IN WHICH CASE DOES AN ANIMAL PAY KOFER? (Yerushalmi Perek 4 Halachah 5 Daf 20b)
[ãó éæ òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] îúðé' ùåø ùðâç àú äàãí åîú îåòã îùìí àú äëåôø åúí ôèåø îï äëåôø
(Mishnah): If an ox gored and killed a man, if it was Mu'ad, it pays Kofer. If it was Tam, it is exempt;
åæä åæä çééáéï îéúä
In either case, the ox is killed.
åëï ááï åëï ááú
The same applies to killing a boy or girl.
ðâç òáã àå àîä ðåúï ùìùéí ñìòéí áéï ùäåà éôä îðä áéï ùàéðå éôä àìà ãéðø æäá:
If it killed a slave, it pays 30 Shekalim, even if the slave is worth much more or much less.
âî' úðé [ùîåú ëà ëç] åáòì äùåø ð÷é ð÷é îçöé ëåôø ãáøé ø' àìéòæø
(Gemara - Beraisa #1 - R. Eliezer): "The owner of the ox is clean'' from paying half-Kofer;
àîø ìå øáé ò÷éáà øáé åäìà îå÷ãí äåà ìáéú äñ÷éìä çîåøä
Objection (R. Akiva): (A Tam only pays from itself.) We must stone it immediately. (Obviously it does not pay Kofer!)
àîø ìå ìà àîøúé àìà áðúëååï ìäøåâ àú äáäîä åäøâ àú äàãí åëå'.
Answer (R. Eliezer): I discuss only when it intended to kill an animal, and it killed a person... (or other cases in which it is not stoned).
DO ANIMALS PAY FOR SLAVES AND FETUSE? (Yerushalmi Perek 4 Halachah 5 Daf 20b)
òã ãå î÷ùé ìä òì ãøáé ìéòæø é÷ùéðä òì ãéãéä
Question: Rather than challenging R. Eliezer, [R. Akiva] should challenge himself! (Below, he expounds that a Tam is exempt from paying Demei Eved, i.e. 30 Shekalim for an Eved Kena'ani.)
àîø øáé îééùà úéôúø áùòáø åùçèå.
Answer #1 (R. Maisha): The case is, he slaughtered it [before the final verdict. This could also answer for R. Eliezer! The Bavli says that R. Akiva hoped to hear another answer from R. Eliezer - MAHARA FULDA.]
åàéú ãáòé îéîø îàï ãéìôä îï ãø' ìéòæø òåã äåà àîø ëï ìà àîøúé [ãó ëà òîåã à] àìà áùðúëååï ìäøåâ àú äáäîä åäøâ àú äàãí ìòëå''í åäøâ éùøàì ìðôìéí åäøâ ùì ÷ééîä ôèåø.
Answer #2: Some want to say that after he learned from R. Eliezer, [R. Akiva] further said (expounded that a Tam is exempt from Demei Eved). I said only when it intended to kill an animal, and it killed a person, or [it intended to kill] a Nochri, and it killed a Yisrael, or [it intended to kill] a stillborn baby, and it killed a viable baby, so is exempt [from Misah].
îä î÷ééí ø' ò÷éáà åáòì äùåø ð÷é
Question: How does R. Akiva expound "u'Va'al ha'Shor Naki''?
ð÷é îãîé òáã.
Answer: He is clean (exempt) from Demei Eved.
åìéú ìéä ìøáé ò÷éáä ð÷é îçöé ëåôø.
Question: Does R. Akiva not hold that [a Tam] is exempt from half-Kofer? (The verse from which R. Eliezer exempts from half-Kofer, R. Akiva uses for Demei Eved!)
àí ëåôø éåùú òìéå áîåòã äëúåá îãáø.
Answer: "Im Kofer Yushas Alav'' discusses a Mu'ad. (There is no source to obligate a Tam.)
åìéú ìéä ìø' ìéòæø ð÷é îãîé òáã
Question: Does R. Eliezer not hold that [a Tam] is exempt from Demei Eved? (The verse from which R. Akiva exempts from Demei Eved, R. Eliezer uses for Kofer!)
ðàîø ëàï äùåø éñ÷ì åðàîø ìäìï äùåø éñ÷ì îä ùåø ùðàîø ìäìï áîåòã äëúåá îãáø àó äùåø éñ÷ì ùðàîø ëàï áîåòã äëúåá îãáø.
Answer: It says here [regarding a slave] "ha'Shor Yisakel'', and it says there [regarding Kofer] "ha'Shor Yisakel.'' Just like there ha'Shor Yisakel discusses a Mu'ad, also here ha'Shor Yisakel discusses a Mu'ad.
åìéú ëúéá ñ÷åì éñ÷ì äùåø
Question: Does it not say "Sakol Yisakel ha'Shor'' [about a Tam? We should learn from there!]
àîø îåèá éìîã äùåø éñ÷ì îùåø éñ÷ì åàì éìîã ùåø éñ÷ì îñ÷åì éñ÷ì äùåø.
Answer: It is better to learn ha'Shor Yisakel from ha'Shor Yisakel, and not to learn ha'Shor Yisakel from Sakol Yisakel ha'Shor.