1)

TOSFOS DH KE'MA'AN DE'KATLAH DAMI

úåñ' ã"ä ëîàï ã÷èìä ãîé

(Summary: Tosfos explains how the ox is responsible for the woman's death.)

åà"ú, åîä ôùò äùåø? äéà äøâä òöîä ùäøé äáéàúå òìéä?

(a)

Question: What did the ox do? Surely it is she who signed her own death-warrant by bringing it on herself?

åé"ì, ëîå ùôéøù ø"ç - ù÷ôõ òìéä äùåø ìøáòä, åàìáùä áä éöøä åðúøöúä.

(b)

Answer: It speaks, as Rabeinu Chananel explains, where the ox jumped on her to rape her, and where the Yeitzer-ha'Ra then overcame her and she complied willingly.

åàôéìå ìî"ã áëúåáåú ô' ðòøä (ãó ðà:) 'úçéìúä áàåðñ åñåôä áøöåï, ãîåúø ...

(c)

Implied Question: And even according to the opinion in Kesuvos (Perek Na'arah, Daf 51b) that 'If at first she is Oneis and at the end, willing, she is permitted (to return to her husband)' ...

äééðå úçéìú áéàä áàåðñ, àáì äëà úçéìú áéàä æå áøöåï, åàñåøä ìë"ò åä"ä ùðäøâú.

(d)

Answer: … that is only if the beginning of the Bi'ah was be'Oneis, but here, where the beginning of the Bi'ah was performed with her consent, she is unanimously forbidden, and is also Chayav Misah

2)

TOSFOS DH HA EIN KVANASO LEHAZIK

úåñ' ã"ä äà àéï ëååðúå ìäæé÷

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this case with that of an animal that damages by swishing its tail (in Keitzad ha'Regel.)

åàò"â ãëùëùä áàîúä, îáòéà áô' ëéöã äøâì (ìòéì ãó éè:) ...

(a)

Implie Question: Even though the Gemara in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' (above, Daf 19b) asks what the Din will be in a case where the animal swished its Eiver Tashmish (and caused damage) ...

ìôé ùéù ùí ùéðåé ÷öú, åãîé èôé ì÷øï ...

(b)

Answer: … that is because that entails a slight Shinuy (change from the norm.), rendering it more like Keren ...

àáì øáéòä ìàå ùéðåé äåà, åìà ãîé ì÷øï

1.

Answer (cont.): … whereas raping is not a Shinuy, and is not comparable to Keren ...

åëùï âîåøä äéà ùîæ÷ú ò"é àëéìä.

2.

Answer (concl.): In fact, it is completely like Shein, which damages by way of eating.

3)

TOSFOS DH BE'REGEL SHE'DARSAH

úåñ' ã"ä áøâì ùãøñä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara presents a case of Regel and not Shein.)

ùï äåä ùééê ìîð÷è äëà ...

(a)

Implied Question: It ought to have presented a case of 'Shein' here ...

àìà àâá ãð÷è øâì ñô"á (ãó ëå.), ð÷èéä äëà.

(b)

Answer: … only since it mentions 'Regel' at the end of the second Perek (Daf 26a), it mentions it here, too.

4)

TOSFOS DH LE'RAVA LO MESHALEM KOFER

úåñ' ã"ä ìøáà ìà îùìí ëåôø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rava's statement.)

àìéáà ãäê áøééúà ÷àîø, ëãôé' áñô"á (ãó ëå.).

(a)

Clarification: Rava stated it here according to this Beraisa, as Tosfos explained at the end of the second Perek (Daf 26a DH 'Alma').

5)

TOSFOS DH ME'ACHAR DE'MI'TAM KATINAN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îàçø ãîúí ÷èìéðï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos rejects two possible answers to the question.)

ìà îöé ìàå÷îé ëâåï ùáùìù ðâéçåú øàùåðåú ðúëååï ìäøåâ äáäîä åäøâ àú äàãí ...

(a)

Implied Question: We cannot establish the case where the first three times it intended to kill an animal and it killed a person (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

ãëä"â ìà äåé îåòã ìàãí, äåàéì åìà ðúëååï ìàãí.

(b)

Answer: … because in such a case, it would not be a Mu'ad for people, seeing as it did not intend to gore a person.

