Mishnah 1
1)
(a)What is the dilemma in a case where a Shor Tam kills a cow and a dead newborn calf is found lying beside its mother?
(b)There is no question that the owner of the ox must pay Chatzi Nezek for the cow. What does the Mishnah say about the calf?
(c)The author of the Mishnah is Sumchus. What does Sumchus say?
1)
(a)In a case where a Shor Tam kills a cow and a dead newborn calf is found lying beside its mother, the dilemma is - whether the calf was born dead before the goring took place, or afterwards, in which case it must have been the ox that caused its premature stillbirth, and the owner will be Chayav to pay Chatzi Nezek for the calf as well.
(b)There is no question that the owner of the ox must pay Chatzi Nezek for the cow. The Mishnah rules that for the calf - he must pay a quarter of the damage.
(c)The author of the Mishnah is Sumchus - who says 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek, Cholkin (wherever there is a Safek whether one is Chayav to pay or not, one pays half the claim)'.
2)
(a)What do the Rabbanan hold?
(b)How do they refer to this principle?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
2)
(a)The Rabbanan hold - 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'atyah (The entire onus lies on the claimant to prove his claim)'.
(b)They refer to this principle as - 'K'lal Gadol (an all-encompassing principle [see Tos. Yom-Tov])'.
(c)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
3)
(a)What is the dilemma in the reverse case, where a newborn calf is found standing beside the cow (which is a Tam) that has killed an ox?
(b)What is the problem? Why will the the Nizak's claims from the cow not suffice?
(c)What does the Mishnah rule in this case?
(d)Who is the author of this Mishnah?
(e)What is the Halachah?
3)
(a)The dilemma in the reverse case, where a newborn calf is found standing beside the cow (which is a Tam) that has killed an ox, is - whether the calf was born before its mother killed the ox, or afterwards, in which case it was a partner with its mother in the damage, and the Nizak can claim Chatzi Nezek from it if necessary.
(b)The problem is - there where the cow either runs away or dies (in which case the Nizak will only manage to receive Chatzi Nezek if he claims from the calf [See also Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(c)Here too, the Mishnah rules - that the Nizak can claim Chatzi Nezek from the cow, but only Revi'a Nezek from the calf.
(d)The author of this Mishnah too - is Sumchus.
(e)The Halachah here too is - like the Rabbanan, in which case, the Nizak cannot claim anything from the body of the calf.
Mishnah 2
4)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a case where a potter brings his jars into Reuven's Chatzer without permission, and Reuven's animal ...
1. ... breaks them?
2. ... trips over them and is badly hurt?
(b)What if Reuven gave the potter permission to bring his jars into his Chatzer?
(c)The Tana repeats the same rulings in a case where Shimon brings fruit into Reuven's Chatzer with or without permission. In the latter case, where the owner of the fruit is Chayav if Reuven's animal is harmed by his fruit, speaks where it tripped over it. What will be the Din if it eats the fruit and dies?
(d)Why is that?
4)
(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where a potter brings his jars into Reuven's Chatzer without permission, and Reuven's animal ...
1. ... breaks them - that Reuven is Patur.
2. ... trips over them and is badly hurt - that Shimon is Chayav.
(b)If Reuven gave the potter permission to bring his jars into his Chatzer then in the former case - he is Chayav to pay (See Tos. Yom-Tov & Tiferes Yisrael).
(c)The Tana repeats the same rulings in a case where Shimon brings fruit into Reuven's Chatzer with or without permission (See Tos. Yom-Tov). In the latter case, where the owner of the fruit is Chayav if Reuven's animal is harmed by his fruit, speaks where it tripped over it. But if it eats the fruit and dies - he is Patur ...
(d)... since nobody asked it to help itself to his fruit (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 3
5)
(a)What does the Mishnah say in a case where Shimon brings his ox into Reuven's Chatzer without permission and ...
1. ... Reuven's ox gores or bites it?
2. ... it gores or bites Reuven's ox?
(b)And what does the Tana say about a case where the ox falls into a pit in Reuven's Chatzer and ...
1. ... dirties his water?
2. ... kills Reuven's father or son who is in it, assuming that the ox is a Mu'ad?
(c)What exactly is the case?
(d)Why is the ox not Chayav Misah?
(e)Then why is the owner Chayav Kofer
5)
(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where Shimon brings his ox into Reuven's Chatzer without permission (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and ...
1. ... Reuven's ox or dog gores or bites it (See Tos. Yom-Tov) that - Reuven is Patur.
2. ... it gores or bites Reuven's ox that - Shimon is Chayav.
(b)And in a case where the ox falls into a pit in Reuven's Chatzer and ...
1. ... dirties his water, the Tana rules - that Shimon is Chayav, and if it ...
