Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MU'AD FOR DIFFERENT THINGS

(a) (Mishnah): An ox that is Mu'ad to gore: oxen (and it) is not Mu'ad to gore other animals; or to gore people, (and it) is not Mu'ad for animals; or to gore small animals, (and it) is not Mu'ad for big animals - it pays full damage for what it is Mu'ad, half-damage for what it is not. (Amora'im argue if the text of the Mishnah includes the words in parentheses.)

1. Talmidim: (What) if it is Mu'ad to gore on Shabbos, (and it) is not Mu'ad during the week(?)
2. R. Yehudah: It pays full damage for goring on Shabbos, half-damage on a weekday.

i. It becomes Tam again after 3 straight Shabbosim without goring.

(b) (Gemara - Rav Zvid): The Mishnah reads 'An ox that is Mu'ad to gore oxen and it is not Mu'ad for other animals...'
(c) (Rav Papa): It reads 'An ox that is Mu'ad to gore oxen is not Mu'ad for...'

1. According to Rav Zvid, an ox Mu'ad for 1 thing is assumed to be Mu'ad for others, unless we see otherwise;
2. According to Rav Papa, an ox Mu'ad for 1 thing is not Mu'ad for others, until it become Mu'ad for them.
3. Rav Zvid learned from the end of the Mishnah - an ox that is Mu'ad for small animals (and it) is not Mu'ad for big animals.

i. We understand if the text is 'and it is not Mu'ad' - the Chidush is that an ox Mu'ad for small animals is assumed to be Mu'ad for big animals.
ii. But if the text is 'is not Mu'ad' - the Chidush would be, an ox Mu'ad for small animals is not assumed to be Mu'ad for big animals - we already heard a bigger Chidush in the beginning of the Mishnah (Mu'ad for small animals of its species is not Mu'ad for small animals of another species)!
iii. Rav Papa says, we need to hear this - one might have thought, once it starts goring a species, it does not distinguish between big and small animals of the species - we hear, this is not so.

4. Rav Papa learned from the beginning of the Mishnah - an ox that is Mu'ad for people (and it) is not Mu'ad for animals.

i. We understand if the text is 'is not Mu'ad' - the Chidush is that an ox Mu'ad for people is assumed not to be Mu'ad for animals (even though animals lack Mazel, and it is easier to gore them).
ii. But if the text is 'and it is not Mu'ad' - the Chidush would be, an ox Mu'ad for people is assumed to be Mu'ad for animals - we already heard a bigger Chidush in the previous clause (Mu'ad for animals of one (even its own) species is Mu'ad for animals of another species)!
iii. Rav Zvid says, that clause teaches about returning to the status of Tam, i.e. it was Mu'ad for people and for animals, and stopped being Mu'ad for animals (3 times, it refrained from goring them). One might have thought, since it remains Mu'ad for man, we do not consider it to be Tam for animals - we hear, this is not so.

(d) Question (on Rav Zvid - Beraisa - Sumchus): An ox Mu'ad for people is Mu'ad for animals from a Kal va'Chomer.

1. If it is Mu'ad to gore man, all the more so animals!
2. This implies that the Chachamim that argue on him hold that Mu'ad to gore man is not Mu'ad for animals!

(e) Answer: The Beraisa deals with returning to the status of Tam. The first Tana holds that it reverts to being Tam for animals, even though it remains Mu'ad for man; Sumchus holds, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that it remains Mu'ad for animals!

1. If it remains Mu'ad for man - all the more so for animals!

(f) (Rav Ashi - Mishnah - Talmidim): (What) if it is Mu'ad to gore on Shabbos, (and it) is not Mu'ad during the week(?)
(g) R. Yehudah: It pays full damage for goring on Shabbos, half-damage on a weekday.

1. If the text is 'What if...and it is not Mu'ad...?' - the question and answer are reasonable.
2. Question: But if the text is 'is not Mu'ad' - the Talmidim came to teach R. Yehudah the law?!

i. Also - what is the Chidush of his response?

(h) (R. Yanai): The beginning of the Mishnah also proves that that the text is 'and it is not Mu'ad'.

1. It says, it pays full damage for what it is Mu'ad, half-damage for what it is not.
2. If the text is 'and it is not Mu'ad' - this teaches, normally it is assumed to be Mu'ad;

i. Since the Chidush of the Mishnah in the inference, it proceeds to explain it, how much it pays for each (even though this is no Chidush).

