ושור אינו משלם אלא נזק—And an ox pays for damages only

OVERVIEW רבא rules in a case where one hit someone and damaged his hand, but it can be healed that the מזיק only pays for his inability to work during his rehabilitation (שבת), but does not pay for his decrease in value (נזק) if he were to be sold as a slave. The גמרא comments that if the damage was done by an animal, there would be no payment at all, since an animal pays only for נזק but not for שבת.

יש רוצים לפטור את השוכר או שואל סוס מחבירו – There are those who want to exempt, one who rents or borrows a horse from his friend, from paying for any damage sustained by the horse – אפילו הוזק בפשיעה ונתבטל הרבה ממלאכתו כיון דסופו לחזור להתרפאות – Even if the horse was injured through negligence and was not able to work for a long time, since eventually the horse will be healed; their reasoning is – דכי היכי דדרשינן איש בעמיתו¹ ולא שור בעמיתו – For just as we expound the פסוק of איש בעמיתו (a man to his friend), but not שור בעמיתו regarding שבת that the בעל השור in only חייב for נזק if he injured a person – הכי נמי דרשינן איש בעמיתו ולא איש בשור – We also expound איש בעמיתו (is חייב בד' דברים), but not איש בשור; if a person damages a שור there is no חיוב of ד' דברים – ואין לחלק² בין שומרים לאדם המזיק – And we cannot differentiate between guardians (who are perhaps חייב בד' דברים) and a person who damages (who is not חייב) – מדפריך בבבא קמא (דף ד,ב) ותו³ שומר חנם והשואל כולי אדם דאזיק שור הוא – Since the גמרא asks in מסכת ב"ק; ‘but a ש"ח and a borrower, etc. are all cases of a person who damaged an ox’ – תוספות replies to an anticipated question: והא דפריך בריש הנחנקין (סנהדרין פד,ב) הכחישה באבנים הכי נמי דלא מיחייב⁴ – And this which the גמרא asks in the beginning of פרק הנחנקין, ‘if he weakened the animal by loading it with stones, is it indeed so that he will be liable’?! היינו בהכחשה דלא הדרא⁵ – There we are discussing a weakening that will not go back; the animal will be permanently weakened – תוספות offers a differing view: ורבינו חיים⁶ אומר דלא שייך שבת אלא באדם דשבתו לא הוי בכלל נזק – And the ר"ח says that the concept of an independent שבת is not applicable, only by a person, for his שבת is not included in the נזק payment – דמשום שבת לא פחתי דמיו כל כך⁷ – Since the monetary value of a person does not decrease that much on account of שבת – אבל שור פשיטא דשבתו בכלל נזק הוא דפחתי דמיו⁸ – However by an ox it is obvious that his שבת payment is part of his נזק payment, because his value decreases on account of his שבת –

And initially when he was injured we assess the ox how much has his selling price decreased.