2. ... kills Reuven's father or son who is in it (assuming that the ox is a Mu'ad) that - he is Chayav to pay Kofer ...
(c)... for throwing itself on people in pits, though this time it jumped into the pit to eat a vegetable that it spied there (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The ox is not Chayav Misah - since it did not intend to kill the victim.
(e)The owner is nevertheless Chayav Kofer - because Kofer does not require Kavanah to kill (as we learned earlier).
6)
(a)What is the Din in a case where Shimon brings his ox into the Chatzer with permission and it falls into a pit there and sustains damages?
(b)What does Rebbi say?
(c)Why is that?
6)
(a)If Shimon brings his ox into the Chatzer with permission and it falls into a pit there and sustains damages - Reuven is Chayav.
(b)According to Rebbi - he is Patur (in both this case and in the equivalent cases in the previous Mishnahs ...
(c)... because Shimon did not undertake responsibility for whatever happens to Reuven's ox.
7)
(a)According to Rebbi, what will the Din therefore be if Reuven invites Shimon to bring his ox into his Chatzer S'tam, and the ox subsequently ...
1. ... is gored by his own ox or falls into a pit and sustains damages?
2. ... gores Reuven's ox or causes other damage?
(b)Why is that?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
7)
(a)According to Rebbi, if Reuven invites Shimon to bring his ox into his Chatzer S'tam, and the ox subsequently ...
1. ... is gored by his own ox or falls into a pit and sustains damages - he is Patur, and if Shimon'sox ...
2. ... gores Reuven's ox or causes other damage - he is Patur, too ...
(b)... since he entered Shimon's Chatzer with permission (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Halachah is - like Rebbi (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 4
8)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a case where one ox intends to gore another ox, but inadvertently gores a woman, who miscarries as a result?
(b)What would have been the Din had the ox intended to gore the woman?
(c)Then why does the Tana discuss where it didn't?
8)
(a)The Mishnah rules that if one ox intends to gore another ox, but inadvertently gores a woman, who miscarries as a result - the owner of the ox is Patur ...
(b)... as he would have been even if the ox had intended to gore the woman (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(c)... and the reason that the Tana discusses where it didn't - is to tally with the case that follows.
9)
(a)What does the Tana Kama then say about the same case, only where it is a man that meant to strike his friend and not an ox?
(b)To whom must he pay?
(c)How do we assess the value of the V'lados?
9)
(a)In the same case, only where it is a man that meant to strike his friend and not an ox - the Tana Kama rules that - he is Chayav to pay ...
(b)... the husband (See Tos. Yom-Tov) for the V'lados.
(c)We assess the value of the V'lados - by comparing the value of the woman (as if she was a Shifchah) before birth and after birth (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Keitzad ... ' & 've'Kamah Hi Yafah'), and charging him the difference.
10)
(a)On what grounds does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel object to the Tana Kama's assessment?
(b)So how do Beis-Din assess the value of the V'lados according to him?
(c)What if the husband is no longer alive?
10)
(a)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel objects to the Tana Kama's assessment on the grounds that - bearing in mind the element of life-danger that is involved in child-birth (See Tos.Yom-Tov), a woman is worth more after she has given birth than beforehand, in which case, the Mazik will not pay anything.
(b)According to him - Beis-Din assess the value of the V'lados intrinsically.
(c)If the husband is no longer alive - then the Mazik must give the money to his heirs.
11)
(a)What will be the Din if the woman whose husband has died is a Shifchah Meshuchreres (who has been set free) or a Giyores? What was the status of her husband?
(b)Why is that?
(c)Seeing as the same Din will apply if she is a Yisre'eilis who is married to a Ger, why does the Mishnah opt to mention a Giyores?
11)
(a)If the woman whose husband has died is a Shifchah Meshuchreres (who has been set free or a Giyores - who is married to an Eved Meshuchrar or to a Ger (See Tos. Yom-Tov), the Mazik is permitted to keep the money ...
(b)... because the property of a Ger who has no heirs is Hefker, and the person who already has the money automatically acquires it.
(c)Granted, the same Din will apply if she is a Yisre'eilis who is married to them, the Mishnah nevertheless opts to mention a Shifchah Meshuchreres or a Giyores - because it is more common for them to marry each other.
Mishnah 5
12)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about someone who digs a pit in his own R'shus and opens it into the street, or vice-versa?
(b)On what condition is he Chayav if he digs a pit in one R'shus ha'Yachid and opens it into another R'shus ha'Yachid?
12)
(a)The Mishnah - declares Chayav someone who digs a pit in his own R'shus and opens it into the street, or vice-versa (See Tos. Yom-Tov), should it cause damage.
