Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא קמא דף י״ד, but we will start seven lines from the bottom of דף י״ג עמוד ב׳. The גמרא starts אמר מר, we learned in the ברייתא before. The גמרא is going to explain the ברייתא that was mentioned before. Before, we mentioned the ברייתא in order to explain what the words כשהזיק חב המזיק come to add, and now the גמרא will explain the פשט in that ברייתא. We learned in the ברייתא: כשהזיק חב המזיק - by using the words כשהזיק חב המזיק, that when you cause damage the מזיק is obligated to pay, להביא - that comes to include, comes to add, שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר. That if a שומר חנם, a person who watches for somebody else for free, or a person who borrows from somebody else, or a person who watches for somebody else but for money, or a person who rents from somebody else. So the ברייתא says that if the בהמה caused damage while it was in the רשות of one of these שומרים, so if the בהמה was a תם, then you pay חצי נזק, if the בהמה was a מועד, then you pay נזק שלם, the complete נזק. And the

גמרא asks: היכי דמי? What is this case talking about? אילימא, if you're going to say, דאזקיה תורא דמשאיל לתורא דשואל, that the ox that belongs to the משאיל, that belongs to the owner, caused damage to the ox of the שואל, of the one that borrowed, that what the ברייתא says that if this animal that was in the possession of the שומר caused damage, then you are חייב to pay חצי נזק for a תם and נזק שלם for a מועד. So if it would mean that the שור that he was watching caused damage to his own שור, and the ברייתא is telling us that the משאיל, the owner of the שור, has to pay to the שואל, to the שומר, half of the נזק for תם and נזק שלם for a מועד, why should be the דין so? לימא ליה, why doesn't the משאיל, the owner of the ox, say to this שואל: אילו אזיק בעלמא בעית לשלומי את? If my ox, while it's in your possession, would have caused damage to somebody else, you would have to pay for that because you are responsible to watch my ox. השתא דאזקיה לתורא דידך, now that it caused damage to your ox, בעינא לשלומי, I have to pay? It makes no sense that the משאיל should have to pay for the damage his ox did while it was in possession of the שומר when the שומר is obligated to watch it! אלא, so therefore we must say, דאזקיה תורא דשואל לתורא דמשאיל. That what happened was just the opposite: that his own שור, the שור that belongs to the שומר, to the watchman, to the שואל, to the borrower, caused damage to the שור of the owner, of the משאיל, of the one that gave him to watch. And that's what the ברייתא says: that the watchman is obligated to pay to the owner of the other ox, if it was a תם - חצי נזק, and if it was a מועד - נזק שלם. Why should be the דין so? לימא ליה, let the משאיל, the owner of the ox, say to the watchman: אילו איזיק מעלמא, if my ox would have got damaged from something else, from an ox of the outside, בעית לשלומי כולי תורא, you would have to pay for the complete ox of mine. Because the דין is that a שואל is חייב באונסין. If someone borrows an object, even if it was lost or damaged באונס, by force, the שואל is חייב to pay for that. So if the ox of the משאיל would have been damaged from the outside, then the שואל would be responsible to pay to the משאיל for the whole ox. השתא דאזקיה תורא דידך, now that your ox caused damage to mine, פלגא ניזקא דמשלמת לי? All you're going to pay me is a חצי נזק? Because the ברייתא says that if it was a תם, he only pays half a נזק. And according to this it would mean that the שואל, the borrower, has to pay to the משאיל, to the lender, only half a נזק if it was a תם, if his own ox, the borrower's ox, caused damage to the lender's ox. But why should it be so? Since the borrower is responsible for whatever, anything that happens to the ox of the lender, so even if something happened through his own ox, he still should have to pay always for the complete damage, for the complete ox! So how could the ברייתא say that he only pays חצי נזק? So the question is back: What is the case of the ברייתא?

So the גמרא says: לעולם, the truth is, דאזקיה תורא דמשאיל לתורא דשואל, that the ox of the lender caused damage to the ox of the borrower. And the question that we asked before is, why should the משאיל, the lender, have to pay the borrower for the damage? Why doesn't he say to him: If my ox, while it's in your possession, would have caused damage to somebody else, you would have been responsible to pay because You are the שומר, you had to watch it. So now that my ox caused damage to your ox, I should pay you? The גמרא says, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case שקיבל עליו שמירת גופו ולא קיבל עליו שמירת נזקיו, that this watchman accepted upon himself to watch the ox, that nothing should happen to the ox, but he didn't accept upon himself to watch it that it should not cause any damage to others. And therefore, if this ox would have caused damage to something on the outside, he would have not been responsible to pay because he didn't accept that שמירה upon himself. So therefore, too, if this ox caused damage to his own ox, he also expects the משאיל, the lender, to pay for it because he is not responsible to watch it from causing any damage to the outside. And the reason the גמרא gives this answer and not just the opposite, לכאורה, the גמרא could have answered that באמת, this is a case that the ox of the שואל, of the borrower, caused damage to the ox of the lender. And איי, the question was that we asked before, why does he only have to pay חצי נזק? We could say that he accepted only the שמירה of the נזקים, he accepted upon himself only to watch that it should not cause damage to the outside, but he didn't accept upon himself to watch the ox itself. And therefore, if the ox was damaged by his ox, he is not responsible, he only has to pay like a regular מזיק. So therefore, if it's a תם, he only pays חצי נזק. And תוספות says the גמרא didn't say that because that is not common. It is not common for a person to accept upon himself to watch something that it shouldn't cause damage to others, but not to accept upon himself to watch the thing itself, it shouldn't get damaged. On the other hand, the example the גמרא gives is a common example, that a person could accept upon himself to watch something that nothing should happen to it, but not to accept upon himself that it should not cause damage to