SUMMARY There is a dispute whether the financial loss of the time a recuperating animal cannot work is considered שבת (and therefore [even] a שומר who was negligent will be פטור), or is it part of נזק (and the שומר will be חייב).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות contends that an אדם דאזיק שור is פטור from שבת, because just as we expound איש בעמיתו ולא שור בעמיתו, we also expound איש בעמיתו ולא איש בשור. Why did not תוספות cite an explicit גמרא in ב"ק ד,ב, which states that an אדם דאזיק שור נזק הוא דמשלם (but not ד' דברים).¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ The פסוק in ויקרא (אמור) כד,יט reads ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו, the גמרא in ב"ק כו,א expounds on this פסוק to teach us that only איש בעמיתו is חייב בד' דברים but not שור בעמיתו. ² תוספות is responding to an anticipated question; perhaps the דרשה of ולא איש בשור, applies only when a person actually damages the animal (in this case he is פטור מד' דברים) however if a שומר was negligent in watching the שור and it was hurt, perhaps that is a different case and he would be חייב בד' דברים, so תוספות rejects this idea. ³ A marginal note amends this to read והא שומר (instead of ותו שומר). The גמרא there was trying to explain why ר' אושעיא did or did not include certain cases in his counting of the אבות נזיקין, saying that once a category is mentioned, he does not see fit to repeat another מזיק which is in the same category. The גמרא asked on this, but ר' אושעיא mentioned an אדם המזיק שור, and nevertheless he also mentions ש"ח וכו', which is also a case of אדם דאזיק שור. It is evident from this question that the גמרא does not differentiate between אדם המזיק and the שומרים, so therefore just as אדם המזיק שור is פטור מד' דברים, the same should apply to the שומרים and therefore they would (seemingly) be פטור in a case where the animal was incapacitated, but is expected to fully recover. ⁴ The פסוק in ויקרא (אמור) כד,כא states ומכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת. The גמרא there derives from another פסוק (יח), ומכה נפש בהמה that the חיוב is only when there is a חבורה (there was blood letting). The גמרא there asks does that mean that if he made the animal weaker by loading it with heavy stones but there was no blood that he is פטור. This cannot be! It appears from that גמרא that one is חייב for damaging a בהמה not as the יש רוצים maintain. ⁵ By a הכחשה דלא הדרא all agree that the מזיק is חייב, because that is נזק; the יש רוצים wanted to exempt the שומר from paying by a הכחשה דהדר so there is no נזק, only שבת, and one is seemingly פטור for שבת by an animal. ⁶ This follows the text of the תוספות הראש who writes ור"ח כהן (which is רבינו חיים). ⁷ When we assess the value of a person (how much it would cost to buy him as a slave) that fact that he cannot work a week or so, will hardly diminish his price, because when you purchase a person, you are buying someone with intelligence whose value cannot be measured solely on how much physical labor he can do. Therefore in order to compensate for his שבת we need to assess it separately. However when a שור incapacitates a person temporarily there is no נזק (according to רבא) and a שור is פטור from paying שבת. ⁸ An ox is only used for work, if he cannot work (even for a short time) his value is diminished, therefore it is not (merely) שבת, rather his inability to work is considered נזק and one is חייב for the היזק to a שור. ⁹ When an ox is injured by a מזיק we determine the amount to be paid by assessing the value of the ox before he was injured and the value immediately after he was injured; the lower current value certainly includes his inability to work for whatever period it takes him to recover, this is therefore included in נזק. See the commentaries for various explanations of sר"ח' view. ¹⁰ See רש"ש.

מאי לאו כמשנה אחרונה—Is it not according to the last Mishnoh

OVERVIEW The גמרא posed a query; does the master of an עבד who is¹ מעוכב גט שחרור receive the קנס of שלושים שקלים if this עבד is killed by an animal. The גמרא cited a ברייתא which states that the קנס of a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין is given half to the master and half to his heirs. The גמרא initially assumed that this ברייתא is following the משנה אחרונה, where all agree that we force the remaining partner to free the slave (he is a מעוכב גט שחרור) and nevertheless the master receives (half of) the קנס. Our תוספות explains why we cannot use this reasoning to resolve a previously cited contradiction.

ולעיל² לא בעי לאוקומי הא דנותן חצי קנס לרבו למשנה אחרונה³ – But previously the גמרא did not want to establish that the ברייתא which rules that he gives half the קנס to his master, follows the משנה אחרונה – דקנסא לרבו מעשה ידיו לעצמו⁴ – Where assume that the קנס belongs to the master and the slave’s handiwork belongs to him – והא דנגחו שור יום של רבו לרבו הוי למשנה ראשונה כדפרישית לעיל⁵ – And that ברייתא where an ox gored and injured the עבד, if it was יום של רבו, the payment goes לרבו, that ברייתא is according to the משנה ראשונה as I explained previously; the reason the גמרא did not offer this resolution –

Is in order that we should not resolve the query here whether a מעוכב גט שחרור receives קנס at all

SUMMARY We forgo resolving a contradiction by assuming a ruling that remains in doubt.

THINKING IT OVER Why was it necessary for תוספות to mention 'מעשה ידיו לעצמו';⁷ what relevance does it have to explaining why חצי קנס goes לרבו?!