(b)If he digs a pit in one R'shus ha'Yachid and opens it into another R'shus ha'Yachid he is Chayav - provided he declares the latter pit Hefker (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
13)
(a)The basic Chiyuv of Bor is where one digs it in the R'shus ha'Rabim. What is the exact definition of 'Bor'?
(b)The Tana declares one Chayav however, even if one digs a Si'ach, Me'arah, Charitzin or Ne'itzin. If 'Si'ach is a trench and Me'arah a cave, what is the difference between 'a Charitz' and a 'Na'itz' ?
(c)Seeing as one is Chayav, irrespective of the shape of the pit, why does the Torah write specifically 'Bor'? What other specification does a pit require to fall under the category of 'Bor'?
(d)In that case, what distinction does the Tana draw between a pit that is ten Tefachim deep and one that is less?
13)
(a)The basic Chiyuv of Bor - a circular pit, is where one digs it in the R'shus ha'Rabim (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)The Tana declares one Chayav however, even if one digs a Si'ach (a trench), Me'arah (a cave), 'Charitzin' - (square pits) or 'Ne'itzin' (pits that are wide on top and narrow at the bottom [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(c)Despite the fact that one is Chayav, irrespective of the shape of the pit, the Torah writes specifically 'Bor' - because a Bor is ten Tefachim deep (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Mah Bor') ...
(d)... which explains why, if a pit is ten Tefachim deep - one is liable to pay even for an animal that falls into it and dies, whereas if it is less, one is only Chayav for damages (See Tos. Yom-Tov), but not if it dies.
Mishnah 6
14)
(a)What does the Mishnah say in the case of a pit belonging to Reuven and Shimon (See Tos. Yom-Tov), if first Reuven and then Shimon uses it and fails to cover it?
(b)On what condition is only Shimon Chayav and not Reuven?
(c)What will be the Din if Reuven covered the pit properly (See Tiferes Yisrael) and Shimon subsequently finds it open and fails to cover it?
(d)If the owner covered the pit properly and an ox or a donkey subsequently falls into it, he is Patur. If he covered it properly, how could an animal fall into it?
14)
(a)The Mishnah rules in the case of a pit belonging to Reuven and Shimon (See Tos. Yom-Tov), where first Reuven and then Shimon uses it and fail to cover it - that Shimon is liable for subsequent damages ...
(b)... provided Reuven handed over the cover to Shimon; otherwise, Reuven is liable as well.
(c)If Reuven covered the pit properly (See Tiferes Yisrael) and Shimon subsequently finds it open and fails to cover it - Shimon is Chayav (See Tiferes Yisrael).
(d)If the owner covered the pit properly (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and an ox or a donkey falls into it - because the cover turned out to be wormy, he is Patur.
15)
(a)The Tana now discusses a case where somebody is digging inside a pit to extend it and the noise of the shovel clanging frightens an ox that is standing outside the pit. What will be the Din if the ox falls and is wounded or dies, assuming it fell ...
1. ... forwards into the pit?
2. ... backwards onto the ground?
(b)On what grounds is the owner of the pit Patur in the latter case?
(c)Then why is he Chayav in the former case?
15)
(a)The Tana now discusses a case where somebody is digging inside a pit to extend it and the noise of the shovel clanging frightens an ox that is standing outside the pit. Where the ox falls and is wounded or dies, if it fell ...
1. ... forwards into the pit - the owner of the pit is Chayav.
2. ... backwards onto the ground - he is Patur ...
(b)... because it falls under the category of 'G'rama' (indirectly causing damage) for which one is Patur.
(c)He is nevertheless Chayav in the former case - because the damage took place inside the pit (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
16)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about an ox and its vessels or a donkey and its Keilim (vessels) that falls into a pit, where the animal dies and the vessels (accessories) of the former break and those of the latter, tear?
(b)Why does the Tana use the word 'break' with regard to the Keilim of the ox and 'tear' with regard to those of the donkey?
(c)We learn the P'tur on vessels from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with Bor) "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor". What do the Chachamim Darshen from the word ...
1. ... "Shor"?
2. ... "Chamor"?
16)
(a)The Mishnah rules that an ox and its Keilim (vessels) or a donkey and its vessels that falls into a pit, where the animal dies and the Keilim (accessories) of the former break and those of the latter, tear - the owner of the pit is Chayav for the ox or the donkey, but Patur from the Keilim.
(b)The Tana uses the word 'break' with regard to the Keilim of the ox and 'tear' with regard to those of the donkey - because the accessories of an ox are generally made of wood, whilst those of a donkey are made of leather.
(c)In the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with Bor) "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" (in connection with Bor), the Chachamim Darshen from the word ...
1. ... "Shor" - "Shor", 've'Lo Adam' ...
