Previous daf

1)

(a) Someone who, of his own volition, confesses to having seduced a girl, is obligated to pay her father Boshes and P'gam, but not K'nas.
Why is that? From which Pasuk do we learn it? Note: By confesses, we mean that he actually volunteers the information.

(b) What will be the equivalent Halachah with regard to someone who confesses that he stole?

(c) If someone admits that his Mu'ad ox (that has already killed three times) killed a person or another ox, he has to pay.
How would one classify payment for one's ox killing a person?

(d) Following the pattern of the previous examples, in which case will he be Patur?

(a) Why does the Tana discuss the case of someone who admits to having seduced a girl, and not to having raped her?

(b) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) Rav Papa asked Abaye what Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon will rule if the girl forewent her honor in order to receive the money (presumably he is speaking about a girl who in the meantime became a Bogeres).
What did Abaye reply?

(d) And what if ...

1. ... her father too, expressed his willingness to forego his honor for the sake of his daughter)?
2. ... even the other members of her family expressed their willingness to forego their honor, too?

(a) Rav Papa holds that the half damage which the owner of a Shor Tam (an ox that has not yet gored three times) is Mamon.
What does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua say?

(b) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?

(c) On what grounds does ...

1. ... Rav Papa hold 'Palga Nizka Mamona'?
2. ... Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua hold 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'?

(d) According to ...

1. ... Rav Papa, why should the owner not then pay full damage?
2. ... Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, why should he pay anything at all?

(a) The Mishnah in Bava Kama states 'ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik be'Tashlumin. According to Rav Papa, this is easily understood (seeing as the Nizak loses half his claim).
According to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua however, the statement at first difficult to understand.
Why is that?

(b) How will Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua then explain it?

(c) What does the Tana of the Mishnah in Bava Kama mean when he says 'Tashlumei Nezek: Melamed she'ha'Ba'alim Metaplin ba'Neveilah'?

(d) But is that not the same as saying 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak'? Why do we need two Mishnos to teach us the same thing?

(a) Had the Tana taught us the Din of P'chas Neveilah by a ...

1. ... Tam, why would we not have been able to extend it to a Mu'ad?
2. ... Mu'ad, why would we not have been able to extend it to a Tam?

(b) Which two distinctions between a Tam and a Mu'ad does the Mishnah in Bava Kama list?

(c) How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?

(d) We answer 'Tana ve'Shayar' (The Tana omits something else, which justifies omitting this distinction, too).
Which other distinction does the Tana omit?

(a) We conclude that the distinction of 'Chatzi Kofer' is not considered an omission.
Why not?

(b) Why is this retraction necessary? Why the necessity to retract from a sound answer?

7)

(a) 'Heimis Shori es P'loni O Shoro shel P'loni, Harei Zeh Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'.
Presuming that this Beraisa is speaking about a Tam, on whom is this a Kashya?

(b) What prompts us to presume that the Tana is talking about a Tam is the Seifa, which states ' ... Avdo shel P'loni, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'. What would be the problem if we were to establish the Beraisa by a Mu'ad, according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?

(c) On the other hand, how can the Beraisa, which incorporates a case of Chiyuv Kofer, be speaking about a Tam, when a Tam does not pay (Chatzi) Kofer?

(d) How do we resolve the former problem (of establishing the Beraisa by a Mu'ad according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua)?

(a) Our Mishnah concludes 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol ha'Meshalem Yeser al Mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'.
How does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refute the obvious inference 'Ha Pachos mi'Mah she'Hizik, Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'?

(b) In that case, the Tana could simply have said 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol she'Eino Meshalem K'mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo', which seems to go against Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua.
How do we reconcile this with the fact that we nevertheless rule like him? Why could the Tana not have said that?

(c) What is 'Chatzi Nezek Tz'roros'? Under what heading of Nezikin does it fall?

(d) Then why does it pay only half damages?

(a) What bearing will the ruling 'Palga Nizka K'nasa' have upon a case where a dog kills a sheep or a cat kills a large chicken, and eats it in Bavel? Is the description 'large' significant?

(b) What makes this a case of Keren Tam (considering that cats and dogs do not have horns)?

(c) Why should the Din be any different in Bavel than in Eretz Yisrael?

(d) Would it make any difference if the Nizak grabbed something of the Mazik's (see also Tosfos DH 've'I')?

(a) If the Mazik were to request a court-hearing in Eretz Yisrael, Beis-Din will grant it to him.
What if the Nizak refuses to go?

(b) What does Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Lo Sasim Damim be'Veisecha"?

(c) What if someone fails to comply with this?

11)

(a) If, after a man who raped or seduced a girl has been sentenced by Beis-Din to pay, the girl's father dies, who receives the money?

(b) In which case will *the girl* herself receive it?

(c) What will be the Din in the equivalent cases if the girl became a Bogeres after or before Beis-Din's sentence?

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, the criterion is not the sentence.
Then what *is*?

(a) Whatever a girl (as long as she is a Na'arah) produces or finds, also belongs to her father. The criterion with regard to these however, is different than the above.
In which case do they belong to the father's heirs, in the event of his death, and in which case does the girl herself retain them?

(b) On what grounds is the criterion in this case different than that of rape or seduction?

Next daf