Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in בבא קמא, דף ט"ו and דף ט"ז, and we will start the middle of דף ט"ו עמוד א', the two dots, with the words הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין. And the גמרא quotes from the משנה where it's said that הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין, that there is a possibility that the ניזק and the מזיק both participate in the payment for the damage. And the גמרא says, איתמר, we've learned, פלגא נזקא, when you pay half of the נזק for a קרן תם, that is a animal gored, and he was only a תם, and the דין is that you only pay חצי נזק, רב פפא אמר ממונא, רב פפא says that this is ממון, this is regular payment for the damage that you caused. רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר קנסא, רב הונא the son of רב יהושע says that it is a קנס, it is a fine. You wouldn't really have to pay at all, it's just a fine that the תורה said that you have to pay חצי נזק. And the difference whether we consider it ממון or we consider it קנס would be in a case where the person is מודה himself. If the owner of the ox would come to בית דין and say that my ox, that was a תם, gored and caused damage to another ox, so if the דין is that it's ממון, he would still have to pay, because even if you admit, but if it is payment for the damage, the דין is that you have to pay. But if it is considered קנס, we know the דין is מודה בקנס פטור, that if a person himself admits that he is חייב the fine, then he is פטור from paying the fine. So in the case of חצי נזק by קרן תם, if the owner would admit himself, he would be פטור. And the גמרא explains the מחלוקת.

רב פפא אמר ממונא, רב פפא says that it's ממון because קסבר, he holds, סתם שוורים לאו בחזקת שימור קיימי, that normal, regular oxen are considered not being watched, it is common for them to gore, and therefore ובדין הוא דבעי לשלומי כולה, so really, when his ox gores the first time with קרן, so it's he should really pay the whole thing, because really he should have watched the ox, because it's common for the ox to gore, so he should have expected the ox to gore, so he should have watched it. So really he should have paid the whole thing. ורחמנא הוא דחס עליה, but the תורה had רחמנות on him because דאכתי לא יעד תוריה, because after all, his ox wasn't warned yet, since it's the first time, and obviously it is not as common as other kind of היזקות, so therefore, since it was the first time, the תורה had רחמנות and deducted half of the of the damage. So really, the half that he does pay, it is ממון, it is payment for the damage, because really he should have even paid the whole thing, the תורה just took off half. רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר, but רב הונא the son of רב יהושע says קנסא, that when you pay half of the damages it is really only a קנס, because קסבר he holds סתם שוורים בחזקת שימור קיימי, that normally oxen are considered being watched, it is not common for them to gore, ובדין הוא דלא לשלם כלל, and therefore, since it happened the first or second or even the third time, he shouldn't have to pay at all, because we don't expect him to watch his ox from goring, because he shouldn't think it would do it, because it's not common for it the ox to gore. But still, ורחמנא הוא דקנסיה, the תורה קנסed him, fined him, כי היכי דלינטריה לתוריה, because after all, he should have watched his ox, he should have nevertheless watched the ox. So since he didn't, the תורה gave him a fine that he has to pay at least half of the נזק. But that half of the נזק that he pays is only a fine. Then the גמרא says תנן, I'll ask you a קשיא, we learn in our משנה: הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין, that the ניזק and the מזיק both sometimes participate in the payment for the damage. So בשלמא למאן דאמר פלגא נזקא ממונא, מילא, according to the one that holds that when you pay חצי נזק it is ממון, היינו דשייך ניזק בתשלומין. So here we have a case where the ניזק participates in the payment. In the case where the damage was done through a תם, through קרן, so then you only pay חצי נזק, so that damage that you caused and you are responsible to pay for, the תורה is only מחייב for you to pay half, and the other half is lost by the ניזק. אלא למאן דאמר פלגא נזקא קנסא, but according to the one that holds that when you pay חצי נזק it is only a fine, so how can we consider it then that the מזיק and the ניזק both participate in the היזק? השתא, now, דלאו דידיה שקיל, that the ניזק, the half that he does take is not really his anyway, really he doesn't even deserve to take that half, בתשלומין איתיה? So we consider him part of the payment? When we say that he participates in the payment, it means that really it should be paid for, the מזיק should pay for that damage, but we say he participates in the payment. But if we hold that חצי נזק is קנס, so really he doesn't deserve any payment. The half that he does get is also a חידוש, a קנס that the תורה was מחייב the מזיק. So how can we consider it that he, the ניזק, participates in part of the payment? He really doesn't deserve any payment at all. And the גמרא answers:

לא, נצרכה, it only came that to tell us, that what does the משנה mean when it says that there is a possibility for the מזיק and the ניזק both to take part in the payment, אלא לפחת נבילה. It doesn't mean the חצי נזק, but another case, פחת נבילה. פחת נבילה means that the loss of the נבילה, because the דין is that after the animal was killed, so the ניזק keeps the animal, and the מזיק has to give him the difference between the amount the animal is worth now and the amount the animal was worth before. It is not the דין that the מזיק takes the dead animal and he pays him the complete damage, but the ניזק keeps the dead animal, and the מזיק just pays the difference. What happens if between the time when the animal was killed and the time the בית דין was מחייב the מזיק to pay, there was a decrease in price of the dead animal? Who has that loss? So the דין is that the ניזק has that loss. And the מזיק pays the difference between the price the animal was worth at the time it got killed and the time it was alive, but that loss between the time it got killed and the time they went to בית דין, that is on the חשבון of the ניזק. And that's what the משנה means when it says that the ניזק also participates in the payment. There is a loss on the חשבון of the ניזק, it means the loss of the פחת נבילה. But then the גמרא asks, פחת נבילה, if you're telling me that it means the פחת נבילה, הא תני ליה רישא, that already we learned in the משנה before. In the משנה before it said תשלומי נזק, that the מזיק has to pay תשלומי נזק, payment of the נזק, and the גמרא was מדייק, why doesn't it say if the מזיק has to pay the נזק, the damage, why does it say he has to pay for the תשלומין of the נזק? ללמד, that teaches us שהבעלים מטפלין בנבילה, that the owner is the one that has to bother himself with the נבילה. Which means that the owner, the ניזק, keeps the נבילה, and the מזיק just pays the difference between how much the נבילה is worth now and how much it was worth before. And as the גמרא explained, that this really the משנה wouldn't have to tell us, because we know ourselves that if the מזיק wants to pay with the נבילה, he's able to. בכלל he's able to give anything he wants, anything which is worth money, even סובין! Certainly he could give him the נבילה itself. So the חידוש is not just that the בעלים, the ניזק, keeps the נבילה, the חידוש is, as the גמרא said before, that the פחת נבילה goes on the חשבון of the ניזק, that if there is a loss in the amount of money the נבילה is worth between the time it got killed and the time he went to בית דין, then the loss goes on the חשבון of the ניזק. And that we learned out from the words תשלומי נזק, which means not only that you have to pay for the נזק, but the word תשלומין comes from the word being משלים, to add, to complete, and that tells us that the מזיק just has to complete, give the difference in price between how much the נבילה is worth at the time it got killed and how much it was worth before. So this דין of פחת נבילה we already know from the words תשלומי נזק from the previous משנה. So we can't say לכאורה that when it says in this משנה that there is a possibility for the מזיק and the ניזק both to participate in the היזק, it means to tell us the דין of פחת נבילה. So the גמרא says, no, it really does tell us the דין of פחת נבילה. איי, we had it already before? חדא בתם וחדא במועד. One משנה tells us that this דין that פחת נבילה goes on the חשבון of the ניזק concerning a תם, and one משנה tells us the same דין concerning a מועד. וצריכא, and we have to have both. Because דאי אשמועינן תם, if the משנה would only tell us that by תם the דין is that פחת נבילה goes on the חשבון of the ניזק, I would think משום דאכתי לא אייעד, since after all, it didn't become a מועד yet, so we are very lenient with the מזיק, and therefore if there is a loss of פחת נבילה, that's why it goes on the חשבון of the ניזק. אבל מועד, but if it was a מועד, אימא לא, I would think he is not included in this דין, and the פחת נבילה, that loss, also goes on the מזיק, because after all, it is a מועד already. ואי אשמועינן מועד, and if the משנה would just tell us that by a מועד the דין is that פחת נבילה goes on the חשבון of the ניזק, I would think משום דקא משלם כולה, because after all, the מזיק pays for the whole