2. ... "Chamor" - "Chamor"- 've'lo Keilim', that one is not liable for a person or vessels that fall into one's pit and become damaged.
17)
(a)What does the Tana mean when he says 'Nafal le'Tocho Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan, Chayav'?
(b)What does it come to preclude?
(c)Why is that?
(d)And what does the Mishnah finally say about where the victim is ...
1. ... a young boy or girl?
2. ... an Eved or a Shifchah?
(e)Why is that?
17)
(a)When the Tana says 'Nafal le'Tocho Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan, Chayav', he means that - if the ox that fell into his pit is a 'Chashu', he is Chayav ...
(b)... but not if it is a regular ox ...
(c)... which ought to have looked where it was going (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The Mishnah finally rules that if the victim is ...
1. ... a young boy or girl ...
2. ... an Eved or a Shifchah - the owner is Patur from paying ...
(e)... as we learned earlier - "Shor", 've'Lo Adam' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 7
18)
(a)What if an animal other than on ox that falls into a pit?
(b)How does the Tana learn this from the Pasuk "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav"?
(c)If, in the Pasuk in Yisro (in connection with Matan Torah) "Im Beheimah Im Ish Yo Yichyeh", "Beheimah" incorporates Chayah, what do we learn from ...
1. ... the word "Im"?
2. ... the Pasuk in Mishpatim " ... al Kol D'var Pesha"?
18)
(a)If an animal other than on ox falls into a pit - the owner is also Chayav to pay.
(b)The Tana learns this from the Pasuk "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alalv" - that one is liable to pay for damages for anything that has an owner.
(c)In the Pasuk in Yisro (in connection with Matan Torah) "Im Beheimah Im Ish Yo Yichyeh", "Beheimah" incorporates Chayah, whereas from ...
1. ... the word "Im", we learn - that even birds are subject to the death-penalty, too, and from ...
2. ... the Pasuk in Mishpatim " ... al Kol D'var Pesha" - that the Din of Kefel (double that a thief is Chayav to pay) too applies to all animals.
19)
(a)From the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "le'Chol Aveidas Achicha" the Tana learns that regarding the Mitzvah of returning a lost article, one is obligated to return any animal. Why might we have thought otherwise?
(b)Regarding the Mitzvos of P'rikah (unloading) and Chasimah (muzzling an animal) the Torah mentions specifically an ox and a donkey (respectively). We learn that both apply to any animal, from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shor" "Shor" and "Chamor" "Chamor" respectively). From where do we learn it?
(c)And it is from the same Gezeirah-Shavah that we learn that the Isur of Kil'ayim (mixing breeds) extends to all types of animals. What would we otherwise have thought?
(d)To which other branch of Kil'ayim does the Gezeirah-Shavah extend?
(e)The Halachah however is that it is only mi'de'Rabbanan that all two species of animals are forbidden. Which kinds of animals are forbidden min ha'Torah?
19)
(a)From the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "le'Chol Aveidas Achicha" the Tana learns that regarding the Mitzvah of returning a lost article, one is obligated to return any animal. We might otherwise have thought that - one is only Chayav to return an ox a lamb and a donkey that are mentioned in the Pasuk.
(b)Regarding the Mitzvos of P'rikah (unloading) and Chasimah (muzzling an animal) the Torah mentions specifically an ox and a donkey (respectively). We learn that both apply to any animal, from the Gezeirah-Shavah ("Shor" "Shor" and "Chamor" "Chamor", respectively -Tos. Yom-Tov) - from Shabbos (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'le'Kil'ayim').
(c)And it is from the same Gezeirah-Shavah that we learn that the Isur of Kil'ayim (mixing breeds) extends to all types of animals. We would otherwise have thought that - it is confined to Beheimos, but does not apply to Chayos and birds.
(d)The Gezeirah-Shavah also extends - to the prohibition of leading two animals ("Lo Sachrosh be'Shor va'Chamor Yachdav").
(e)The Halachah however is that it is only mi'de'Rabbanan that all two species of animals are forbidden. Min ha'Torah -it is only forbidden to plow with or to lead a Tahor animal together with a Tamei one.
20)
(a)By Shabbos itself the Torah specifically writes "Shorcha va'Chamorcha". From where do we know that the prohibition against working on Shabbos extends to other animals?
(b)If this applies to Beheimos, from where do we know Chayos?
(c)What do we learn from the word "ve'Chol"?
20)
(a)By Shabbos itself the Torah specifically writes "Shorcha va'Chamorcha". We know that the prohibition against working on Shabbos extends to other animals - since the Torah adds "ve'Chol Behemt'cha".
(b)This also applies to Chayos - because Beheimos incorporates Chayos.
(c)And from the word "ve'Chol" - we learn that birds are included.