others. But then the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, אימא סיפא, look into the סיפא, the end of the ברייתא. It says there, נפרצה בלילה, if it broke the wall at night, או שפרצוה ליסטים, or if robbers broke the wall, ויצתה, and it went out, והזיקה, and it caused damage to others, פטור, you are פטור, because this is called an אונס and he is פטור from an אונס. But the question is, הא ביום, חייב. It comes out that only if it happened at night, when it's a real אונס, that's when we say that the שומר is פטור. But if that would have happened during the day, the שומר would be חייב. הא לא קיבל עליו שמירת נזקיו! But didn't we say that we're talking here in a case where he did not accept upon himself the responsibility to watch it from causing damage to others? And in that case, why would be the דין that if it went out during the day and it caused damage to others, he is חייב? And the גמרא answers, הכי קאמר, this is what he means: אם קיבל עליו שמירת נזקיו, חייב. There's like a piece missing in the ברייתא. After the ברייתא says that if it caused damage, so for a תם you pay חצי נזק, and for a מועד you pay נזק שלם, and we explained that that is talking in a case where he accepted upon himself to watch it, but not to watch it that it shouldn't cause damage to others, so then the ברייתא really has another piece there. It continues that אם קיבל עליו שמירת נזקיו, that if he did accept upon himself to watch it that it shouldn't cause damage to others, חייב, you are חייב. And that's where the ברייתא continues that if נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה ליסטים, if it broke at night or robbers broke it, ויצתה, and it went out, והזיקה, and it caused damage, פטור, it's פטור. Only during the day you're חייב because you are responsible to watch it, therefore you are חייב for the נזקין that it did if you accepted upon himself the שמירת נזקיו to watch it from causing damage. But if it happened at night with באונס, then you are פטור. Now, one might ask a question, according to the פשט in the גמרא that the person accepted upon himself to watch it from being damaged, but not to watch it from causing damage to others, and therefore the דין is that in the case where the ox of the lender caused damage to the ox of the borrower, he pays חצי נזק for a תם and נזק שלם for a מועד, what is the חידוש? Isn't that very simple? It's פשיטא. Since he did not accept upon himself to watch it from causing damage to others, so if it would have caused damage to others, the lender would have to pay because he is not responsible, so the owner of the ox would be responsible. So it's simple that the same thing applies if that same ox caused damage to his ox, that the משאיל should have to pay him, because why should he be different than others? If it would cause damage to others, the owner of the ox, the משאיל, would have to pay, so why shouldn't he have to pay him too? And תוספות answers that I would think that even when a person does not accept upon himself to watch it from causing damage to others, but that is only concerning others, but concerning himself he is obligated to watch it, and therefore if that ox caused damage to his own ox, the owner of the first ox should be פטור. And the חידוש of the ברייתא is that nevertheless he is חייב, but the דין is like a regular חיוב. If it's a תם, you're חייב חצי נזק, if it's it's a מועד you're חייב נזק

שלם. And now the גמרא goes back to the מחלוקת we had before concerning חצר השותפין. The גמרא before mentioned that when you have a חצר השותפין, a yard that belongs to two people, and the שור of one of the two partners caused damage to the other partner through שן ורגל, through eating his fruit or through stepping on his things, there was a מחלוקת whether you are חייב or not. Since the דין is by שן ורגל that you are only חייב if the damage was done in the רשות of the ניזק, as we learn out from the פסוק ובער בשדה אחר, that only if you cause damage in the field of the other you are חייב for שן ורגל, so the question is a חצר השותפין, is that considered שדה אחר or not? Since you also have a right to go into that part of the חצר, since your ox also had a right to go in, so there's a question whether you are responsible to pay if your ox caused damage through שן ורגל. So the גמרא before said that רב חסדא learned that you are חייב שן ורגל, and רבי אלעזר said that you are פטור from שן ורגל in the חצר