åâí áäøâ â' ôòîéí òì ôé áòìéå ìà äåé îåòã ...

(c)

Implied Question: Nor is it a Mu'ad if it killed three times by the admission of the owner ...

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëã.) 'àéï äùåø ðòùä îåòã òã ùéòéãå áå áôðé áòìéí åáôðé á"ã'.

(d)

Answer: … as the Gemara said in the second Perek (Daf 24a) 'An ox does not become a Mu'ad until it is warned (three times) in the presence of the owner and in front of Beis-Din.

6)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHE'AMDUHU LI'SHELOSHAH B'NEI ADAM

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ùàîãåäå ìâ' áðé àãí

(Summary: Tosfos extrapolates a basic Halachah from the Sugya.)

ëåìä ñåâéà îåëçà ãìà îéçééá áùìéùé ð"ù ëãôøéùéú áô"á (ãó ëã.).

(a)

Halachah: It is evident from the entire Sugya that one is not Chayav to pay ful damages the third time, as Tosfos explained in the second Perek (Daf 24a, DH 've'Lo').

7)

TOSFOS DH EINI YODE'A DHE'HI NEVEILAH

úåñ' ã"ä àéðé éåãò ùäéà ðáéìä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Pasuk is not needed for a ben Peku'ah.)

åà"ú, àöèøéê ìáï ô÷åòä, ìøáðï ãøáé îàéø, ãìà áòé ùçéèä (çåìéï ãó òã.)?

(a)

Question: We need it for a ben Peku'ah, according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold that it does not require Shechitah (Chulin, Daf 74.) (See Hagahos ha'Rav Renchberg)?

åë"ú, ãìà à÷øé 'ùåø' ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: And if one tries to answer that it is not called 'Shor' ...

äà ìòðéï ôèø çîåø î÷øé ùä - áô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó éá.) åáôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òã:).

(c)

Refutation: … but in connection with Petter Chamor we see that it is called 'Seh' (in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 12a) and in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 74b).

åàôéìå ùçåè îåëç áéåîà (ãó îè: ð.) ãî÷øé 'ôø', åë"ù áï ô÷åòä?

1.

Refutation (cont.): In fact, it is evident in Yoma (Daf 49b & 50a) that even after it has been Shechted, it is called 'Par', how much more so a ben Peku'ah.

åé"ì, áìàå äëé ôøéê ùôéø.

(d)

Answer #1: The Gemara anyway queries the D'rashah (and granted, it could have asked that too).

åìôé äîñ÷ðà ðéçà, ãðô÷à ìï î"áùøå" àò"â ãùçèéä åòáãéä ëòéï áùø.

(e)

Answer #2: In any event, according to the Gemara's conclusion the question is answered, since we learn from "Besaro" that (it is forbidden) even if he Shechted it and turned it into Basar.

8)

TOSFOS DH VE'HAI LO YOCHAL LE'HEICHA DI'SAKLEIH MISKAL DE'ASUR BE'HANA'AH

úåñ' ã"ä åäàé ìà éàëì ìäéëà ãñ÷ìéä îñ÷ì ãàñåø áäðàä

(Summary: Tosfos fits the Pasuk "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" into the D'rashah.)

"åáòì äùåø ð÷é" ìäðàú òåøå.

(a)

Clarification: And "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" comes to forbid 'Hana'as Oro'.

åëé úéîà ìùúå÷ î"ìà éàëì"?

(b)

Question: And if one will ask, if so, let the Pasuk leave out "Lo Ye'achel"?

àí ëï, ìà äåä îå÷îéðï 'ð÷é' àìà ìäðàú áùø ãå÷à.

(c)

Answer: If so, we would have established "Naki" to forbid specifically Hana'as Basar.

9)

TOSFOS DH KE'DE'REBBI AVAHU

úåñ' ã"ä ëãøáé àáäå

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this statement is really superfluous.)

ìøååçà ãîìúà ð÷è, ãáìéå øáé àáäå ìà äåä îöé ìîéîø àìà ìäðàä ...

(a)

Clarification: This statement is really superfluous, since without Rebbi Avahu, the Gemara could only have explained the Pasuk with regard to Hana'ah ...

ãìàëéìä ìà öøéê.

(b)

Reason: … seeing as it is not needed to forbid eating.