3. Question: But if the text is 'is not Mu'ad' - this is the Chidush, why does the Mishnah continue to teach that a Mu'ad pays full damage, a Tam pays half-damage - we already know this!

(i) According to Rav Papa - an ox that gores 3 different animals is Mu'ad for all (animals).

(a) (Beraisa): An ox saw 6 oxen, one after the other. It gored the first, third and fifth - it is Mu'ad to gore every alternating ox.
(b) (Beraisa): An ox saw 6 different animals, one after the other. It gored the first, third and fifth - it is Mu'ad to gore every alternating animal (of all species).

(c) Question: An ox gored 3 oxen, and then 2 different animals - what is the law?

1. Do we join the third ox to the first 2, and it is only Mu'ad for oxen?
2. Or - do we join the third ox to the 2 animals that followed, and it is Mu'ad for all animals?

(d) Question: If we join it to the oxen - if it gored a donkey, a camel, then 3 oxen - what is the law?

1. Do we join the first ox to the first 2 animals, and it is Mu'ad for all animals?
2. Or - do we join it to the 2 oxen that followed, and it is Mu'ad only for oxen?

(e) Question: An ox gored 3 times on Shabbos, once on Sunday, once on Monday - what is the law?

1. Do we join the last Shabbos goring to the first 2 Shabbos gorings, and it is Mu'ad only for Shabbos?
2. Or - do we join it to the 2 weekday gorings, and it is Mu'ad for all days?

(f) Question: An ox gored on Thursday, Friday, and 3 times on Shabbos - what is the law?

1. Do we join the first Shabbos goring to the 2 weekday gorings, and it is Mu'ad for all days?
2. Or - do we join it to the 2 Shabbos gorings, and it is only Mu'ad for Shabbos?

i. These questions are unresolved.

(g) (Rav): An ox gored on the 15th, 16th and 17th of 3 consecutive months - it is Mu'ad to gore according to this pattern.
(h) (Shmuel): it is not Mu'ad until it gores 3 times after the same skip (i.e. after the 18th of the next month).
(i) (Rava): An ox heard a shofar 3 times and gored each time - it is Mu'ad to gore upon hearing a shofar.
(j) Question: This is obvious!
(k) Answer: One might have thought, the first time was only because it was afraid (not because of a nature to gore) - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah): A Yisrael's ox gored a Hekdesh ox or vice-versa - it is exempt - "The ox of his fellowman", not the ox of Hekdesh.
(b) A Yisrael's ox gored a Nochri's ox - it is exempt; a Nochri's ox gored a Yisrael's ox - whether Tam or Mu'ad, it pays full damage.
(c) (Gemara): Our Mishnah is not as R. Shimon ben Menasya.
(d) (Beraisa): A Yisrael's ox gored a Hekdesh ox or vice-versa - it is exempt - "The ox of his fellowman", not the ox of Hekdesh;

1. R. Shimon ben Menasya says, a Yisrael's ox that gores a Hekdesh ox pays full damage, whether Tam or Mu'ad, it pays full damage.

(e) Question: Why does he say this?

1. If "The ox of his fellowman" is a condition to be liable - a Yisrael's ox that gored a Hekdesh ox should be exempt!
2. If "The ox of his fellowman" is just a typical case, but the Torah obligates even when it is not his fellowman's ox - a Hekdesh ox that gored should also be liable!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps "The ox of his fellowman" is a condition to be liable; a Yisrael's ox that gored a Hekdesh ox is liable for a different reason, from a Kal va'Chomer;

i. A Yisrael's ox that gored a Yisrael's ox is liable - all the more so, when it gores a Hekdesh ox!

4. Rejection: If so, Dayo would say that we cannot learn more than the source, i.e. half-damage for a Tam!

(f) Answer (Reish Lakish): When the Torah obligated full damage (by Mu'ad), all animals were included. When it said that a Tam pays half-damage, it only said this by "The ox of his fellowman";

1. This Chidush was not said for goring a Hekdesh ox, so it pays full damage.
2. Had the Torah come to exempt for goring a Hekdesh ox, it would have said "The ox of his fellowman" by a Mu'ad!