השותפין. So now the גמרא asks a קשיא, איני, is it not so? How could רבי אלעזר say that you are פטור from שן ורגל in the חצר השותפין, והתני רב יוסף, didn't רב יוסף teach us a ברייתא where it says חצר השותפין והפונדק, if you have a חצר of partners or a פונדק, an inn, where you have many people, many guests coming and staying there, חייב על השן ועל הרגל, you are חייב for שן ורגל. It is not like a רשות הרבים. The דין is that שן ורגל is פטור in the רשות הרבים, but by an inn or a חצר השותפין it is not like a רשות הרבים since it is מיוחד, it is specifically for the people who stay there, so then it is considered a שדה אחר, and therefore if your animal causes damage through שן ורגל in a חצר השותפין or in an inn, you are חייב. So תיובתא דרבי אלעזר, isn't this a קשיא on רבי אלעזר? And the גמרא says אמר לך רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר would answer, ותסברא, what do you think? מתניתא מי לא פליגי? Isn't there a מחלוקת in ברייתות? In other words, what he's saying is that it's true that this ברייתא that רב יוסף taught tells us that you are חייב for שן ורגל in חצר השותפין, but I have another ברייתא where it says that you are פטור for חצר השותפין, and I follow that ברייתא. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, ארבעה כללות היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בנזיקין, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר gave four rules concerning the דינים of נזיקין, and he said like this: כל שהוא רשות לניזק ולא למזיק חייב בכל. Anything which is the רשות, which is the domain of the ניזק and not of the מזיק, then you are חייב in everything, which means you are חייב for שן ורגל because it's a חצר הניזק, you are חייב for קרן, you are חייב for all damages. And רש״י brings here that the גמרא later on will say that not only are you חייב for every אב, any type of damage, but even more than that, since it's a חצר הניזק, you are even חייב for קרן תם נזק שלם. Normally we know that if it's קרן and it's a תם, you are חייב only חצי נזק, but that's only if it was done in the רשות הרבים. But if it was done through קרן in the חצר הניזק, in the yard of the one the damage was caused to, then even a קרן תם pays נזק שלם, as the גמרא will explain later that this is the opinion of רבי טרפון. The second rule is למזיק ולא לניזק, if it was the רשות, the domain of the מזיק and not of the ניזק, פטור מכל, he is פטור from everything, because he could always say to the ניזק, "What did your property do in my רשות?" Since the damage was caused in my רשות, you had no right to come into my רשות to begin with, and therefore you're פטור. לזה ולזה, if it was a רשות that belonged to both, to the מזיק and to the ניזק, כגון חצר השותפין, for instance a yard that belonged to two partners, והבקעה, or a valley, פטור בו על השן ועל הרגל. So for שן and רגל you are פטור, because in חצר השותפין, this ברייתא holds you're פטור for שן ורגל. But על הנגיחה ועל הנגיפה, for goring and for pushing, ועל הנשיכה, and for biting, ועל הרביצה, and for laying down, ועל הבעיטה, and for kicking, all these תולדות of קרן, so the דין would be תם משלם חצי נזק, a תם would pay half a נזק, ומועד משלם נזק שלם, and a מועד would pay complete נזק. Because since this is considered like a רשות הרבים, as we see that for שן and רגל you're completely פטור, in a רשות הרבים the דין is that קרן, a תם pays חצי נזק and a מועד pays נזק שלם. Then the fourth rule is that לא לזה ולא לזה, if it was a רשות that did not belong to this one, not to the מזיק, and it didn't belong to this one, not to the ניזק, כגון, for instance, חצר שאינה של שניהם, a חצר, a yard that did not belong to any of them, and as רש״י brings here, the גמרא will explain it means it did not belong to both, but it did belong to one, to the ניזק, So if it's a yard that belonged to the ניזק, so the דין is that חייבין בו על השן ועל הרגל. So for שן ורגל you are חייב because it was the רשות of the ניזק, as we just said. And in the רשות of the ניזק, you're חייב for שן ורגל. But על הנגיחה ועל הנשיכה ועל הנגיפה ועל הרביצה ועל הבעיטה, for all these, which are קרן, so תם משלם חצי נזק, a תם would have to pay half of the נזק, and a מועד משלם נזק שלם, and a מועד would pay complete נזק. And the גמרא later on will ask that if we're going to say that this means the חצר הניזק, so in the beginning of the ברייתא we said that a חצר הניזק, even a תם of קרן, pays the complete נזק. And now we're saying that this is a חצר הניזק because, as we just said before, לא לזה ולא לזה, when the ברייתא says it doesn't belong to this one and not to this one, it means not to both, but only to one, to the ניזק, and nevertheless the דין is that a תם for קרן pays חצי נזק. So it's a contradiction in the ברייתות, and the גמרא will ask that later. But here we have the complete ברייתא, and the גמרא says קתני מיהת, so at least we see in this ברייתא that one of the cases was חצר השותפין והבקעה, that if it's a yard of partners or the valley, פטור בו על השן ועל הרגל, you are פטור for שן ורגל. So this is the ברייתא that ר' אלעזר brought to show us that we have a ברייתא that says that in חצר השותפין you are פטור for שן ורגל. Then the גמרא asks: קשיין אהדדי, but after all, there is a contradiction between these two ברייתות. The ברייתא that רב יוסף taught us says that חצר השותפין and the פונדק, the inn, you are חייב for שן ורגל, and in this ברייתא it says that in the חצר השותפין and the בקעה you are פטור for שן ורגל. And the גמרא answers like this: כי תניא ההיא, that this ברייתא where it says that you are פטור for שן ורגל in חצר השותפין, that's בחצר מיוחדת לזה ולזה בין לפירות בין לשוורים. It was a real yard of partners that both of the partners, the מזיק and the ניזק, had a right to bring into that yard their oxen and they had a right to bring in their fruit. And therefore, it's ממש a חצר השותפין. So the דין is that in חצר השותפין you are פטור from שן ורגל. But ההיא דרב יוסף, that ברייתא that רב יוסף brought where it says that חצר השותפין you are חייב for שן ורגל, that's בחצר מיוחדת לפירות, that for פירות, for fruit, it was a yard that both had a right to put their fruit in, ואינה מיוחדת לשוורים, but not both had a right to bring their oxen in. Just the ניזק had a right to bring his oxen, but the מזיק had no right to bring his oxen. So he wasn't a complete partner. He was only a partner that he was allowed to put his fruit in. Both had a right to put their fruit in, but not both had a right to put in their oxen. The מזיק had no right to put in the ox. And therefore, דלגבי שן הויא לה חצר הניזק. So לגבי the דין of שן, it is considered a yard of the ניזק, because only the ניזק had a right to bring in his oxen. The מזיק had no right to bring in his ox. So the question is: What was the ox doing in this field, that he should be able to eat up the פירות of the ניזק? He had no right to go in. And therefore, since he had no right to bring in his ox, so this ברייתא says that in חצר השותפין you are חייב for שן ורגל, because לגבי the ox going in and eating the fruit, it is not really a חצר השותפין. It is not really a yard of partners, because the מזיק had no right to bring his ox in. And the גמרא says דיקא נמי, we could even prove from a דיוק of both ברייתות that one ברייתא is a complete partnership and one ברייתא is not, from the words of the ברייתא. דקתני הכא, because in the ברייתא of רב יוסף it says דומיא דפונדק. It says the חצר of the שותפין and the inn. So it tells us that what kind of yard of שותפין are we talking about? Similar to the inn. And we know that in an inn you cannot bring in an ox, because the guests are there and they bring in their merchandise and it's obvious that you cannot bring in an ox. So that tells us that the ברייתא of רב יוסף is in a case where you could not bring in the ox. וקתני התם, and in the other ברייתא where it says you are פטור for שן ורגל, it says דומיא דבקעה. It takes an example of חצר השותפין and a valley. In a valley you do bring in an ox. שמע מינה, so that tells us that that is the difference between these two ברייתות. מתיב רב זירא, but then רב זירא asked a קושיא: כיון דמיוחדת לפירות, we said that in the ברייתא of רב יוסף it's a case where both had a right to bring in the fruit. It's just that the מזיק had no right to bring in his ox, that's why you're חייב. But nevertheless, רב זירא asked, since they both had a right to bring in the fruit, הא בעינן ובער בשדה אחר וליכא. Don't we need, in order to be חייב for שן ורגל, that it has to be considered someone else's field? But since the מזיק also had a right to bring in his fruit, לכאורה it should not be considered someone else's field, the field of the ניזק, since the מזיק had the same right concerning the fruit as the ניזק. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, כיון דאינם מיוחדת לשוורים, since it is not for oxen a שותפות, in other words the מזיק had no right to bring in his ox, שדה אחר קרינן ביה, so it is considered someone else's field, because we look at the מזיק, and since the מזיק, the ox, had no right to come in, it is considered the field of the ניזק concerning שן ורגל. אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא, so רב אחא מדפתי said to רבינא, לימא, let us say, מידי דמתניתא לא פליגי, since the ברייתות don't argue, we found a way to show that there is no מחלוקת in the ברייתות, but each ברייתא speaking in a different case, אמוראי נמי לא פליגי, maybe the אמוראים are also not arguing? We said before that there was a מחלוקת between רב חסדא and רבי אלעזר, that רב חסדא said that you are חייב for שן ורגל in חצר השותפין, and רבי