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה מעוכב. ² On מב,א and continuing on מב,ב the ברייתא stated that if an ox killed a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין that we pay half of the thirty שקלים קנס to the master and half to the heirs of the עבד. The גמרא asks why do we not say if it was יום של רבו the קנס is paid לרבו and if it is יום של עבד it goes to his heirs (like we said previously [on the עמוד א'] that if a חעוחב"ח was injured by an ox יום של רבו לרבו יום של עצמו לעצמו). The גמרא gave an answer which seemingly conflicts with the view of רבא. תוספות is asking that based on this גמרא we could have offered an answer even according to רבא. ³ Our גמרא here understands that according to the משנה אחרונה it makes sense that חצי קנס לרבו (provided that there is קנס for a מעוכב גט שחרור). ⁴ According to the משנה אחרונה (that the עבד must be freed; he is a מועכב גט שחרור), it is understood that מעשי ידיו לעצמו and we can also understand why the קנס (half of it) goes לרבו (since we assume that by a מעוכב גט שחרור the אדון receives קנס and here where he is a חצי אדון he receives חצי קנס). See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ מב,א תוס' ד"ה יום. According to the משנה ראשונה the חעוחב"ח must serve the master on alternate days; therefore if he was gored on his master’s day, the master receives the payment for his injuries. This would resolve the contradiction. ⁶ The only way we can resolve the contradiction of these two ברייתות is by saying that the ברייתא of חצי קנס לרבו goes according to the מסקנא of the משנה אחרונה, and this would be understood only if we maintain מעוכב גט שחרור יש לו קנס, however this is the query we are posing here. We did not wish posit previously that a מעוכב גט שחרור יש לו קנס if we see that the גמרא later is unsure what the ruling should be and posed a query regarding this issue. ⁷ See footnote # 4.

חבלי ביה אחריני יהבי ליה לרביה—Others wound him; they give the payment to his master

OVERVIEW The גמרא queried whether the master of a מעוכב גט שחרור receives the קנס. The גמרא assumed that if the master receives the קנס, it is obvious that if someone wounded a מעוכב גט שחרור, the payment would go to the master. תוספות rationalizes this assumption.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: אף על גב דמעשה ידיו לעצמו¹ כיון דקנסא לרבו חבלה נמי לרבו – Even though that the handiwork of a מעוכב גט שחרור belongs to the slave, nevertheless since the קנס belongs to the master (according to the current assumption), the payment for a wound also belongs to the master – דמה² לי קטליה כולו ומה לי קטליה פלגא: For what difference does it make whether he killed him completely (where קנסא לרבו) or whether he killed him halfway (meaning wounding him) in both cases the payment is to the master.

SUMMARY The payment for wounding goes where the payment for killing goes.

THINKING IT OVER What is this logic of מה לי קטלא כולו ומה לי קטליה פלגא, so that the master receives payment for his wounded עבד?!³

footnotes: ¹ A מעוכב גט שחרור is a slave only regarding his prohibition of marrying a בת ישראל; in all other aspects including his work he is like a free man, so מעשה ידיו belong to him. Wounding the עבד is a loss to the עבד (he cannot earn money) not to the master (who will receive nothing from the slave’s work), so why does the חבלה payment go לרבו?! ² See ב"ק סה,א. Wounding a person is the beginning of the process of killing him. ³ See נחלת משה.

הואיל ומדרש חכמים הוא—Since it was expounded by the sages

OVERVIEW The גמרא says that (the מכריעין maintain) regarding a slave who goes free because one of his limbs were cut off (as opposed to going free because of שן ועין), requires a גט שחרור to be completely free, since this mode of emancipation is not stated explicitly in the תורה, rather it is expounded by the חכמים.¹ Our תוספות explains why this should make a difference.

אומר רבינו תם דחיישינן שמא ימצאנו בשוק ויאמר לו עבדי אתה² – The ר"ת says that regarding this עבד who is going free because of the (other) ראשי אברים, we are concerned perhaps his master will find him in the marketplace and say to him, ‘you are my slave’; therefore we require the master to write a שטר שחרור for this עבד, so the master cannot make such a claim later on –

However if the עבד was freed because his שן ועין were knocked out, we are not concerned that the master will claim 'עבדי אתה', for everyone knows that an עבד is freed with שן ועין, since it is clearly written in the תורה! Summary The reason to require a גט שחרור for an עבד who is יוצא בשאר אברים is so that the owner should not claim later 'עבדי אתה',

THINKING IT OVER Is the view of the מכריעין that agree with ר"ע by an עבד who goes out בשאר אברים that he requires a גט שחרור, the same as the view of ר"ע regarding this same עבד, or is the requirement according to ר"ע a חיוב מדאורייתא and according to the מכריעין it is only מדרבנן, so the master should not say 'עבדי אתה'?⁴

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה עבד. ² Additionally by making such a claim in public he will be מוציא לעז on the children of this freed עבד, since not everyone is aware of this מדרש חכמים that a slave is freed בכ"ד ראשי אברים. ³ Therefore there is no need for the master to write a גט שחרור to an עבד who is יוצא בשן ועין. ⁴ See תוספות הרא"ש.

