לרפואת הרב יצחק בן ברכה
ר' רפאל חיים דב בן ריסה שושנה
מרים בת חיה
אסתר רות בת נעמי שרה
בתוך שח"י
להצלחת הרב עדיאל בן עתידה עדית
Says the gemara [Bava Kamma 2b]:
תולדה דקרן מאי היא נגיפה נשיכה רביצה ובעיטה מאי שנא נגיחה דקרי לה אב דכתיב כי יגח נגיפה נמי כתיב (שמות כא, לה) כי יגוף האי נגיפה נגיחה היא דתניא פתח בנגיפה וסיים בנגיחה לומר לך זו היא נגיפה זו היא נגיחה מאי שנא גבי אדם דכתיב כי יגח ומאי שנא גבי בהמה דכתיב כי יגוף? אדם דאית ליה מזלא כתיב כי יגח, בהמה דלית לה מזלא כתיב כי יגוף. ומלתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דמועד לאדם הוי מועד לבהמה ומועד לבהמה לא הוי מועד לאדם.
What is a subcategory of Goring? It includes any action that an ox performs with its body with the objective of inflicting damage: Pushing [negifa], biting, crouching upon items with the objective of inflicting damage, and kicking.
The Gemara asks: What is different about goring that it is characterized as a primary category of damage, as it is written explicitly in the verse: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28); accordingly, negifa should also be characterized as a primary category, as it is written: “If one man’s ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another” (Exodus 21:35)? The Gemara answers: This negifa mentioned in the verse, is actually a reference to goring, as it is taught in a baraita that the verses states: “And if one man’s ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another…or if it is known that the ox was a goring ox in time past” (Exodus 21:35–36). The verse began its description of the case with the term negifa and it concluded with the term goring to say to you that in this context the two terms describe the same action: This action is negifa and this same action is goring.
The Gemara asks: If the two terms are interchangeable, what is different with regard to an ox goring a person that it is written: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28), and what is different with regard to an ox goring an animal that it is written: “If one man’s ox hurts [yiggof ] the ox of another” (Exodus 21:35)?
The Gemara explains: With regard to a person, who has the ingenuity to defend himself and is not easily injured, it is written: “If an ox gores,” a term indicating an attack of greater force. With regard to an animal, which does not have the ingenuity to defend itself and is more easily injured, it is written: “If an ox hurts [yiggof ],” a term indicating an attack of lesser force.
And the Torah’s use of these terms teaches us a matter in passing: Because the effort required for the ox to gore a person to death is greater than the effort required for the ox to gore an animal to death, the halakha is that an ox that is forewarned with regard to goring a person is also forewarned with regard to an animal. But an ox that is forewarned with regard to an animal is not forewarned with regard to a person.
Asked Tosfos: Rav Pappa says [37a] that one who is מועד לאדם is NOT מועד לבהמה. This seems to contradict the assertion of our gemara?
The second answer of Tosfos is that what the gemara here meant was as follows:
וה"ר מנחם פי' דה"ק מועד לאדם, שהיה מועד לכל, וחזר בו מבהמה ונשאר מועד לאדם הוי מועד לבהמה, דחזרה דבהמה לאו חזרה היא אבל מועד לכל וחזרה מאדם לא הוי מועד לאדם.
Explains Rabbeinu Menachem: If an animal was a מועד to gore everyone [both animals and men], and then "did teshuva" and retracted from being a מועד לבהמה [she saw three animals and didn't gore], she remains a מועד לבהמה, because retracting from being a מועד לבהמה alone is not enough. But if the animal was a מועד לכל and retracted from goring people, she is no longer a מועד לאדם.
What is the logic of Rabbeinu Menachem? Originally, when we didn't know whether the animal gores other animals or not, Rav Pappa assumed that it DOESN'T [and we don't learn a ק"ו from אדם]. But when it comes to חזרה [the animal did "teshuva" and stopped goring], even though we saw clearly that the animal stopped goring animals, we say that since she hasn't stopped goring אדם, she remains a מועד לבהמה. How can that BE?? When we DON'T KNOW about the goring status of an animal towards other animals, we say that she doesn't gore animals, but when we DO KNOW that she stopped goring animals we say that she will CONTINUE to gore animals?? Am I missing something??
Not only that - but we see PUNKT FARKERT [in Hebrew they say "הפוך על הפוך"] later on in the gemara [ל"ז]. Rav Zvid holds [BTW - I thought that the term "holds" was a specifically frum one, but recently I heard a Goy Ben Goy, Ben Bno Shel Goy from Texas use it. So I guess we will share it..] that מועד לאדם IS מועד לבהמה which means that according to him מועד לאדם is a SUPER-GORER and yet he holds that חזרה לבהמה is a valid חזרה?? And now we want to say that according to Rav Pappa, even though מועד לאדם is NOT a super-gorer, we nevertheless say that if she stopped goring אדם, she will still gore בהמות and the חזרה is no good!!??
אתמהה ["wonder-wonders" in French].