אלעזר said you are פטור, maybe they too are not arguing? Maybe one is speaking in a case when there is a complete שותפות for the oxen and for the fruit, and that's why he says that you are פטור, and the one that says that you are חייב is speaking in a case where they only had a right both to bring in the fruit, but the מזיק had no right to bring in his ox. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אין, yes, you are right, it's possible that really they are not arguing and they're talking about two different cases. ואם תמצי לומר פליגי, but if you do want to say that they are arguing, the מחלוקת is בקושיא דרבי זירא, it is concerning the קשיא that רבי זירא asked, ובפירוקא דאביי פליגי, and the answer of אביי, that's their מחלוקת, that what would be their מחלוקת, whether we accept the קשיא of רבי זירא or whether we accept the תירץ of אביי. As we as we said before that in the case where they both have a right to bring in their fruit, and the מזיק has no right to bring in his ox, so רבי זירא asked a קשיא why still should be the דין that you are חייב, after all it is not considered שדה אחר, since the מזיק also had a right to bring in his fruit, it should not be considered the רשות of the ניזק. And אביי answered that nevertheless, since the מזיק had no right to bring in his ox, it is considered the רשות of the ניזק. So this is the מחלוקת between רב חסדא and רבי אלעזר, whether we accept the קשיא of רבי זירא or we accept the תירץ of אביי, which means that the מחלוקת between רב חסדא and רבי אלעזר is in a case where they are partners in the fruit, that they both have a right to bring in their fruit, but the מזיק has no right to bring in his ox. And the מחלוקת between רב חסדא and רבי אלעזר is that רב חסדא who says חייב, because he holds like the תירץ of אביי, that this is considered the חצר הניזק, and רבי אלעזר who says that you are פטור, cuz he holds like the קשיא of רבי זירא, that it is not considered בשדה אחר, because after all it is a partnership and the מזיק has a right to put in his fruit, so it's not considered בשדה אחר, and therefore he holds that you are פטור. Then the גמרא continues, גופא, now we will explain the גוף of the ברייתא that we brought before. We brought the ברייתא before where it says, ארבעה כללות היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בנזיקין, four rules did רבי שמעון בן אלעזר say concerning נזיקין. The first thing was that כל שהוא רשות לניזק ולא למזיק, if it's רשות for the ניזק and not for the מזיק, חייב בכל, you're חייב for everything. And the גמרא is מדייק, על הכל לא קתני, it doesn't say you're חייב for everything, אלא חייב בכל, you're חייב in everything. If it would say that you are חייב on everything, it would mean for any type of נזק that was done you are חייב, for שן and רגל and קרן, etc. Since he says you're חייב for everything, it means you are חייב for all the damage that's done, בכולי נזק, in the complete נזק. So it's as if the ברייתא is telling us that for whatever damage was done you are always חייב to pay the full damage. And normally we know that a תם of a קרן is חייב only חצי נזק, and here the ברייתא is saying that if it was a רשות only of the ניזק, not of the מזיק, you are always חייב to pay נזק שלם even if it was a תם of קרן. And the question is מני, who says that, who is that מאן דאמר that holds

that way? And the גמרא answers, רבי טרפון היא, this is רבי טרפון, דאמר, that he says, משונה קרן בחצר הניזק, if קרן, which was a תם, caused damage in the yard of the ניזק, נזק שלם משלם, you pay the complete נזק. And the reason here he refers to קרן תם with the word משונה, because משונה means different, and that is different, because as long as it didn't become a מועד, its דרך is not to cause damage through קרן, and since it did cause damage through קרן the first or second or third time, it is still a change in the nature of this animal, that's why he refers to it as משונה. But he what he says is that if it was a קרן תם in the רשות of the ניזק, then you do pay complete נזק. If it was done in the רשות הרבים, then you pay חצי נזק for a תם by קרן, but if it was in the רשות of the ניזק, you pay the complete נזק. So this ברייתא goes according to רבי טרפון. Then the גמרא asks, אימא סיפא, let's say the סיפא, look into the end of the ברייתא, there it says, לא לזה ולא לזה, if it was a רשות not to him and not to him, not of the מזיק and not of the ניזק, כגון חצר שאינה של שניהם, a yard which is not of both, חייב בה על השן ועל הרגל, you are חייב for שן ורגל. And let's see what this ברייתא means. מאי לא לזה ולא לזה? What does the ברייתא mean that this was the yard that didn't belong not to the מזיק and not to the ניזק? אילימא if we're going to say לא לזה ולא לזה כלל, that it doesn't belong not to the מזיק and not to the ניזק at all, אלא דאחר, but to a third party, and what the ברייתא is telling us that if, let's say, ראובן's ox caused damage to שמעון's ox in the domain of לוי, and that's what the ברייתא says that you are חייב for שן ורגל, how can that be? והא בעינן ובער בשדה אחר וליכא, don't we need that a שן and רגל is only חייב if it causes damage in the רשות of the ניזק? But if it causes damage in the רשות of somebody else, then you are פטור, this is not considered ובער בשדה אחר. So you cannot say that the ברייתא meant that it caused damage in a רשות which was not of the מזיק and not of the ניזק. אלא פשיטא, so then then we must say for sure it's simple, that לא לזה ולא לזה, אלא דחד. It means that it's not both, not his and his, but only of one. Now this one means that it's the רשות of the ניזק. And therefore it says that if it happened through שן ורגל, you are חייב, because as we know in the רשות הניזק you are חייב for שן ורגל. But if so, קתני סיפא, it says there further in the סיפא, that in the same case, תם משלם חצי נזק, ומועד משלם נזק שלם, that a תם pays half of the נזק and a מועד pays complete נזק. So what the ברייתא is telling us that if the נזק was done in the רשות הניזק, still קרן תם pays half of the נזק. So this אתיא לרבנן, this comes out according to the רבנן, דאמרי that they say משונה קרן בחצר הניזק, that if קרן, which was תם, caused damage in the רשות of the ניזק, חצי נזק הוא דמשלם, you still pay half a נזק, even if it was done in the רשות of the ניזק, because that's what the ברייתא is telling us, the ברייתא is telling us that if it was a רשות that didn't belong to both, and as we established, it means it belonged only to the ניזק, so you're חייב for שן ורגל, and for קרן, תם pays חצי נזק, and a מועד נזק שלם, so the ברייתא is saying that תם קרן in the חצר of the ניזק still pays חצי נזק. That fits according to the רבנן that hold that משונה קרן בחצר הניזק חצי נזק הוא דמשלם, that a קרן תם even in the רשות of the ניזק pays חצי נזק. So it comes out רישא רבי טרפון וסיפא רבנן, that the beginning of the ברייתא seemed to be saying that קרן תם in the רשות of the ניזק pays נזק שלם, that fits according to רבי טרפון, and the סיפא of the ברייתא seems to fit only according to the רבנן. And the גמרא answers, אין, yes. דהא אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה, as שמואל said to רב יהודה: שיננא, smart person, sharp person, שבוק מתניתין, leave over the משנה, don't try to go deeper into the משנה, ותא בתראי, and follow me, that רישא רבי טרפון וסיפא רבנן, that the רישא is רבי טרפון and the end, the סיפא is רבנן. This was referring to a משנה later on where we had the same problem, that it seemed like the רישא was only according to רבי טרפון and the סיפא went according to the רבנן, and we had the same question, and there שמואל said to רב יהודה, don't try to explain the משנה, don't look deeper, try to explain it some other way, do as I do: say that the רישא is טאקע רבי טרפון, וסיפא רבנן, that it's possible for the same משנה that part of the משנה should go according to one מאן דאמר and part of the משנה according to the other מאן דאמר. So the same thing we'll do with this ברייתא, that the רישא of the ברייתא goes according to רבי טרפון, and the סיפא of the ברייתא goes according to רבנן. But רבינא משמיה דרבא אמר, רבינא in the name of רבא says that כולה רבי טרפון, באמת the whole ברייתא goes according to רבי טרפון. So the רישא of the ברייתא makes sense, that if it's in the חצר of the ניזק, you pay בכוליה, even קרן תם will pay נזק שלם. The question was in the סיפא, where it said that if it was a חצר not for him and not for him, and we established it means for only of one, of the ניזק, nevertheless תם pays חצי נזק. So he says, ומאי לא לזה ולא לזה? What did when it comes to קרן it has the same דין as a רשות הרבים, and therefore even רבי טרפון would admit that a תם would only pay חצי נזק because it is considered a רשות הרבים, because they both had a right to bring in his ox. But concerning שן, it is still considered חצר הניזק, and that's why you are חייב for