damage, so therefore at least that little loss between the time it got killed and the time they came to בית דין, that the ניזק could lose. אבל תם, but I would think, but in the case of a תם, that he only pays half to begin with, אימא לא, I would think he is not included into the דין and פחת נבילה is on the חשבון of the מזיק, because we don't want to make the ניזק lose more than he's losing already. Since he's losing already half, because he's only getting half of the payment, so maybe the פחת נבילה is on the חשבון of the מזיק. So we wouldn't know, if the משנה would tell us that by a מועד פחת נבילה is on the ניזק, we wouldn't know that the same דין applies to a תם. Therefore צריכא, the משנה has to tell us also the same דין by a תם, and therefore the משנה has to tell us twice to teach us that say a תם and say a מועד, in both cases, the פחת נבילה is on the חשבון of the ניזק. Then the גמרא continues, תא שמע, come and hear, I'll ask you a קשיא. We

learned later on in the משנה, מה בין תם למועד, what is the difference between a תם and a מועד? And the משנה says, שהתם משלם חצי נזק מגופו, that a תם pays, first of all, חצי נזק. תם doesn't pay the whole נזק, but by a תם, if it was קרן, you pay חצי נזק, and also you pay מגופו. The amount of money you pay, the חצי נזק that you pay, is only מגופו, from its body, only if the body of the ox that caused the damage is worth that amount of money. But if the ox is worth less, then you don't even pay the half a נזק. For instance, if the נזק was worth a hundred dollars, חצי נזק is fifty dollars, and let's say the ox itself that caused the damage was only worth forty, so you wouldn't even pay the fifty, you would only pay forty, as much as the ox is worth. If the ox is worth fifty or more, then you pay the full חצי נזק. But if the ox is worth less, then you only pay as much as the ox is worth. But a מועד, משלם נזק שלם. First of all, you pay the full נזק, and second of all, it's מן העלייה, you pay from the house. Even if the ox that caused the damage is not worth the full amount that you have to pay, nevertheless, you have to take other money from your house. It is not only that you pay from the body of the ox. And the גמרא asks:

ואי סלקא דעתך, if it is true that חצי נזק is קנס, that when a תם pays חצי נזק it is קנס, and we said before that if it's קנס, the דין is that when the person himself admits, he is פטור from paying this קנס, ליתני נמי הא, let the משנה also say this, another difference between a תם and a מועד, a תם אינו משלם על פי עצמו, that a תם, if the owner himself would admit, he wouldn't have to pay, because it's קנס. מועד משלם על פי עצמו, but by a מועד, even if the owner himself admits, you do have to pay. So that would be another difference. And since the משנה does not mention that difference, obviously the דין by a תם is also that you would have to pay even if he admits. That's a ראיה to the מאן דאמר that holds that חצי נזק is ממון, and a קשיא on the מאן דאמר who holds that חצי נזק is קנס. And the גמרא answers no, באמת this is a difference. You could hold חצי נזק is קנס. But why didn't the משנה mention it? תנא ושייר, he mentioned some, he learned some, and he left this one out. He is not מחויב to bring all the differences, he just mentioned two differences between תם and מועד, and this other difference he did not mention, he left it out. Then the גמרא asks: מאי שייר דהאי שייר?

What else did he leave out that we're able to say he left this out, too? Because we have a rule that when a תנא makes a difference between cases or a תנא mentions certain דינים, he doesn't leave out one. If he leaves out two, that makes sense. He doesn't mention them all, he left out two cases. But if he mentions everything and just leaves out one, that we don't say. So here too, if you want to say that really this is a difference, why didn't he mention it? Because he left it out. What else did he leave out that we're able to say he left this one out, too? And the גמרא says yes, there is something else he left out: שייר חצי כופר, he left out half a כופר. The דין is that if an ox kills a person, if the ox is a מועד, then the owner of the ox has to pay כופר for the death that this ox caused. That is by a מועד. What is the דין by a תם? So there's a מחלוקת whether if a תם killed a person, whether you pay כופר or not. One thing is for sure that if the דין is that you do pay כופר by a תם, it only would be חצי כופר, half of the כופר, just like by נזק you only pay חצי נזק. But nevertheless, there's a מחלוקת בכלל if he pays כופר or not. So the גמרא says that we say that a תם does not pay כופר. But a מועד, we know, does pay כופר. So why didn't the משנה also mention this difference, that a