10)

TOSFOS DH KOL MAKOM SHE'NE'EMAR LO YOCHAL

úåñ' ã"ä ëì î÷åí ùðàîø ìà éàëì

(Summary: Tosfos explains why, in spite of this D'rashah, Chametz on Pesach is not Asur be'Hana'ah.)

àí úàîø, çîõ áôñç äðàúå éäéä áëøú, ãëúéá "ëé ëì àåëì çîõ åðëøúä"?

(a)

Question: Deriving benefit from Chametz on Pesach ought to be subject to Kareis, since the Torah writes "Ki Kol Ochel Chametz ve'Nichr'sah"?

åë"ú, äëé ðîé ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: And in case one answers that indeed it is ...

à"ë áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëâ:) ãáòé 'îàé àéëà áéï çæ÷éä ìøáé àáäå?', äåä ìéä ìîéîø ãäà àéëà áéðééäå?

(c)

Refutation: Then, when the Gemara in Perek Kol Sh'ah (Pesachim, Daf 23b) asks what the difference is between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Avahu, it should have cited this point as the answer?

åé"ì, ã"ìà éàëì" àå "ìà úàëì" éìôéðï î"ìà úàëìå", àáì "ëé ëì àåëì" î"ìà úàëìå" ìà éìôéðï.

(d)

Answer: From "Lo Sochlu" we can learn "Lo Ye'achel" or "Lo Sochal", but we cannot learn "Ki Kol Ochel" from "Lo Sochlu".

41b----------------------------------------41b

11)

TOSFOS DH HEICHA DE'BADAK TZUR ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä äéëà ãáã÷ öåø ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Sugya and explains why the Gemara does not cite the Beraisa [cited in Chulin], which is more explanatory.)

àò"â ãùçéèä áöåø ëùéøä ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Shechitah with a piece of rock is Kasher …

îëì î÷åí ëéåï ãäê ùçéèä ëòéï ñ÷éìä, àñøä úåøä.

(b)

Answer: … nevertheless (the Gemara thought) the Torah forbids this form of Shechitah since it resembles Sekilah,

åîùðé 'àèå ñëéï ëúéá áäãéà?' - åìà àúéà öåø àìà îøéáåéà.

(c)

Gemara's Answer: And it answers 'Does the Torah mention specifically 'a knife' - in that we only include a rock via a Ribuy

ëê äåà òé÷ø ùçéèä áöåø àôéìå ìùçåè ìëúçéìä ëîå áñëéï.

(d)

Gemara's Answer (cont.): Consequently, Shechitah with a rock is a basic Shechitah Lechatchilah no less than that of a knife.

åìôéëê àéï ìçì÷ ëìì áéï öåø ìñëéï.

1.

Gemara's Answer (concl.): Consequently, one cannot differentiate between a rock and a knife.

åáãéï äåà ãìéáòé ìàúåéé áøééúà ã'áëì ùåçèéï áéï áöåø áéï á÷øåîéú ... ' (çåìéï ãó èå:) ãîùîò ìëúçéìä ...

(e)

Implied Question: Strictly speaking, the Gemara ought to have cited the Beraisa cited in Chulin (15b) - 'ba'Kol Shochtin bein be'Tzur bein bi'Kerumis ... ', which implies Lechatchilah?

àìà ãðéçà ìéä ìäáéà äîùðä.

(f)

Answer: … only it prefers to cite a Mishnah.

åî"î ñîéê à'áøééúà ãùøéà àôéìå ìëúçéìä.

1.

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, it relies on the Beraisa, which permits it even Lechatchilah.

åá'äàéù î÷ãù' (÷ãåùéï ãó ðå:) îééúé äáøééúà à'äê îéìúà âåôä.

(g)

Conclusion: In fact, the Gemara in 'ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 56b), cites the Beraisa on this very point.

12)

TOSFOS DH NAFKA L'HU ME'ES BESARO

úåñ' ã"ä ðô÷à ìäå îàú áùøå

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili here with his ruling in Chulin.)

îùîò ãøáé éåñé äâìéìé ãøéù 'àúéï', ãàéäå ãøéù ì÷îï 'ð÷é îãîé åìãåú'.

(a)

Inference: This implies that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili Darshens 'Esin', since he Darshens later 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados'.