שן. And then the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, ארבעה? How does he say that there are four כללים that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said? שלשה הוו, they are only three. And as תוספות explains that ממילא as we said before that the רישא was רבי טרפון and the סיפא was רבנן, so you have to tell us the סיפא as a separate דין to tell us the opinion of the רבנן. But according to the way we're saying now now that the סיפא also goes according to רבי טרפון, but the case is that it was a שותפות concerning שוורים, and it was only חצר הניזק concerning פירות, so that is understood already from the previous three cases, that is nothing new, that קרן pays חצי נזק in רשות הרבים, we know that from the cases before, that שן is חייב in the רשות הניזק, we know that from before, so this case is a complete extra case, so how can he say that it is four כללים that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר told us? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said that what he meant was, שלושה כללות, there are three rules, but בארבע מקומות, those three rules could apply to four places, to four different domains. And as רש''י explains, which are the three rules? That in the רשות of the ניזק, you're חייב in everything, even a קרן תם pays נזק שלם. In the רשות of the מזיק, you're פטור from everything. In the רשות of the שותפים, so you're חייב חצי נזק by קרן, and you're פטור from שן ורגל. But these three rules could apply to four places, because you do have a חצר השותפים where you would be חייב for שן ורגל, and there would be a חצי נזק for קרן תם, and that is, as we said before, if it was only for the ניזק for פירות, and for both for שוורים. In this last תירוץ that we just learned in the גמרא, that the whole ברייתא goes according to רבי טרפון, and the גמרא said that what did the ברייתא mean, לא לזה ולא לזה אלא דחד, that the רשות didn't belong to any but to one, but just to the ניזק, so the גמרא explained that פירות, only the ניזק could bring in, but the שוורים they both could bring in, so the רבינו תם in תוספות has a different גירסא. His גירסא is that only one could bring in the פירות, that is the ניזק, and nobody, none of them, not the מזיק and not the ניזק, could bring in the ox. And that's the reason why לגבי קרן it is considered a רשות הרבים, because they both had no right to come there, and לגבי שן it is considered the רשות הניזק, because the ניזק had a right to bring in the פירות. And the reason he learns that way, because he says if they both had a right to bring in the ox, so then why לגבי שן is it considered the רשות הניזק? Even though the ניזק was the only one that had a right to bring in the פירות, but nevertheless, since the מזיק also had a right to bring in his ox, so why should we consider it לגבי the damage that the ox caused to the פירות, the רשות הניזק? Therefore, he learns that it's the case where both had no right to bring in the ox, and that's why it's considered לגבי שן a חצר הניזק, because the ניזק had a right to bring in the פירות, and the מזיק had no right to bring in his ox, neither did the ניזק, but neither did the מזיק, and therefore it is considered that it is the רשות of the ניזק לגבי שן, and לגבי קרן it's called a רשות הרבים. And the reason the גמרא doesn't want to say like we said before, that it's in a case where they both had a right for the פירות, and they did not have a right for the שוורים, the מזיק could not bring in the שור, because then it would be not like רב זירא, because according to רב זירא, this is considered not the רשות הניזק, and you should be פטור, and here we're trying to say that you're חייב for

שן ורגל. And also תוספות says, because the לשון of the ברייתא is not משמע that way. And now we will continue with the משנה. The משנה says, שום כסף, when בית דין evaluates the damage, it should be evaluated by its money's worth, but when you pay, שוה כסף, you're allowed to pay an object which is worth money, you don't have to pay money itself. And it has to be done בפני בית דין, in front of בית דין, ועל פי עדים, and it has to be done according to witnesses who are בני חורין, free people, not עבדים, not slaves, meaning not עבדים כנענים, not גויישע slaves, and they have to be עדים that are בני ברית, that are יידן. והנשים בכלל הנזק, women are also included in the damage. והניזק והמזיק בתשלומין, there is a possibility that the ניזק and the מזיק both should have to take part in the payment for the נזק. And as רש''י says, the גמרא will explain what this whole משנה means. The גמרא starts off by saying, מאי שום כסף? What did the משנה mean when it said that when you evaluate, you have to evaluate it by its money's worth? אמר רב יהודה, so רב יהודה said, שום זה, that this evaluation that you do to the damage, לא יהא אלא בכסף, should only be with its money. What does that mean? What is the חידוש that when you evaluate, it should be for its money's worth? תנינא להא דתנו רבנן, the משנה is really teaching us the דין that we learned in the ברייתא. It says in the ברייתא, פרה שהזיקה טלית, if a פרה, a cow, caused damage to a garment, וטלית שהזיקה פרה, and that garment caused damage to the cow, אין אומרים, we do not say, תצא פרה בטלית וטלית בפרה, let the damage done to the cow be set off by the damage done to the טלית, and the damage done to the טלית should be set off by the damage done to the cow, and as רש״י says, this would mean that he takes the cow that caused the damage to his טלית, and you don't evaluate to see how much the damage was to the טלית and how much the damage was to the cow. But all he would do is take the cow, and that would be it. So you don't say that, אלא שמין אותו בדמים, you evaluate in money. You see what was the damage done to the cow, how much was the damage done to the טלית. And whatever the difference is, so that person has to pay that difference to the other person. But that's what the משנה means when it says שום כסף, that when you evaluate a damage, you have to evaluate exactly how much the damage is worth, and that's how much