מעוכב גט שחרור¹ אוכל כולי—One who is lacking a writ of emancipation eats, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא posed a query whether a מעוכב גט שחרור (whose master was a כהן) may continue to eat תרומה (until he receives his גט שחרור) or not. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

הך בעיא לא אתיא אליבא דריש לקיש דריש פרק בתרא דכריתות² (כד,ב) – This query (whether a מג"ש eats תרומה) is not according to ר"ל in the beginning of the last פרק of מסכת כריתות – דמסקינן³ אליבא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל⁴ דמעוכב גט שחרור אוכל בתרומה – Who concludes that according to [the ת"ק of] רשב"ג, a מג"ש eats תרומה – תוספות offers an alternate reconciliatory view: אי נמי יש לחלק דהתם במעוכב גט שחרור על ידי הפקר אוכל בתרומה – Or one may also differentiate that there in כריתות we are discussing a מג"ש on account of הפקר; this עבד eats תרומה – כמו שמותר בשפחה כדפרישית לעיל⁵ – Just as he is permitted to be with a שפחה כנענית as I explained previously – והכא איירי בחציו עבד⁶ וחציו בן חורין: However the query here is by a חעוחב"ח where he is אסור בשפחה כנענית and therefore there is the query whether he may eat תרומה or not.

SUMMARY We can either assume that the rules of a מג"ש eating תרומה are the same for all types of מג"ש, or we can say that even if a מג"ש ע"י הפקר eats תרומה, there may still be a doubt by a מג"ש who is a חעוחב"ח. Thinking it over

1. Why is it necessary to say that the query here is not according to ר"ל,⁷ perhaps initially ר"ל agreed to the query but at a later date (in כריתות) he resolved it?⁸
2. How can תוספות contemplate that the query is by a חעוחב"ח;⁹ how is it possible that the צד חירות should be permitted to eat תרומה?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה מעוכב who writes; מחוסר גט שחרור כל הנך דאמרי' בהו דיצאו לחירות ואין לרבו עליהם אלא שצריכין גט שחרור כגון מקדיש ומפקיר ומי שחציו בן חורין דתנן כופין את רבו. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read דמסיק (instead of דמסקינן). ⁴ A marginal note amends this to read אליבא דת"ק דרשב"ג (instead of אליבא דרשב"ג). ⁵ מ,א ד"ה אותו. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ See footnote # 2. ⁸ See רמב"ן. ⁹ See footnote # 6. ¹⁰ See מהר"ם, מהרש"ל, מהרש"א and נחלת משה.

הרי אלו אוכלים בתרומה—These may eat T’rumoh

OVERVIEW רב משרשיא ruled that if the baby of a כהנת got mixed up with the baby of her שפחה, both children may eat תרומה. Our תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דאמרינן בפרק קמא דכתובות (דף יג,ב) גבי עשרה כהנים ופירש אחד מהם ובעל – And this which שמואל stated in the first פרק of מסכת כתובות regarding ten כהנים who were before us and one of them separated himself from the group and was בועל a woman; the rule is – הולד שתוקי¹ שמשתיקין אותו מדין כהונה² – That the child is a שתוקי, meaning that we silence him from the rights of כהונה – מדכתיב³ והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו שיהא זרעו מיוחס אחריו⁴ – Since it is written, ‘and (the כהונה) shall be for him and his children after him’ we expound this to mean that his children should be identified after him (the father) – תוספות responds: הא אמרינן בפרק נושאין על האנוסה (יבמות דף ק,ב) דזרעו מיוחס אחריו דרבנן – However the גמרא states in פרק נושאין על האנוסה that this requirement of זרעו מיוחס אחריו is a Rabbinic decree – וכי גזור רבנן בזנות⁵ בנישואין לא גזרו⁶ – And when did the רבנן ordain this decree only in a case of זנות, however if it was a legitimate marriage they did not issue this decree – תוספות offers an alternate solution:

Or you may also say that here they became mixed up after they were born; initially we were aware who was the child of the כהן and who his father was, therefore he is מיוחס אחריו even though that later they became mixed up

SUMMARY The children may eat תרומה either because the requirement of זרעו מיוחס אחריו only excludes a case of זנות, not of נישואין, or the children were initially identified and got mixed up later.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why is there a need for a second answer⁸ since the גמרא in יבמות states that בזנות גזרו בנישואין לא גזרו, therefore they may eat תרומה?!
2. In our case we know who is the father of the בן כהן, we just do not know which child is the בן כהן; obviously the בן שפחה does not need זרעו מיוחס אחריו, so we know who the father of the בן כהן is; it is not comparable to the case of עשרה כהנים where we do not know who the father is. How can תוספות compare the two cases?!