תם pays no כופר, not even half a כופר, and a מועד pays כופר? So we could say that the משנה left that out, too. So now we have two things the משנה left out: it left out a difference between תם and מועד concerning כופר, and it left out a difference between תם and מועד concerning קנס, that by a תם, you do not pay if you admit yourself, and by a מועד, you do pay. And then the גמרא says: אי משום חצי כופר, if you're going to tell me that what he left out was the דין of חצי כופר, the difference that a תם doesn't pay חצי כופר and a מועד does pay כופר, לאו שיורא הוא, that we cannot consider that he left something out, because הא מני, because we could say who is this משנה? רבי יוסי הגלילי, it goes according to רבי יוסי הגלילי. דאמר, that he says, that תם משלם חצי כופר, that a תם does pay half a כופר. So therefore he doesn't say it because it is not a difference between תם and מועד. A תם does pay כופר, a תם does pay half of the כופר. And תוספות explains that really what the גמרא is trying to answer with this last piece of the גמרא when it says that חצי כופר is not called a שיור, because really, after what the גמרא said before, there is a קשיא. After the גמרא said that we left out the דין of כופר, so now we have two things: he left out the difference concerning if you admit yourself that a תם doesn't pay and a מועד does pay, and he left out the דין of כופר, that a תם doesn't pay כופר and a מועד does pay כופר. So לכאורה that itself is a קשיא now on the other מאן דאמר. According to the מאן דאמר that says that חצי נזק is ממון, so there is no difference between תם and מועד that a תם doesn't pay if you admit and a מועד does, that doesn't exist anymore, because according to this מאן דאמר, by a תם, you also would pay if you admit yourself. So we're left only with one שיור. So there's only one thing that this משנה left out, that a תם doesn't pay כופר and a מועד pays כופר. So לכאורה we have the rule that the תנא does not leave out one thing. So this itself, the fact that he left out the difference concerning כופר, is a ראיה that חצי נזק is קנס. So we have two things he left out. But if we would hold חצי נזק is ממון, so there's only one thing he left out, and that is the difference between תם and מועד concerning כופר. And we know that that doesn't happen, we don't leave out one thing. So the fact that he left out כופר, the difference between תם and מועד concerning כופר, is in itself a ראיה that there must be something else that he left out, and the only thing that could be is the idea of קנס. So לכאורה, that's a ראיה to the מאן דאמר that חצי נזק is קנס. And that's where the גמרא says, no, it's no ראיה to the מאן דאמר חצי נזק קנס and a קשיא on the מאן דאמר חצי נזק is ממון, because we could say it goes according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, who holds that תם does pay חצי כופר, and ממילא this is not a שיור either, so according to this, he didn't leave anything out. And the only thing we could ask now is, why didn't the משנה say this difference itself, that a תם pays half a כופר, and a מועד pays complete כופר? So רש"י and תוספות explain, that is not called a שיור because that is self-understood, the משנה doesn't have to tell us that. Since by נזק we say a מועד pays complete נזק and a תם pays חצי נזק, so we understand ourselves that when it comes to כופר, a מועד pays full כופר and a תם pays חצי כופר. Then the גמרא says תא שמע, come hear, I'll ask you a קשיא. We

learned in the ברייתא, if someone says המית שורי את פלוני, someone comes to בית דין and admits, and he says, my ox killed this person, או שורו של פלוני, or he killed the ox of this person, הרי זה משלם על פי עצמו, so he pays even though he admitted himself. מאי לאו, don't you think בתם, that this also includes a תם, that even if the same thing happened by a תם, the person himself admitted, nevertheless the ברייתא says that you do pay on your own admittance? So that's a ראיה that חצי נזק is ממון. And the גמרא says לא, no, במועד, that is only by a מועד. That by a מועד, the דין is that if he admits himself, he pays, because then it's definitely ממון. אבל the גמרא says, but what will you say, תם מאי? What is the דין by a תם? You'll tell me הכא נמי דאינו משלם על פי עצמו, he טאקע does not pay if he admits himself. אי הכי, if so, I have a קשיא. עד דתני סיפא, instead of writing in the סיפא, המית שורי את עבדו של פלוני אינו משלם על פי עצמו, in the סיפא of that same ברייתא where it says that if he admits himself that his ox killed a person or killed another ox, he is חייב to pay, the same ברייתא says, but if he admits that his ox killed an עבד, then he is פטור from paying, because the דין is that when an ox kills an עבד כנעני, the owner has to pay thirty