åúéîä, ãáôø÷ äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó ò: åùí) âáé äà ãúðï 'øáé éåñé äâìéìé àåîø áèîàä èîà, áèäåøä èäåø', ããøéù 'îäìëé ëôéí áçéä èîàúé ìê'.

(b)

Question: In Perek ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 70b) in connection with the Mishnah: Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili Omer 'bi'Teme'ah Tamei bi'Tehorah Tahor', because he Darshens 'Mehalchei Kapayim be'Chayah Timeisi lach'.

åôøéê '÷ìåèä áîòé ÷ìåèä ìéèîà, ãîäìëé ã' [áîäìëé] ã' äéà?

1.

Question (cont.): And the Gemara asks that he should also declare Tamei a K'lutah (whose hooves are split) in the stomach of a K'lutah, since it is an animal with four legs inside an animal with four legs?

åîàé ÷ùä, äà ÷úðé 'áèîàä èîà', åäàé 'áèîàä' äåà ãøáé éåñé äâìéìé. ëéåï ããøéù àúéï, ò"ë ëø"ù ñ"ì ãàåñø âîì áîòé ôøä.

2.

Question (concl.): What is the Gemara's Kashya? It says 'bi'Teme'ah Tamei', which is the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, because, since he Darshens 'Esin', he must concur with Rebbi Shimon, who forbids a camel that is inside a cow ...

ëãîåëç áô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ã' å:) ãîàï ãùøé, ìà ãøéù 'àúéï'?

3.

Source: … as is evident in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 6b) - that the one who holds that it is permitted, does not Darshen 'Esin'?

åé"ì, ãáçåìéï ôøéê î÷ìåè ùøàùå åøåáå ãåîä ìàîå, ãîåãä ø"ù ãùøé, ëãîåëç ôø÷ ÷îà ãáëåøåú (ùí).

(c)

Answer #1: The Gemara asks in Chulin from a Kalut, the head and most of which are similar to its mother, and which Rebbi Shimon concedes is permitted, as is evident in the first Perek of Bechoros (Ibid.) (See Mesores ha'Shas & Gilyon ha'Shas).

à"ð, øåöä ìééùá ãáøé øáé éåñé äâìéìé ãáçåìéï àôéìå ìøáðï ãáëåøåú.

(d)

Answer #2: The Gemara wants to resolve Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in Chulin even according to the Rabanan in Bechoros.

13)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN SHE'HIGI'A LE'ES HASH-M ELOKECHA TIYRA PEIRASH

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ùäâéò ìàú ä' àìäéê úéøà ôéøù

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this Sugya with the Sugya in Kidushin.)

àò"â ãáô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ã' ì:) ãøéù 'ðàîø "àéù àîå åàáéå úéøàå" åðàîø "àú ä' àìäéê úéøà" - äùåä äëúåá îåøà àá åàí ìîåøà ùîéí?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 30b) the Gemara Darshens from the fact that the Torah writes "Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tira'u" and "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" that 'the Torah compares fearing/respecting one's parents to fearng Hashem'?

ìà äåä ðéçà ìéä ìîãøùéä ìàå÷îé ìòùä éúéøà.

(b)

Answer: the Gemara is reluctant to establish it as an additional Asei.

14)

TOSFOS DH LERABOS TALMIDEI-CHACHAMIM

úåñ' ã"ä ìøáåú ú"ç

(Summary: Tosfos explains why, in light of this D'rashah, the Torah needs to write "Mipnei Seivah Takum".)

åà"ú, "îôðé ùéáä ú÷åí" ìîä ìé, úéôå÷ ìéä îäëà?

(a)

Question: Why does the Torah see fit to write "Mipnei Seivah Takum", since we can learn it from here?

åé"ì, ãäëà áøáå îåáä÷, ëãúðï (àáåú ô"ã îùðä é"á) 'îåøà øáê ëîåøà ùîéí', àå áøá îåôìâ ãäåé ëòéï øáå.

(b)

Answer: The current Pasuk is speaking about one's main Rebbi, as we learned in the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (4:12) 'The respect of your Rebbe should resemble the respect of Hashem'; or else it is speaking about a distinguished Talmid-Chacham, who has the same Din as one's Rebbe.

15)

TOSFOS DH NAKI ME'CHATZI KOFER

úåñ' ã"ä ð÷é îçöé ëåôø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer and that of the other Tana'im.)

