Be a Partner in the Pulse of Beis Mevakesh Lev - For almost 20 years, B’chasdei Hashem, this space has been a home for seekers—a place where Torah is accessible to everyone, everywhere, without a paywall. We’ve shared over thousands and thousands of pages of learning together. But to keep the lights on and ensure this library remains free and growing for the next generation of Mevakshei Lev, I need your partnership.
Your contribution isn't just a donation; it's the fuel that keeps these shiurim reaching hearts across the globe. Whether it’s the cost of a coffee or a monthly sponsorship, you are making this Torah possible.
[Donate via PayPal/Zelle: alchehrm@gmail.com] Thank you to my beloved friends for standing with me.
The lecture focuses on Exodus 21:31: "Whether it gores a son (Ben) or a daughter (Bat), according to this judgment shall be done to him."
The speaker begins by questioning the specific terminology used by the Torah. The Mishnah in Bava Kamma (41a) and Rashi explain that this verse comes to teach us that an ox owner is liable (specifically regarding the payment of Kofer/ransom and the death of the ox) even if the victim is a minor (Katan or Ketana).
The Challenge:
Clarity: Why does the Torah specify "Son" and "Daughter"? An adult is also someone’s son or daughter. Why didn't the Torah simply write "Katan" (minor) if that was the intention?
Talmudic Consistency: While Sanhedrin suggests "Ben" implies someone who cannot yet be a father (a minor), the speaker rejects this as the primary reason here because the definition of when a boy can procreate is debated.
Rashi’s Approach: Rashi suggests we interpret "Ben/Bat" as minors because other verses specify "Ish" (Man) and "Ishah" (Woman). If Ben/Bat doesn't intirisically mean minor [as we see from Rashi], why did the Gemar use that erminology?
Stoning A Tam
The Torah explicitly states that a bull is stoned if it kills a man or a woman. It also mentions that if it kills a minor (a "son or daughter"), the same law applies.
However, one might think this only applies to a Mu'ad (a "forewarned" bull whose owner was alerted to its danger). The question asked is: How do we know that a "Tam" (an innocent bull) is also stoned if it kills a minor?
The Logical Proof (Din)
The Gemara answers using a comparison:
Regarding Adults (Man/Woman): The law does not distinguish between a Tam and a Mu'ad. If any bull kills an adult, it is stoned to death.
The Comparison: Since the Torah equates the killing of a child ("son or daughter") to the killing of an adult, we apply the same consistency.
The Conclusion: Just as you do not distinguish between a Tam and a Mu'ad regarding the death penalty for killing an adult, you must not distinguish between them regarding the killing of a child. In both cases, the bull is stoned.
The Rejection (The "Pircha"): The Gemara rejects this logic. Why? Because there is a fundamental difference between adults and minors: Mitzvot (Commandments).
Adults are obligated in Mitzvot; minors are not.
One might argue that a Tam is liable for killing an adult because the adult has the sanctity of Mitzvah observance. Since a minor lacks this obligation, perhaps the ox should be exempt.
Therefore, the verse "Ben/Bat" is absolutely necessary to teach us that the ox is liable.
The Core Insight: Chinuch (Education) as the Connector
The speaker offers a novel explanation for why the Torah uses the words "Ben" and "Bat" specifically to bridge this gap regarding Mitzvot.
The Status of the Minor:
While a minor is exempt from Mitzvot personally, they are involved in Mitzvot through the concept of Chinuch (Education).
Chinuch is technically a Mitzvah incumbent upon the father to train the child.
Therefore, the child’s connection to Mitzvot is entirely dependent on their relationship to their parents. They are connected to Torah observance as a "Son" or as a "Daughter" of a parent who is commanded to educate them.
The Resolution:
The Torah uses the terms "Ben" and "Bat" precisely because it defines the nature of the minor's sanctity.
If the Torah wrote "Katan," it would imply a status completely devoid of Mitzvot.
By writing "Ben/Bat," the Torah indicates that via their status as children being educated by parents, they possess a connection to Mitzvot.
This derivative connection is sufficient to make the ox [even a Tam] liable (Skilah) and the owner liable for ransom (Kofer), just as they would be for an adult who is personally obligated in Mitzvot.
Comparison to the Slave (Eved)
The lecture strengthens this point by contrasting the minor with the Canaanite slave (Eved).
The Law: When an ox kills a slave, the law is different (a fixed fine of 30 Shekels) compared to a free person (variable Kofer).
The Distinction: Both slaves and minors have a partial or non-existent obligation in Mitzvot compared to free Jewish adults. Why are they treated differently regarding the payments?
The Answer:
The slave has no potential to become fully obligated (unless freed) and is not subject to Chinuch in the same way.
The minor (Katan) is distinct because of the "Ben/Bat" status—they are currently in the process of being raised into the Mitzvot.
The Bechor Shor (a commentary) notes that because there is no distinction in the Torah's penalty between a minor and an adult (unlike the slave), the minor must have a status elevation that the slave lacks.
Conclusion
The terminology "Ben" and "Bat" is not merely a poetic way of saying "children." It is a precise legal definition. It teaches that although minors are not personally obligated in commandments, their status as children under the tutelage (Chinuch) of their parents grants them sufficient standing in Halacha to trigger the full penalties of the ox (death by stoning) and the full ransom payment (Kofer), equating their value in this regard to that of a fully obligated adult.