שקלים. Whether that עבד כנעני was worth a lot or a little, you always have to pay thirty שקלים. And that is considered קנס. As we know, one of the conditions that turns something into a fine and is not considered ממון, is if there is a fixed amount in the תורה how much you have to pay, then we consider that קנס. And since by the case of an עבד, the תורה says that you have to pay thirty שקלים, that is considered קנס. And the ברייתא says that even though if a person admits that his שור killed a person, so then he has to pay כופר, or killed an ox, then he has to pay for the נזק, so then even if it came through his own admittance, you are חייב, nevertheless if the same thing happened concerning an עבד, if he admitted that his שור killed an עבד, he doesn't pay through himself because it is קנס, so the דין is מודה בקנס is פטור. So the question the גמרא asks, instead of the ברייתא saying that in the סיפא, ליפלוג וליתני בדידיה, why doesn't he make a difference in the first case itself? It is obvious that the ברייתא is trying to make a difference between ממון and קנס. Those are the two parts of the ברייתא. The first part, where it says that he is חייב to pay if he admits himself, is a case of ממון. Then the ברייתא wants to show us that if the same thing happened in a case of קנס, he is פטור. And that's why the ברייתא picks the example, if he admitted that his שור killed an עבד, he is פטור, because that's a case of קנס. So the question is, if חצי נזק by a

תם is קנס, so why does the ברייתא have to find another case to tell us that if you are מודה בקנס you are פטור? He could make the difference to show us that קנס you are פטור within the same first case itself. It could have said, after he gave the example that if a person admits that his ox killed a person or killed another ox, he is חייב to pay through his own admittance, it could have continued and said במה דברים אמורים, when was this said, במועד, if the ox that he admitted about was a מועד, אבל בתם, but if it was concerning a תם, אינו משלם על פי עצמו, he would not pay through his own admittance. So this would also tell us that if you admit by קנס you are פטור. And what we would gain is that it would be within the same case. It would show us that within the same type of admittance, there is a possibility of being חייב and being פטור. If you admit that your ox killed a person, or you admit your ox killed another ox, in that itself there is a case of ממון, that is by a מועד you are חייב, and if the same thing happened concerning a תם, you are פטור. Why should he find a case of קנס concerning something else, concerning an עבד? Why didn't he make that same difference within the same case that he mentioned before? And since he didn't, that shows לכאורה that he was talking in the first case even by a תם, and he holds that a תם is also ממון, when you pay חצי נזק it is also ממון, and therefore he couldn't make the difference in the first case itself. And the only example of קנס that he could find is concerning the עבד. So that's a ראיה that we hold פלגא ניזקא is ממונא. And the גמרא says, no, באמת we could hold חצי נזק is קנס, and the reason that he didn't make the difference within the first case itself, because כולה במועד קמיירי. He's talking only by a מועד. He wants to show that within a מועד itself, we also find a possibility of it being ממון and being קנס. If you say your שור, the מועד, killed killed a person, or killed another ox, then you are חייב to pay on your own admittance, but if the same thing by the same מועד happened concerning an עבד, then it is קנס, and then you are פטור. Then the גמרא

continues: תא שמע, come hear. I will ask you a קושיא. We learned: זה הכלל, this is the rule, כל המשלם יותר על מה שהזיק, anybody pays more than he damages, אינו משלם על פי עצמו, then you don't pay by yourself. If you admit yourself, you don't pay. In other words, anytime you have to pay more than the damage was worth, that is considered קנס, and if you admit yourself, you are פטור. For instance, when you have to pay 30 שקלים for the עבד, that is more than the damage was worth, because the עבד could be worth much less. Nevertheless, you have to pay 30, that is קנס, and in a case like that, you are פטור if you admit yourself. And the גמרא asks: מאי לאו, don't you think that we could be מדייק from these words, הא פחות ממה שהזיק משלם, that if you have to pay less than the damage was worth, then you do pay על פי עצמו, you do pay if you admit? Because the ברייתא uses the לשון that only if you pay more than the damage was worth, that's considered קנס, and then if you admit yourself, you are פטור. So it seems as if you pay less than the damage was worth, you are still חייב