you pay. Then the משנה said שוה כסף, that you pay with property which is worth money. דתנו רבנן, because they learned in the ברייתא, שוה כסף, that when we say that you have to pay שוה כסף, מלמד, that teaches us, שאין בית דין נזקקין, that בית דין will not get involved and make the מזיק pay, אלא לנכסים שיש להם אחריות, only if the מזיק has property which is guaranteed, which means real estate property. That's the only time that the בית דין will get involved to make the מזיק pay. And the גמרא will explain soon how the words שוה כסף mean that only if there is property, that's when the בית דין will get involved. But the ברייתא continues, אבל אם קדם ניזק ותפס מטלטלין, if the ניזק went along and he grabbed onto מטלטלין, בית דין גובין לו מהן. בית דין would make him collect from it. לכתחילה, בית דין would not make the מזיק pay unless he has קרקע. But if the ניזק happened to grab מטלטלין, then בית דין will allow him to keep it. Now the גמרא explains, אמר מר, we just learned שוה כסף, that the words שוה כסף, מלמד, teach us שאין בית דין נזקקין אלא לנכסים שיש להם אחריות, that בית דין will not get involved unless the מזיק has property, real estate property. מאי משמע? How do the words שוה כסף show that it is only if there is קרקע involved? אמר רבה בר עולא, רבה בר עולא said that the words שוה כסף means דבר השוה כל כסף, something which is worth all the money. מאי ניהו? What is that? דבר שאין לו אונאה, something which you cannot cheat. Because like this, the דין is if you sell something to somebody and you overprice it with a sixth, so then the deal is off, and you have to give back the money. But by קרקע the דין is that even if you sell it more than a sixth, still the deal is good and it's not בטל, because קרקע אין לו אונאה, there is no such thing as cheating in קרקע because whatever you pay for it, it's worth. The truth is תוספות does say that if you overprice with more than half, so then the deal is בטל. But what the גמרא means that it's worth all the money, it means more than other מטלטלין. Because by מטלטלין we say that if you overprice with a sixth, already the deal is בטל, but by קרקע, even if you overprice with a sixth and even more, still the deal is not בטל. So that's what the words שוה כסף mean, something which is worth all the money, and that means נכסים שיש להם אחריות, that is real estate

property. But then the גמרא asks, עבדים ושטרות נמי אין להם אונאה, that slaves and documents also don't have אונאה. The דין is that when you sell a slave and you overprice him more than a sixth, also the deal is not בטל, just like קרקע. And also שטרות, if you sell a document and you price it more than it really is worth, still it is not בטל. אלא אמר רבה בר עולא, רבה בר עולא said that how does the words שוה כסף indicate קרקע? Because דבר הנקנה בכסף, it means something that you are קונה, you acquire with כסף, with money. Because the דין is that when you want to be קונה קרקע, you are קונה it through כסף, שטר, וחזקה, or through paying the money or through making a חזקה on it, or through a שטר. While מטלטלין you're קונה through משיכה, through pulling it, and קרקע you are קונה through כסף. So that's what שוה כסף means, something that you are קונה through כסף. But then the גמרא asks, עבדים ושטרות נמי נקני בכסף. An עבד, when you want to acquire an עבד כנעני, a גויישע עבד, you also are able to acquire him through כסף. So how can we say it means only קרקע? And שטרות, also, if you want to acquire a שטר, you could acquire it through כסף. So רש״י says he doesn't know where the source to this דין is that you're able to be קונה a שטר through כסף. תוספות טאקע says that you are not גורס in the גמרא the words שטרות. The גמרא's קושיא is only עבדים נמי נקני בכסף, that עבדים you can be קונה through כסף, and the גמרא does not mention שטרות. But רש״י did have the גירסא in the גמרא that שטרות you קונה בכסף, therefore רש״י writes he doesn't know the source for this. But the קושיא of the גמרא is, how can you say שוה כסף means קרקע because you are קונה קרקע through כסף, well not only קרקע you are קונה through כסף, also עבדים and שטרות. אלא אמר רב אשי, therefore רב אשי said that how does שוה כסף indicate קרקע? שוה כסף ולא כסף, something which is worth money and not money itself. והני כולהו, and all these, all the מטלטלין, כסף נינהו, are כסף itself, it's money itself. Like the גמרא said before, that מטלטלין is always money, because if you can't sell it here, you could take it with you someplace else and sell it someplace else. קרקע, if you can't sell it here, you're stuck, you can't pick it up and take it someplace else. So therefore קרקע is considered שוה כסף, it's worth money, but all the other מטלטלין is considered כסף itself. And that's how we know that שוה כסף means קרקע, because that is the only thing that is worth כסף and not כסף itself.

And then the גמרא says, אמר ליה רב יהודה בר חיננא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע, רב יהודה בר חיננא asked a question to רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: תניא, we learn in this ברייתא: שוה כסף מלמד שאין בית דין נזקקין אלא לנכסים שיש להם אחריות, that the word שוה כסף teaches us that the בית דין would only get involved to collect for the damage if the מזיק has real estate, has קרקע. Otherwise, it seems he is not obligated to pay. והתניא, didn't we learn, ישיב, that from the word ישיב that the תורה says by the payment of damage, לרבות שוה כסף, that teaches us that you could pay with anything which is worth money, ואפילו סובין, even with bran. So how can we say here that you only are able to pay with קרקע? And the גמרא answers: הכא במאי עסקינן, that here we're talking in a case ביתמי, by יתומים, that the מזיק himself died. And now we're dealing with his יתומים, with the orphans, those that inherited his property. The דין is that מטלטלי דיתמי לבעל חוב לא משתעבדי, that if the יתומים inherit מטלטלין, that is not משועבד to any of the claims against the father. If they inherit קרקע, so then all the קרקעות are משועבד to any claims against the father. So in the case of a מזיק, if the father was responsible to pay for a היזק, and the יתומים inherited קרקע, so then this קרקע is משועבד to the ניזק. So that's what the ברייתא means, that the בית דין would only get involved if there is קרקע. But if they only inherited מטלטלין, then the בית דין will not get involved, because the מטלטלין of the יתומים which they inherited from their father is not משועבד to the ניזק. But then the גמרא asks: אי ביתמי, if you're going to tell me that we're talking in the case of יתומים, אימא סיפא, say the סיפא, look into the end of the ברייתא. It says there: אם קדם ניזק ותפס מטלטלין, if the ניזק went along and grabbed some מטלטלין, then בית דין גובין לו מהן, בית דין will allow him to keep it, will have him collect

