Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) OXEN THAT DO NOT PAY

(a) (Mishnah): A healthy person's ox gored the ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child - he is liable;

1. If the ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child gored a healthy person's ox - he is exempt.

(b) If the ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child gores, Beis Din appoints an Apotropus (overseer); witnesses testify in front of the Apotropus.

1. R. Meir says, when the deaf person or lunatic becomes healthy, or the child grows up, the ox reverts to being Tam;
2. R. Yosi says, it keeps its status.

(c) An Itztadin ox (one that is trained to gore in stadiums) is not killed - "When (an ox) will gore (...it will be stoned)", not when it is incited to gore.
(d) (Gemara) Contradiction: The Mishnah says that if the ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child gored a healthy person's ox, he is exempt - i.e., we don't appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam ox;

1. The Mishnah continues, if the ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child gores, Beis Din appoints an Apotropus, and witnesses testify in front of the Apotropus (to collect from it)!

(e) Answer (Rava): If the ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child is established to gore, Beis Din appoints an Apotropus, and witnesses testify in front of the Apotropus to make the ox Mu'ad - future gorings are paid for from the Aliyah (i.e., not from the ox itself).
(f) Question: After it is Mu'ad, who pays?
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): The child.
(h) Answer #2 (R. Yosi bar Chanina): The Apotropus.
(i) Question: Did R. Yochanan really say the child pays?!

1. (Rav Yehudah): Beis Din only collects from orphans' property to pay off a loan (from a Nochri) on interest.
2. (R. Yochanan): They only collect for a loan on interest or to pay a Kesuvah (for that exempts the orphans from feeding the widow).

(j) Answer #1: We must switch the opinions of R. Yochanan and R. Yosi bar Chanina.
(k) Objection (Rava): But this means that R. Yosi bar Chanina holds that the child pays for future gorings, which is wrong!

1. R. Yosi bar Chanina was a judge, he descended to the depth of judgment, he surely did not say this!

(l) Answer #2 (Rava): Do not switch the opinions; a damager is an exception to the normal rule.

1. R. Yochanan says we collect from the child - if we would collect from the Apotropus, no one would agree to be an Apotropus!

2. R. Yosi bar Chanina says we collect from the Apotropus - when the child grows up, the Apotropus collects from him.

(a) Tana'im argue whether we appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam.

1. (Beraisa - Sumchus): Reuven became deaf, insane, or went overseas - his ox is Tam until witnesses testify (3 times) in front of him (when he is well);

i. Chachamim say, we appoint an Apotropus, witnesses testify in front of the Apotropus;

2. Reuven became well, grew up or returned from overseas - Sumchus says, his ox reverts to be Tam until witnesses testify in front of him;

i. R. Yosi says, the ox keeps its status.

(b) Question: What does Sumchus mean by 'his ox is Tam (until witnesses testify)'?

1. Suggestion: Witnesses do not testify to make it Mu'ad (in his absence).
2. Rejection: The end of the Mishnah says, 'his ox reverts to be Tam' - this shows that it became Mu'ad!

(c) Answer: Rather, 'his ox is Tam' - it is in its Temimus (entirety), i.e. we do not appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam ox in Reuven's absence (but we accept testimony to make it Mu'ad);

1. Chachamim argue, and say we appoint an Apotropus, to collect from a Tam!

(d) Question: What do they argue on in the end of the Mishnah?
(e) Answer: Whether a change in jurisdiction changes status of the ox.

1. Sumchus says, a change in jurisdiction changes its status; R. Yosi says, it does not.

(a) (Beraisa): The ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child gored - R. Yakov pays half-damage.
(b) Objection: Why should R. Yakov pay?!
(c) Correction: Rather, R. Yakov says it pays half-damage.
(d) Question: What is the case (that R. Yakov had to say half-damage)?

1. Suggestion: If it is Tam - this is obvious, every Tam pays half-damage!
2. Suggestion: It is Mu'ad.
3. Rejection: If it was guarded well - it should be exempt; if it was not guarded - it should pay full damage!

(e) Answer (Rava): Really, it is Mu'ad; it was guarded, but not well guarded.

1. R. Yakov holds as R. Yehudah, who says that when an animal becomes Mu'ad, it retains the obligation to pay for half-damage as a Tam;
2. He holds as R. Yehudah, that a Mu'ad is exempt if one guarded it minimally (so he is exempt on this half);
3. He holds as Chachamim, that we appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam (so he pays this half).

(f) Objection (Abaye): Does R. Yakov really hold as R. Yehudah?!

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): The ox of a deaf person, lunatic or child gored - it is liable;
2. R. Yakov says, it pays half-damage.

(g) Answer (Rabah bar Ula): They don't argue - R. Yakov just explained R. Yehudah.
(h) Question: According to Abaye, on what do they argue?
(i) Answer #1: A Mu'ad that was not guarded at all; R. Yakov holds as R. Yehudah by one law, not by another.

1. He agrees that when an animal becomes Mu'ad, it retains the obligation to pay for half-damage as a Tam;
2. R. Yehudah holds that we appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam; R. Yakov says, he is only appointed to collect the extra half-damage of Mu'ad.
3. Question (R. Acha bar Abaye): We understand Abaye, who holds that R. Yakov and R. Yehudah argue (Beraisa (3:a) must be a Mu'ad, for R. Yakov says we do not appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam);

i. But according to Rava, all agree (that we appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam) - he should establish the first case as a Tam, not as a Mu'ad!
ii. If R. Yakov holds as R. Yehudah, the case is, he guarded it minimally; if he holds as R. Eliezer ben Yakov, he did not guard it at all.
iii. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Both Tam and Mu'ad animals are exempt when guarded minimally.
iv. (Summation of question): The Chidush would be that we appoint an Apotropus to collect from a Tam!

4. Answer (Ravina): Rava established the Beraisa by a Mu'ad, for then we also hear that when an animal becomes Mu'ad, it retains the obligation to pay for half-damage as a Tam.

(j) Answer #2 (Ravina): R. Yakov and R. Yehudah argue whether a change in jurisdiction changes status of the ox.

1. A deaf person, lunatic or child owned a Mu'ad ox; he became healthy or grew up:

i. R. Yehudah says, the ox is still Mu'ad (a change in jurisdiction does not change status of the ox);
ii. R. Yakov says, it is now Tam.