if you admit yourself. That shows that when you pay חצי נזק, which is less than the damage was worth, it is ממון, and you do pay if you admit. And the גמרא says: לא, no. You have to be מדייק differently: הא כמה שהזיק משלם, that if you pay as much as the damage was worth, then you pay even if you admit. Do not be מדייק, since the ברייתא says that if you pay more, that is called קנס, do not be מדייק that if you pay less, it is not קנס, but be מדייק if you pay the amount of money as much as the damage was worth, then it is considered ממון. But if you have to pay less than the damage was worth, then maybe that is also considered קנס. Then the גמרא asks: אבל פחות מאי, what will you tell me if you have to pay less than the damage was worth? הכא נמי דלא משלם, it is true that you do not pay if you admit yourself, because that is also קנס. אי הכי, if so, אדיתני, instead of writing, זה הכלל, this is the rule, that כל המשלם יותר על מה שהזיק, anybody who pays more than the damage, אינו משלם על פי עצמו, he does not pay by himself, because when you pay more than the damage was, that is קנס, ליתני, let him say, זה הכלל, this is the rule, כל שאינו משלם כמה שהזיק, anybody who doesn't pay as much as the damage was, then you don't pay by yourself. So from here we would know the משמע פחות and משמע יותר. It would be משמע that if you pay less than the damage was worth, then you do not pay by yourself, because that is קנס, and you would also mean that if you pay more than the damage was worth, you also don't pay through your own admittance, because that is also קנס. Why does the ברייתא use the לשון that when you pay more than the damage, so then it is קנס? Why didn't he say that only if you pay as much as the damage was worth, then it is ממון, so we would understand that whether it's more or whether it's less, it is considered קנס. Since he doesn't write that, it's משמע that only if you pay more, that's קנס, but if you pay less, it's not קנס. And the גמרא says: תיובתא, that is a good קושיא. But nevertheless, the גמרא says:

והלכתא, the הלכה is פלגא נזקא קנסא, that when you pay חצי נזק, it is קנס. But the גמרא asks: תיובתא, you asked a קושיא on the one that holds חצי נזק קנס, והלכתא, and at the same time you say the הלכה is like the one that holds חצי נזק is קנס? And the גמרא says: אין, yes, because טעמא מאי הוי תיובתא, what is the reason, why was it a קושיא? משום דלא תני כמה שהזיק. The question was, why didn't the ברייתא say that when you pay as much as the damage was, that's when it's ממון? So we would be מדייק that if it was less, it is קנס. So he says: לא פסיקא ליה. The reason he doesn't do it is because it is not clear. Not because he doesn't want us to be מדייק that if it was less, it's קנס, but because he couldn't say it as a rule. Because כיון דאיכא חצי נזק צרורות, because there is a דין of חצי נזק צרורות, that means that when the animal walks and steps on pebbles, and one of the pebbles flies and causes damage, so that is, as we said in the גמרא before, a תולדה דרגל. You are חייב for the damage because it was done by the foot, and in certain דינים it is similar to רגל. And nevertheless, the דין is that you only pay חצי נזק. As the גמרא said before, it's הלכה למשה מסיני that for צרורות you only pay חצי נזק. And nevertheless, the הלכתא גמירי לה, the הלכה למשה מסיני says דממונא הוא, that that חצי נזק is ממון. The חצי נזק that you pay pay for this צרורות is not like חצי נזק that you pay for a תם of a קרן. There, it's קנס. Here, it is ממון. So משום הכי, since there is a case where you pay less than the damage was, and nevertheless it is not considered קנס but ממון, and the דין would be that even if you admit you would have to pay, therefore לא תני, therefore he didn't say, therefore he didn't make the rule that only if you pay as much as the damage was, it is ממון, so we would be מדייק that whenever you pay more or even less, it is called קנס, we couldn't make it as a rule, because not always when you pay less than the damage is it considered a קנס. Because as we see here, there is חצי נזק צרורות, which is less than the damage was worth, because you only pay חצי נזק, and nevertheless, it is not a קנס, it is ממון. גמרא continues, והשתא דאמרת, now that you said, that פלגא נזקא קנסא, that when you pay half of the נזק it is considered קנס, so this will teach us a דין, that האי כלבא דאכל אימרי, there was this dog that ate sheep, ושונרא, there was a cat, דאכל תרנגולא, that ate chicken, משונה הוא, that is a change. That is not a normal thing for the dog or for the cat to do. And since it's a change, it is in the category of קרן. And since it is קרן, the first time you would only pay חצי נזק for this. And now that we said