לזכות
הרב ישראל יעקב בן ר' אשר זעליג
ר' נועם שמחה בן ר' דוד זאב וכל ב"ב
הרב ישראל יעקב בן ר' אשר זעליג
ר' נועם שמחה בן ר' דוד זאב וכל ב"ב
לרפואת הרב יצחק בן ברכה
הרב ישיעהו מרדכי עזרא בן רחל דבורה
Says the gemara in Bava Kamma [2b]:
קרן מנלן דת"ר (שמות כא, כח) כי יגח אין נגיחה אלא בקרן שנאמר (מלכים א כב, יא) ויעש לו צדקיה בן כנענה קרני ברזל ויאמר כה אמר ה' באלה תנגח את ארם וגו' ואומר (דברים לג, יז) בכור שורו הדר לו וקרני ראם קרניו בהם עמים ינגח
The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive the primary category of Goring? The source is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28); and goring is performed only with a horn, as it is stated: “And Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, made himself horns of iron, and said: So says the Lord: With these shall you gore the Arameans, until they are consumed” (I Kings 22:11). And the verse also states: “His firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations” (Deuteronomy 33:17).
מאי ואומר וכי תימא דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן ת"ש בכור שורו הדר לו
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse also states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse cited is not a legitimate source as it is a verse from the Prophets, and we do not derive Torah matters from the texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings, come and hear proof from the Torah: “His firstborn bull, majesty is his.”
והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגיחה בקרן הוא
The Gemara rejects the possibility that the reason a second verse was cited is that the primary category of Goring cannot be derived from a verse in the Prophets: But is this a halakhic derivation? It is a mere disclosure of the matter, that goring is performed with a horn. A verse in the Prophets can certainly serve as a source for that disclosure.
אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה"מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא
Rather, the reason the baraita cites a second verse is lest you say, based on the first verse, that when the Merciful One distinguishes between liability for damage caused by an innocuous ox, for which the owner is liable to pay half of the damages for the first three times that it gores, and liability for damage caused by a forewarned ox, which already gored three times and whose owner was cautioned to prevent the ox from goring, for which he is liable to pay the full damages, that statement applies only to damage caused with a detached horn, like the horn of Zedekiah described in the verse, e.g., if an animal held a detached horn in its mouth and caused damage with it; but for damage that an ox caused with a horn attached to its head, say that in all cases the legal status of the ox is that of a forewarned ox and its owner is liable to pay for all of the damage.
קרן מנלן דת"ר (שמות כא, כח) כי יגח אין נגיחה אלא בקרן שנאמר (מלכים א כב, יא) ויעש לו צדקיה בן כנענה קרני ברזל ויאמר כה אמר ה' באלה תנגח את ארם וגו' ואומר (דברים לג, יז) בכור שורו הדר לו וקרני ראם קרניו בהם עמים ינגח
The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive the primary category of Goring? The source is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28); and goring is performed only with a horn, as it is stated: “And Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, made himself horns of iron, and said: So says the Lord: With these shall you gore the Arameans, until they are consumed” (I Kings 22:11). And the verse also states: “His firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations” (Deuteronomy 33:17).
מאי ואומר וכי תימא דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן ת"ש בכור שורו הדר לו
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse also states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse cited is not a legitimate source as it is a verse from the Prophets, and we do not derive Torah matters from the texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings, come and hear proof from the Torah: “His firstborn bull, majesty is his.”
והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגיחה בקרן הוא
The Gemara rejects the possibility that the reason a second verse was cited is that the primary category of Goring cannot be derived from a verse in the Prophets: But is this a halakhic derivation? It is a mere disclosure of the matter, that goring is performed with a horn. A verse in the Prophets can certainly serve as a source for that disclosure.
אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה"מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא
Rather, the reason the baraita cites a second verse is lest you say, based on the first verse, that when the Merciful One distinguishes between liability for damage caused by an innocuous ox, for which the owner is liable to pay half of the damages for the first three times that it gores, and liability for damage caused by a forewarned ox, which already gored three times and whose owner was cautioned to prevent the ox from goring, for which he is liable to pay the full damages, that statement applies only to damage caused with a detached horn, like the horn of Zedekiah described in the verse, e.g., if an animal held a detached horn in its mouth and caused damage with it; but for damage that an ox caused with a horn attached to its head, say that in all cases the legal status of the ox is that of a forewarned ox and its owner is liable to pay for all of the damage.
ת"ש בכור שורו הדר לו וגו
Therefore, the baraita says: Come and hear a proof from another verse: “His firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations,” where the reference is to a horn attached to the ox’s head. Evidently, when an ox gores with its own horns there is a distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.
Asked the Rashba [this Rashba made it into the "all time MOST famous Rashbas" list, put out by the American Academy for Extraterrestrial Research, funded by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg]:
Why does the gemara assume that מחוברת, an attached horn, should be כולה מועדת - a מועד from the get-go and forever, maybe it should be כולה תמה, totally a תם with no possibility of ever having to pay נזק שלם. Why? I will tell you why!!:-) Because we have a rule [and we Jews like keeping rules] that if there is a doubt about whether one has to pay, the onus of proof lies with the one trying to extract payment. So in our case of doubt here, the standard should be that only half nezek is paid. Why do we say just the opposite, that the default will be נזק שלם?
Answers the Rashba!:
וי"ל דאדרבה בנזיקין ספיקו דידהו להחמיר כאיסורין ועוד יש לי לומר דלפחות מן התלושה אי אפשר דק"ו היא.
No. Au contraire!! That is French. The Rashba was Spanish. De lo contrario. Says the Rashba - In cases of damages we go לחומרא on the damager and thus would require a full and not half payment.
Nuch ah terutz* [otra respuesta]: If for תלושה full damages are going to be paid [in cases when the animal is a מועד], then SOITANLY with respect to מחוברת full damages must be paid [since it is more common, it makes sense that the punishment should be more, and not less, severe].
AHHHHHHH!!!! [Don't know how to say that in Spanish]
But the Achraonim responded to the first answer of the Rashba with ALL OUT מלחמתה של תורה!!!
1] In every ספק נזיקין we pasken לקולא?! If we meet an ox who is a ספק מועד - would we obligate him [or his owner if the ox's finances weren't stable] נזק שלם for damages?? Of course NOT!!:-)
2] Even if we say that ספק נזיקין is לחומרא that is only vis-a-vis the חיוב שמירה of the בעלים but not the payment! Payment is definitely לקולא.
3] Even if we say that every case that is composed of both דין איסור and דין ממון, we go לחומרא [because of the ספק איסור], here we should STILL go לקולא because there is not ספק איסור at all. Whether the animal is a תם or מועד the owner must guard it from causing damage [meaning that there is no doubt about the דין איסור element]. The only issue is how much he must pay for damages [i.e. ממון].
4] Regarding the דין איסור aspect of guarding the animal from causing damage, turning the animal into a מועד is not a חומרא but a קולא for we pasken like R' Yehuda [45b] that for a מועד a minimal level of שמירה suffices while a תם requires a more vigilant שמירה. So how can the Rashba say that we prefer to go לחומרא and say כולה מועדת?? That would be a קולא??
5] The Rashba - you'll forgive me - seems to contradict himself. Later on [3a] we see from the gemara that ושילח can mean both שן and רגל and since we can't decide - we should obligate both of them to pay. Preguntó ["fregt" in Spanish] the Rashba: Since we pasken ספק ממונא לקולא we should absolve both שן and רגל from payment!!:-) So we see that even the Rashba él mismo [בעצמו] holds that ספק ממונא לקולא - not like he says here??!!!
*Another answer
#bigproblems
#ispentalotoftimeinwashingtonheights