from the מטלטלין. But אי ביתמי, if we're talking in a case of יתומים, אמאי בית דין גובין לו מהן? Why should בית דין make the ניזק collect from the מטלטלין if the דין is that the מטלטלין of the יתומים are not משועבד to any of the חובות, to any of the claims? So why if the ניזק grabbed מטלטלין, we will allow him to keep it? The גמרא answers: כדאמר רבא אמר רב נחמן, just like רבא said in the name of רב נחמן concerning a different דין, שתפס מחיים, that it's speaking in a case that he grabbed onto it while the father was still alive, הכא נמי, here too we could say שתפס מחיים, it's speaking in a case that he grabbed onto it while the father was still alive. So therefore, this מטלטלין that the ניזק grabbed, took while the father was still alive, and later came to בית דין claiming the money, so the בית דין will allow him to keep those מטלטלין. But if he did not grab any מטלטלין while the father was alive, so then if the יתומים inherited מטלטלין, then we will not make them pay to the ניזק. But if they have קרקע, then the בית דין will make them pay with the קרקע to the ניזק, because the קרקע is משועבד to this חוב. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה: בפני בית דין, that this should all be done in front of a בית דין. So what does it mean? פרט, comes to exclude, למוכר נכסיו, if someone sells his property, ואחר כך הולך לבית דין, then he comes to בית דין, and he doesn't have any property. So then בית דין will not have the ניזק collect from the מזיק, because the מזיק doesn't have anything. And the way it seems to be saying is that we will not allow the ניזק to go to the לקוחות, to those that bought his property and to take from them, but we will tell the ניזק that he

cannot collect. So the גמרא asks: שמע מינה, are you trying to tell us that לוה, if a person borrowed money, ומכר נכסיו, and he sold his property, ואחר כך בא לבית דין, then he comes to בית דין, אין בית דין גובין לו מהם, בית דין will not have him collect? That is not true. The דין is that if a person borrows money and has קרקע, so his קרקע is משועבד to this loan. So even if he sells his קרקע, when the מלוה, the lender, will come and want to collect his חוב, he He will be able to go to the לקוחות and collect, he will be able to go to those who bought the property, and he will collect from them. But what you're saying here is that if a person sells his נכסים, and then comes to בית דין, בית דין will not have him collect. That דין is not true. אלא, therefore the גמרא says, what it said in the משנה בפני בית דין, it meant פרט לבית דין הדיוטות. It has to be in the בית דין which are experts. But if the בית דין are not experts, a בית דין הדיוטות, it's a בית דין of laymen, then you cannot collect from the נזיקין, because the דין is that in order to collect קנס, to collect a fine, only a בית דין that has סמיכה איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו, that has the proper סמיכה as it used to be given in the time of the תנאים, only that type of בית דין could make a person collect from קנס. And that's what the משנה is saying here, that when would we have the ניזק collect the היזק, collect the money for the היזק, only if the בית דין was a בית דין that had סמיכה, because otherwise they couldn't collect קנס. And since one of the נזיקין is קנס, because the הלכה is that פלגא ניזקא קנסא, that when a תם, for קרן, pays חצי נזק, that is קנס, so in that case, you can't collect unless you have a בית דין מומחים, a בית דין

that has סמיכה. And תוספות says that even though according to one מאן דאמר, קרן is not even mentioned in the משנה, according to שמואל, שור means רגל, and מבעה means שן, and קרן is not mentioned. So how can we say that the משנה is telling us that you have to have a בית דין with סמיכה, because otherwise you can't collect the קנס, when the משנה is not even talking about קנס, because the only קנס is קרן תם, when you pay חצי נזק, and the משנה doesn't even mention קרן at all? So תוספות says that even though the משנה doesn't mention קרן, but nevertheless, the משנה is מרמז here, the משנה hints to us, that when you pay for נזק, there is a kind of נזק that you cannot pay unless the בית דין has סמיכה. And even if that is not actually mentioned in the משנה, because קרן is not mentioned according to שמואל, but nevertheless it is a נזק that could be hinted concerning its payment in the משנה. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה: על פי עדים, that you only pay if there were witnesses, פרט, this comes to exclude: למודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים שהוא פטור, that if it was the case of קנס, and as we said, there is a case of קנס concerning נזיקין, that is if you pay חצי נזק for קרן תם. So if the person is מודה himself concerning the קנס, and then witnesses came to say that his ox gored and caused damage, but the דין is that he's פטור, because the כלל is that מודה בקנס פטור. If someone is obligated to pay a fine for something that he did, which is only a fine and not ממון, only קנס, so then the דין is that if he himself is מודה that he did it, he is פטור from paying the קנס. And then there's another דין, according to one מאן דאמר, that not only if he is מודה in the קנס he is פטור, but even if later on witnesses came and said, testified that he did the thing, nevertheless, since he admitted first, he is פטור. And that is what the משנה is trying to tell us with the words על פי עדים, that when are you חייב in the case of קנס? Only if witnesses came to say that you did the thing. But if you admitted yourself, even if witnesses came later, still you are פטור. And the גמרא asks: הא ניחא, this is only good למאן דאמר, according to the one that holds: מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור, that if a person admits himself concerning something that you are חייב a fine for, and then עדים came, you are still פטור. So then we understand what the משנה is trying to tell us. אלא למאן דאמר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב, מאי איכא למימר? But according to the מאן דאמר that says that if you admit yourself first, but then עדים came, you are חייב because of the עדים that came later, so according to that מאן דאמר, what is the משנה trying to exclude with the words על פי עדים? We cannot say, as תוספות explains, that the משנה is trying to tell us that you are פטור in a case where the person himself admitted and עדים did not come later, in a regular case of מודה בקנס, because that is בפירוש a משנה later on in פרק מרובה, that על פי עצמו פטור, that if a person admits himself in something which is קנס, he is פטור. So we can't say that this is what the משנה is trying to tell us here. So obviously the משנה is trying to tell us here that you are פטור even if after you were מודה, עדים came. But according to the מאן דאמר that holds that מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים, you are חייב, not פטור, what can we say does the משנה mean with the words על פי עדים? What is the חידוש with the words על פי עדים? And the גמרא answers: סיפא איצטריכא ליה. Really, there is no חידוש in the words על פי עדים, and the reason the משנה says על פי עדים is because it wants to tell us the סיפא, the few words he says after על פי עדים. He's trying to tell us which kind of עדים you must have, that you must have בני חורין, free people, ובני ברית, and people who are in the ברית of יידן, which means you must have יידן. So that's why he says the words על פי עדים, because this is really only an introduction to the other two words of בני חורין and בני ברית. What did he try to tell us with these words? בני חורין, when he says that they have to be free people, למעוטי עבדים, that comes to exclude עבדים. עבדים כנענים, גויישע slaves, that they are not כשר to be עדות. בני ברית, the words בני ברית, למעוטי עובדי כוכבים, comes to exclude גוים. וצריכא, and the משנה has to exclude both, because if the משנה would only exclude one, we wouldn't automatically know the other. Because I would say דאי אשמעינן עבד, if the משנה would only let us know that an עבד is פסול for עדות, I would say משום דאין לו יחס, because an עבד has no ancestors. He is not considered the son of his father, as רש״י brings that the גמרא learns it out from the פסוק עם החמור, when אברהם אבינו said to his עבד, "Stay here with the donkey," so instead of reading it עם החמור, we should read it עם החמור, the nation of the donkey, a nation which is similar to a donkey. Just like an animal, a donkey, has no יחוס, so too an עבד has no יחוס. So I would say that's why he's פסול לעדות. אבל נכרי, but a גוי דאית ליה יחוס, he does have יחוס, as רש״י brings a פסוק in תנ״ך where we are מייחס a גוי to his father, אימא לא, I would think he is not included in this דין, and he would be כשר לעדות. Therefore, the משנה has to tell us that a גוי is פסול לעדות. ואי אשמעינן נכרי, if the משנה would just let us know that a גוי is פסול לעדות, I would think משום דלא שייך במצות, because he is not connected to מצות at all, that's why he's פסול. אבל עבד דשייך במצות, but an עבד, which is connected to מצות, because we know that an עבד כנעני is obligated to perform the מצות that a woman is obligated, all מצות לא תעשה and all מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, so I would think אימא לא that an עבד is not included in this איסור of being כשר לעדות. Therefore, צריכא, we have to have the משנה to tell us also that an עבד is also פסול לעדות. So that's why the משנה has to tell

