay full damage in the damagee's premises, all the more so they should be liable in a public domain!

(b) Rejection #1: "It will consume in another's field" - not in a public domain.
(c) Question: We did not seek to prove that Shen and Regel would pay full damage, only half-damage! (Perhaps the verse says that they only pay full damage in the damagee's premises!)
(d) Rejection #2: "They will divide its value (of an ox that gored, to pay half-damage)" - and not of another (i.e. Shen or Regel).
(e) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Shen and Regel only pay half-damage in the damagee's premises!

1. Keren is liable in a public domain, yet it only pays half-damage in the damagee's premises - Shen and Regel, which are exempt in a public domain, all the more so they should only pay half-damage in the damagee's premises!

(f) Rejection: "He will pay" - full payment.
(g) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Keren is exempt in a public domain!

1. Shen and Regel pay full damage in the damagee's premises, yet they are exempt in a public domain - Keren only pays half-damage in the damagee's premises, all the more so it should be exempt in a public domain!

(h) Rejection (R. Yochanan): "They will divide" - half-damage (of Keren) is the same in a public domain and in the damagee's premises.
(i) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that man pays Kofer (when he kills)!

1. An ox does not pay the other 4 damages (pain,...), yet it pays Kofer - man, who pays the 4 damages, all the more so he should pay Kofer!

(j) Rejection "As all that will be placed on him (a man whose ox killed)" - not on a murderer.
(k) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that an ox pays the 4 damages!

1. Man does not pay Kofer, yet he pays the 4 damages - an ox obligates its owner to pay Kofer, all the more so it should be liable in the 4 damages!

(l) Rejection: "A man (that damages) his fellowman" - not an ox that damages a man.

(a) Question: An animal trampled on a baby in the damagee's premises - does it pay Kofer?

1. Do we equate it to Keren - just as after goring 2 or 3 times, this becomes its nature, and it pays Kofer - it is also an animal's nature to trample, it also pays Kofer!
2. Or - is Kofer only by Keren, where it intended to damage?

(b) Answer (Beraisa - R. Tarfon): Reuven brought his ox into Shimon's yard without permission; it killed Shimon. The ox is killed; Reuven pays full Kofer, whether the ox was Tam or Mu'ad.
(c) Question: From where does R. Tarfon learn full Kofer (for a Tam in the damagee's premises)?

1. Suggestion: He holds as R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that Tam pays half-Kofer in a public domain; a Kal va'Chomer from Regel teaches that it pays full Kofer in the damagee's premises.
2. This shows, there is Kofer by Regel!

(d) Answer #1 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): No, he makes a Kal va'Chomer from (standard) damages of Regel.

1. Question: We cannot learn from damages of Regel, for damages apply to fire (and Kofer does not)!
2. Answer: We learn from damages of Regel by concealed things - such damages do not apply to fire.
3. Question: We cannot learn from damages of Regel of concealed things, for such damages apply to a pit (and Kofer does not)!
4. Answer: We learn from damages of Regel of vessels - such damages do not apply to a pit.
5. Question: But such damages apply to fire (as we asked above)!
6. Answer: We learn from damages of Regel by concealed vessels - (such damages do not apply to pits or fires).
7. Question: But such damages apply to man (who does not pay Kofer)!

(e) Answer #2: Rather, he indeed learns from Kofer of Regel - this teaches, there is Kofer of Regel.
(f) (R. Acha mi'Difti): Presumably, this is correct, that there is Kofer of Regel - if we learned from damages of Regel, we could ask, Kofer does not apply to Regel!

(a) (Mishnah): Man is always Mu'ad, whether unintentional or intentional, awake or asleep.

1. If he (unintentionally) blinded a man's eye, or broke vessels, he pays full damage.

(b) (Gemara): It teaches blinding an eye, similarly to breaking vessels - just as the 4 payments do not apply to vessels, also to (unintentionally) blinding!

(c) Question: From where do we know this?
(d) Answer (Chizkiyah): "A wound in place of wound" - this obligates for unintentional damage as for intentional, for Ones as for willing.
(e) Question: We need that verse to obligate for pain, even when paying Nezek (loss in permanent earning potential)!
(f) Answer: Had it said 'A wound for a wound', we would only learn one thing; since it rather says "A wound in place of wound", we learn both.
(g) (Rava): A man did not know that there was a stone in his lap. He stood up, and it fell:

1. Regarding damage - he pays Nezek, but not the 4 damages (pain, medical expenses, temporary unemployment, and embarrassment);
2. Regarding Shabbos - the Torah only forbade intended Melachah;
3. Regarding exile (if it killed a man) - he is exempt;
4. Regarding his slave (if the stone destroyed a limb) - R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.

i. (Beraisa): A slave asked his master (a doctor) to paint his eye or dig around his tooth. The master blinded the eye or knocked out the tooth - the slave goes free;
ii. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "And he will destroy it" - he must intend to destroy it.

(h) If a man knew about the stone in his lap, but forgot and stood up, and it fell:

1. Regarding damage - he pays Nezek, but not the 4 damages;
2. Regarding exile - he is exiled - "In forgetting", implying that he once knew;
3. Regarding Shabbos - he is exempt;
4. Regarding his slave - R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.

(i) If a man intended to throw a stone 2 Amos and it went 4 Amos:

1. Regarding damage - he pays Nezek, but not the 4 damages;
2. Regarding Shabbos - the Torah only forbade intended Melachah;
3. Regarding exile "That he did not lie in wait", excluding this case (he is not killed, rather exiled; another explanation - he is not exiled).
4. Regarding his slave - R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.

(j) If a man intended to throw a stone 4 Amos and it went 8 Amos - the law is the same as above, except for Shabbos.

1. Regarding Shabbos - if he did not care where it lands, he is liable; if not, he is exempt.