ìà áòé ìîéîø 'ð÷é îãîé åìãåú' ëøáé éåñé äâìéìé ...

(a)

Implied Question #1: He (Rebbi Eliezer) does not want to learn 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili ...

îùåí ÷åùéà ã'àðùéí' ...

(b)

Answer: … due to the Kashya of "Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim'.

å'îãîé òáã' - ãäééðå ùìùéí ùì òáã - ìà ÷àîø ...

(c)

Implied Question #2: Nor does he Darshen 'Naki mi'Demei Eved', with reference to the thirty Sela'im of an Eved ...

ãëøéù ì÷éù ñ"ì, ãàîø ì÷îï (ã' îâ.) 'ëùàéï äùåø áñ÷éìä, ãìà îùìí ÷ðñ'.

(d)

Answer: … because he holds like Resh Lakish, who says later on (Daf 43a) that when the ox is not stoned the owner does not pay K'nas.

åàò"â ãëåôø îçééá øáé àìéòæø?

(e)

Implied Question: … and even though Rebbi Eliezer obligates him to pay Kofer …

äééðå îùåí ããøéù "àí ëåôø", 'ìøáåú ëåôø ùìà áëååðä' ëøáé éåçðï ãì÷îï ...

(f)

Answer #1: … that is because he Darshens "Im Kofer", 'to include Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah like Rebbi Yochanan later (on Daf 43b) ...

àáì "àí òáã" ìà ãøéù, ãä"÷ ø"ì ì÷îï.

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): … but he does not Darshen "Im Eved", as Resh Lakish explains there

åñáøà ãøáé ò÷éáà ãñ"ã ã'úí îùìí ãîé òáã îï äòìééä' ëãì÷îï, ìéú ìéä ìøáé àìéòæø.

2.

Answer #2: And Rebbi Eliezer does not hold of the S'vara of Rebbi Akiva, who initially thinks that a Tam pays the value of the Eved from the Mazik's pocket, as he explains later (on Daf 42b).

åà"ú, åìéîà 'ð÷é îãîé òáã' - îîù îùåéå, ãáî÷åí ãìà îùìí ÷ðñ îùìí ãîéí, ëãîùîò ì÷îï ...

(g)

Question: Why does he not say 'Naki mi'Demei Eved' - literally from paying his value, since there where one does not pay K'nas one pays Damim, as is implied later (on Daf 43a) ...

äìëê àöèøéê ìîôèø úí?

1.

Question (cont.): … which is why it is necessary to declare a Tam Patur?

åé"ì, ëéåï ãáúí ìéëà ÷ðñ áëååðä, ùìà áëååðä ðîé ôùéèà ãìà îùìí ãîéí.

(h)

Answer #1: Since by Tam there is no K'nas where there is Kavanah, it is obvious that where there is no Kavanah he does not pay Damim.

à"ð, àéï ñáøà ìäòîéã ôèåø ã"ð÷é" àìà à'çéåáà ãëúéá áôøùä áäãéà, ëâåï ëåôø å÷ðñ åãîé åìãåú.

(i)

Answer #2: It is not a S'vara to establish the P'tur of "Naki" other than in connection with a Chiyuv that is written explicitly in the Parshah.

åìôé äèòîéí äììå à"ù ðîé ìøáé ò÷éáà ããøéù ì÷îï 'ð÷é îãîé òáã' - ëìåîø îùìùéí ùì òáã, åìà áòé ìîð÷è 'ð÷é îçöé ëåôø' ...

(j)

Clarification: According to these reasons, we can also understand why Rebbi Akiva, who will Darshens later (Daf 42a) 'Naki mi'Demei Eved' (from the thirty Sela'im of Eved), why he declines to learn 'Naki mi'Demei Kofer' ...

îùåí ãàôéìå îåòã ðîé ôèåø ùìà áëååðä.

(k)

Clarification (cont.): … since even a Mu'ad is Patur she'Lo be'Kavanah.

åìà áòé ìàå÷îé 'ð÷é îãîé áï çåøéï', ãîåòã àéëà ãîéí ùìà áëååðä, ëãîåëç ì÷îï?

(l)

Implied Question: Neither does he want to learn 'Naki mi'Demei ben Chorin', even though by a Mu'ad there is Damim she'Lo be'Kavanah?