footnotes: ¹ The term שתוקי (silenced) is generally used regarding a child whose father is not known. Whenever the child addresses anyone as his father, his mother silences him saying שתוק שתוק (this is not your father). ² See רש"י there ד"ה מדין who writes; שלא יעבוד עבודה ולא יאכל תרומה. ³ במדבר (פנחס) כה,יג ⁴ In the case of the ten כהנים, however, even though we know that the father of this child is a כהן, nevertheless since we cannot link him directly to his father, he may not eat תרומה. Similarly in the case of רב משרשיא since none of the children (one of them who is a בן כהן) can identify his father, they should not be permitted to eat תרומה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁵ In the case of the ten כהנים, the כהן who was פירש was בועל בזנות, therefore his child is a שתוקי. ⁶ Here where the children were mixed up, the child was born from a proper נישואין, therefore there is no גזירה and he may eat תרומה. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ #1. See (also) אוצר מפרשי התלמוד # 241. ⁸ See footnote # 7.

עבד שמכרו רבו לקנס כולי—A slave whose master sold him for the fine, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא posed a query whether the owner of a slave can sell only the קנס aspect which the slave possesses.¹ תוספות explains why the query was not whether he can sell the קנס itself (instead of selling the עבד for his קנס).

מכר קנס של עבד לא מיבעיא ליה דאפילו לרבי מאיר² לא קני דהא לא עבידי דאתי³ – He did not query what the rule would be if he sold the קנס of the עבד, for even according to ר"מ, the buyer would not acquire the rights to the קנס, since it is not expected to come – כדקאמרינן וכל שכן לרבנן – As the גמרא states; and certainly according to the רבנן, the buyer will not acquire the קנס, since they maintain אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם – אלא במכרו רבו לקנס מיבעיא ליה דדילמא אפילו לרבנן קני להו כמו דקל לפירותיו⁴ – Rather the query is where the master sold the slave for the rights to the קנס (which the master possesses in this slave) in which case perhaps even according to the רבנן the buyer will acquire it, just as in the case where one sells a tree for its fruit – כדאמרינן הא קאי שור והא קאי עבד⁵ – As the גמרא states, ‘the ox is standing and the עבד is standing before us’, so it is not comparable to the rule of א"א מקנה דבר שלב"ל; this is one side of the query – או דלמא אפילו לרבי מאיר לא קני דלא דמי [לפירות דקל] – Or perhaps even according to ר"מ the buyer will not acquire the קנס **for it is not similar [**even to the fruits of a tree]

For the fruits come from the body of the tree (which exists) and they usually grow from the tree, however the קנס comes from elsewhere and לא עבידי דאתי.

SUMMARY We should be able to sell the עבד for the קנס (even according to the רבנן) since it is like דקל לפירותיו, on the other hand we should not be able to sell the עבד for the קנס (even according to ר"מ) since the קנס is מעלמא and not עבידי דאתי it is less בעולם than (even) פירות דקל.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות mentions two differences between פירות דקל and עבד לקנס; by פירות דקל the פירות come from the דקל directly (but by קנס it does not come directly from the עבד), and פירות דקל are עבידי דאתי (but the קנס is not עבידי דאתי).⁷ Our גמרא however only mentions the difference regarding עבידי דאתי, but not that the פירות come directly from the דקל. How can we explain this?

footnotes: ¹ If an ox kills an עבד כנעני the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave שלושים שקלים; it is this right which he has in the slave that he is willing to sell, in all other aspects the slave still works and belongs to the original master, ² ר"מ maintains אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם. However he may maintain it only if it is עבידי דאתי; there is a strong possibility that it will come to pass. ³ It is highly unlikely that an ox will kill this עבד. ⁴ Where one sells a tree for its fruit (not merely the future fruits of the tree) the רבנן agree that it is a valid sale, since the tree is present; so he is selling a part of something which is already בא לעולם. ⁵ Here too the עבד is before us and the oxen are also here, so since he is not selling the קנס but the right to the קנס, which the עבד possesses it may be considered בא לעולם. ⁶ The fruits come directly from the tree which is here and it is extremely likely that the tree will bear fruit, however by the עבד he does not produce the קנס, so his being here does not necessarily make it that the קנס is בעולם; it is much less בעולם than even the פירות דקל, and additionally the chances of this עבד being killed by an ox are extremely small.See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ See footnote # 6.