us both. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, והנשים בכלל הנזק, women are also included in בנזק, whatever the דין concerning נזק would be by a man, the same דין would apply to a woman. So the גמרא asks, מנא הני מילי, how do we know that? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, so רב יהודה said in the name of רב, וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, that's how they also learned in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל, אמר קרא, because the פסוק says, איש או אשה, a man or a woman, כי יעשו מכל חטאת, if he will do any of the sins, so השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש, the תורה compared a woman to a man לכל עונשין שבתורה, concerning all punishments of the תורה. So we see that wherever there's a דין of punishment on the man, and he's forbidden to do something, and he will be punished if he will not do it, so too a woman is not allowed to do it and will be punished if she will do it. דבי רב אלעזר תני, the ישיבה of רב אלעזר they learned, the פסוק says in the beginning of פרשת משפטים, ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, these are the דינים that you should put in front of them, and this is an introduction to all the דיני ממונות, all the monetary דינים that the תורה tells us. So since it starts off by saying these are the דינים that you should put in front of them, them meaning everybody, השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש, so the תורה compared a woman to a man לכל דינים שבתורה, concerning all monetary דינים in the תורה. דבי חזקיה ודבי רבי יוסי הגלילי תני, the ישיבה of חזקיה and רבי יוסי הגלילי learned, אמר קרא, the פסוק says והמית איש או אשה, that if an ox gores and kills a man or a woman, so the תורה says that the owner of the ox is obligated to pay כופר. So here, since the תורה says a man or a woman, השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש, so the תורה compared a woman to a man לכל מיתות שבתורה, concerning all deaths of the תורה. Whatever the דין would be when you kill a man, the same דין would apply if a woman is killed. And the גמרא says צריכא, we must have all three פסוקים. If we would have one of the three, we would not automatically know that the same דין applies to the other. Because דאי אשמעינן קמייתא, if it would only tell us the first one, if we would only know that the תורה compared a woman to a man concerning all the punishments of the תורה, I would think התם over there, הוא דחס רחמנא עלה, that's where the תורה had רחמנות on her and said she will get punished like a man, כי היכי דתהוי לה כפרה, in order for her to have a כפרה, since this will cause השם to forgive her, so the אויבערשטער wanted a woman to be forgiven, too. That's why He said that she is like a man in this דין. אבל דינין, but when it comes to monetary דינים, I would think that only איש, a man, דבר משא ומתן, that he is a person who does business, אין, he is included in the דינים of דיני ממונות. אשה, but a woman, לא, a woman not, since a woman is not usually a business person, therefore all these דיני ממונות do not apply to a woman. Therefore, the תורה has to tell us also that the דינים of דיני ממונות apply to a woman, too. ואי אשמעינן דינים, and if the תורה would just tell us that she is included in all the דיני ממונות, I would think כי היכי דתיהוי לה חיותא, in order for her to make a living, because if she would not be included into the דיני ממונות, no one would want to do business with her, because people could steal from her, she could steal from others, so you couldn't do business with her. Therefore, she wouldn't be able to make a living, so the תורה said that she is included into the דינים. אבל כפרה, but when it comes to a כפרה, which is the first פסוק, I would think איש, a man, דבר מצוה, that he is person who has to do all the מצות, אין, he is included in the עונשין of the תורה, in the punishments of the תורה. אשה, but a woman, דלאו בת מצוה, she is not usually included in the מצות, לא, she is not included in the עונשין. So I wouldn't know that a woman is also included in the עונשין of the תורה. ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי, if the תורה would just tell us these two, concerning the עונשין, that a woman is like a man, and concerning all the monetary דינים, that she's like a man, I would think הכא משום כפרה, והכא משום חיותא. Here, in the case of the עונשין, she is included because השם wants her to get a כפרה. In the case of the monetary דינים, she's included in order for her to make a living. אבל ענין קטלא, but in the case of death, when she is killed, I would maybe think she is not included. Not the same דין that applies if someone kills a man would be if someone kills a woman, because I would say איש, a man, דבר מצוה, that he is included in the מצות, so there לשלם כופר, there, the one that caused his death has to pay כופר, but אשה, a woman that is not included in so many מצות, לא, I would not know, I would think that if someone kills her doesn't have to pay כופר. So therefore, the תורה has to tell us that she is included in the דין of מיתה, that if an ox kills her, the owner of the ox has to pay כופר, even if it was a woman. ואי אשמעינן כופר, and if the תורה would just tell us the דין of כופר, that a person is supposed to pay כופר if his ox killed a woman, I would think משום דאיכא איבוד נשמה, because after all, there was a loss of a נשמה. A person got killed, which is such a strict thing, therefore the דין is that a woman is like a man, and the owner of the ox has to pay כופר. אבל הני תרתי, but these two, the case of the עונשין and the case of the דיני ממונות, I would think דליכא איבוד נשמה, since there is no loss of a נשמה, it's not as strict as a person being killed, אימא לא, I would think no, I would think that a woman is not like a man concerning עונשין and concerning monetary דינים. Therefore צריכא, therefore, we have to have all three פסוקים. And now that we have all three פסוקים, we know that a woman is equal to a man in all these things, סיי in the עונשין of the תורה, סיי in דיני ממונות of the תורה, and also in the דיני מיתות, that if she is killed, it is the same as if a man would be killed.