àìà äééðå èòîà ëãôøéùéú - àå îùåí ããîéí ìà ëúéáé àå îùåí ãëéåï ãìà àùëçï ëåôø áúí, ìà àöèøéê ìîòè äãîéí.

(m)

Answer: The reason is as Tosfos just explained either because the Torah does not mention Damim, or because seeing as we do not find Kofer by Tam, it is not necessary to preclude Damim.

åà"ú, åäà ì÷îï éìôéðï ãîéí áàùå ùìà áëååðä îùåø ùìà áëååðä, àò"â ãìéëà ëåôø áàù?

(n)

Question: The Gemara later (on Daf 43b) learns Damim by Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah from Shor she'Lo Kavanah, even though there is no Kofer by Eish?

åé"ì, ãìà ãîé - ãáàù ìà ùééê ëåôø ëìì, äìëê îùåí ëåôø ìà ùá÷éðï ãîéí, àáì ùåø ãùééê áéä ëåôø, åàô"ä ìéëà ëåôø áúí, àéï ñáøà ìçééáå ãîéí ùìà áëååðä.

(o)

Answer: That is not the same - because Kofer is not applicable by Eish at all. Therefore on account of Kofer we will not leave out Damim, whereas by Shor, to which Kofer is applicable, despite which there is no Kofer by a Tam, there is no S'vara to declare Chayav Damim she'Lo be'Kavanah.

åòé"ì, èòí àçø ìø"à - ãîñúáø ìéä ìàå÷îé áëåôø îáëì ãáø, ãäëé îùîò ìéä ôùèéä ã÷øà ...

(p)

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, Rebbi Eliezer finds it logical to establish "Naki" by Kofer more than anything else, because that is the simple explanation of the Pasuk ...

îãëúéá áúøéä "åàí ùåø ðâç äåà" ùéùìí ëåôø.

1.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): … seeing as immediately afterwards, the Torah writes that if it is a goring ox, he must pay Kofer.

åà"ú, ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé ãàîø 'úí îùìí çöé ëåôø', å÷àîø 'ð÷é îãîé åìãåú', èôé äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'ð÷é îçöé ëåôø' îèòîà ãôøéùéú?

(q)

Question: Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who learns that 'a Tam pays Chatzi Kofer', and that 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados', should rather have learned 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer for the reason that Tosfos just presented?

åé"ì, ãàéï ãåîä ìå ñáøà ìôåèøå îçöé ëåôø, îàçø ùçééáå äëúåá ç"ð.

(r)

Answer: Since the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay Chatzi Nezek, he does not consider it logical to exempt him from Chatzi Kofer,

16)

TOSFOS DH HE'VI'UHU LE'BEIS-DIN VI'YESHALEM LACH

úåñ' ã"ä äáéàäå ìáéú ãéï åéùìí ìê

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this statement with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.)

åà"ú, åäà ìøáé éäåãä îåòã îùìí ëåôø ùìí, àò"ô ùäùåø ðñ÷ì, ãëúéá "åäùåø éñ÷ì", åëúéá "àí ëåôø éåùú òìéå" ...

(a)

Question: According to Rebbi Yehudah, a MU'ad pays full Kofer, even though the ox is stoned ...

à"ë îùìí îï äòìééä àò"â ãìòðéï ðéæ÷éï îùúìí îâåôå ...

1.

Question (cont.): In which case he pays from his pocket even though as far as damages is concerned he pays from the body of the ox ...

ã'öã úîåú áî÷åîå òåîãú?

2.

Reason: Seeing as he holds 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomo Omedes'?

åé"ì, ãùàðé îåòã ãâìé áéä ÷øà, åùîà îöã îåòãú îçééáå äëúåá ëåôø ùìí.

(b)

Answer: Mu'ad is different, since the Torah reveals (that he pays Kofer), and it may well be that it is on account of the Tzad Mu'ad that he must pay full Kofer ...

àáì úí ãìà ëúéá áäãéà, ìà îöé ìîéìó àìà îðéæ÷éï, åðéæ÷éï âåôééäå îâåôå.

1.

Answer (cont.): But a Tam, which the Torah does specifically mention, one can only learn from Nezikin, and Nezikin itself one only pays from the body of the ox.

17)

TOSFOS DH AL-PI EID ECHAD O AL-PI BA'ALIM

úåñ' ã"ä òì ôé òã àçã àå òì ôé áòìéí

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's reason as to why an ox cannot be killed on the testimony of the owner.)

áøéù ôø÷ äúòøåáú (æáçéí ã' òà. åùí) åáøéù ôø÷ ëì äàñåøéí (úîåøä ã' ëç. åùí) ôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãùåø àéï ðäøâ òì ôé áòìéí, ìà ðåâç åìà øåáò, îùåí ã'îåãä á÷ðñ' äåà.

(a)

Explanation #1: In Perek ha'Ta'aruvos (Zevachim, Daf 71a, Tosfos DH 'Al') and at the beginning of Perek Kol ha'Asurim (Temurah, Daf 28a & 28b) Rashi explains that an neither an ox that gored nor one that raped can be sentenced to death on the testimony of its master because it is a case off 'Modeh bi'Kenas'.

åúéîä ìø"é, äéëï îöéðå ãäøéâú ùåø äåà ÷ðñ?

(b)

Question #1: But where is it written that the killing of one's ox is a K'nas, asks the Ri?

åáô"÷ ãñðäãøéï (ã' é.) ðîé ã÷àîø 'ôìåðé øáò ùåøé', äåà åàçø îöèøôéï ìäåøâå, îùåí ãàéï àãí ÷øåá àöì îîåðå.

(c)

Question #2: Moreover, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 10a) the Gemara says that if Reuven claims that Shimon raped his ox, he together with a second witness combine to have it sentenced to death, because 'A person is not relative/close to his money'.

åîä áëê, î"î éôèø îèòí ã'îåãä á÷ðñ'?

1.

Question #2 (concl.): So what if he isn't? Why is he not Patur anyway on account of 'Modeh bi'Kenas'?

åðøàä, ãäééðå èòîà ãìà îçééá òì ôé äáòìéí, àôéìå éäéå á' ëâåï ùì ùðé ùåúôéï, åîòéãéï òìéå, îùåí ã'àãí ÷øåá àöì îîåðå'.

(d)

Explanation #2: The reason that the ox cannot be sentenced to death on the testimony of its master, even if there are two owners (such as where it is owned by two partners) who both testify, would therefore appear to be because 'A person is a relative/close to his money'.

ãäà ãàîøéðï áñðäãøéï ã'àéï àãí ÷øåá àöì îîåðå' ...

(e)

Implied Question: And it is only in Sanhedrin that the Gemara says that he is not ...

ä"î ëùáàéï ìäòéã â"ë òì çáéøå, ãîúåê ùðàîï òì çáéøå ðàîï âí òì ùåøå, ëãîåëç ñåâéà äúí ...

(f)

Answer: Because it speaks there where they also come to testify on his friend (Shimon), and since he is believed on his friend, he is also believed on his ox, as is clear from the Sugya there.

àáì àîø 'ùåøé ðøáò', ìà îáòéà ìï, ãôùéèà ã÷øåá àöì îîåðå äåà, ëéåï ùìà áà ìäòéã òì çáéøå.

1.

Answer (cont.):

18)

TOSFOS DH MODEH BI'KENAS HU

úåñ' ã"ä îåãä á÷ðñ äåà

(Summary: Tosfos gives the reason for the statement and explains why the Gemara does not ask the same question on one witness.)

ã÷ééîà ìï 'ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷ðñà'.

(a)

Reason: Because we Pasken (above, Daf 15b) that 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'.

åðøàä ãäåä îöé ìîôøê à'òã àçã ...

(b)

Implied Question: Presumably, the Gemara could just as well have asked on the case of one witness (since one witness is not believed to extract money) ...

ãàéï ñáøà ìåîø ùìà éçùá îøùéò òöîå, ëùîåãä åàéï øåöä ìéùáò ...

1.

Reason: And it is not logical to say that he is not considered 'Marshi'a es Atzmo' when he admits rather than swears (to counter the witness) ...

åàó òì âá ãòì éãå äòã áà òìéå çéåá æä.

2.

Reason (cont.): … even though the Chiyuv came upon him due to the witness.

àìà äôùåè éåúø ð÷è.

(c)

Answer: And it only mentions the more straightforward case.