that חצי נזק is קנס, so in a case like this, ולא מגבינן בבבל, we would not make the ניזק collect the money in בבל, because the דין is that when it comes to פסקן the דינים of קנס, you have to have a בית דין who has סמיכה. You have to have דיינים who have סמיכה איש מפי איש, the special type of סמיכה that goes back person to person up to משה רבינו. And in בבל they did not give סמיכה. Only in ארץ ישראל they gave סמיכה. So the דיינים of בבל were not able to פסקן דינים of קנס. And that's what the גמרא says, now that we came to a conclusion that חצי נזק is קנס, and since these cases, the case of the dog that ate the sheep and the case of the cat that ate the chicken, since that is קרן, because it is משונה, so we said before that by קרן when you pay חצי נזק it is קנס, so this is also קנס. And

since by קנס we cannot make you pay in בבל, so therefore in this case you also can't make him pay in בבל. But the גמרא continues, הני מילי, when do we say that this is considered משונה and it's considered קרן because of that, and therefore it would be קנס? Only ברברבי, if the dog ate big sheep, or the cat ate big chickens. And that is not common. That is not a normal thing to do. And therefore, it is משונה and it would be in the category of קרן, and therefore, automatically, it would be considered קנס. אבל בזוטרי, if the dog ate small sheep, or the cat ate small chickens, אורחיה הוא, that is common, and since it is common, it is not קרן. It would be שן, and therefore, you would pay full נזק and it would not be considered קנס, and you could make him pay in בבל. And the גמרא said that even in the case where it is קנס and you cannot make him pay in בבל, דאי תפס, if the ניזק grabs money worth of the נזק, לא מפקינן מיניה, we would not take it away from him. Because even though we do not פסקן דיני קנסות in בבל, but if the ניזק, the one that claims the money, grabs onto some money from the מזיק, we do not take it away from him. And also, ואי אמר, if the ניזק would say, קבעו לי זימנא, set a time for me, דאזלינא לארעא דישראל, that I will go up to ארץ ישראל, in other words, even though the דיינים here in בבל cannot פסקן this דין, cannot make him pay the קנס that he's supposed to pay, but I am ready, the ניזק says, to go up to ארץ ישראל and bring the דין תורה to the דיינים of ארץ ישראל where they do פסקן דיני קנסות, so then קבעינן ליה, we do set a time for him, and we force the מזיק to go up with him to ארץ ישראל. ואי לא אזיל, if the מזיק does not want to go up, משמתינן ליה, we put him in חרם. Then the גמרא says, ובין כך ובין כך, whichever way, whether he goes up to ארץ ישראל or he does not go up to ארץ ישראל, משמתינן ליה, we put this מזיק in חרם עד דמסלק היזקא, till he gets rid of this מזיק, till he gets rid of this bad dog or this bad cat. מדרבי נתן, and that is taken from what רבי נתן said, דתניא, because we learned, רבי נתן אומר, רבי נתן said, מניין, how do we know שלא יגדל אדם כלב רע בתוך ביתו, a person should not raise a bad dog in his house, ואל יעמיד סולם רעוע בתוך ביתו, and a person should not have a bad ladder in his house? תלמוד לומר, we learn out from the פסוק, לא תשים דמים בביתך. You should not put blood in your house. You should not be a cause for someone to get hurt. So if you have a bad dog in your house, or you have a bad ladder in your house that someone could walk on it and fall, so you could be a cause of damage, so the פסוק says you're not allowed to have that in your house. So as long as he doesn't get rid of this, of the bad dog or the bad cat, then we would put him in חרם because he has a מזיק in his house. Now we

will continue with the משנה. The משנה says, חמשה תמין וחמשה מועדין. There are five kinds of damage which would be considered תם and you would pay half a נזק. וחמשה מועדין, and there are five kinds of damages that are done that we consider a מועד. And he says, which are the five which are a תם? הבהמה אינה מועדת, this הבהמה is not considered a מועד, but a תם, לא ליגח, it is not a מועד, not when it gores, ולא ליגוף, not when it pushes, ולא לישוך, not to bite, ולא לרבוץ, it's not to lay, ולא לבעוט, not to kick. These five things are all in the category of קרן, as we learned earlier in the גמרא. The goring itself is קרן itself, and the other things are תולדות of קרן. The pushing, and the biting, and the laying, and the kicking are תולדות of קרן. And therefore, these, if it was done the first or second, or maybe even the third time, it is considered a תם and you only pay חצי נזק. So here we have five cases of being a תם. Then it says, which are the five cases of being a מועד? השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה, שן, if it eats, if it תם, so each one was a תם because of what he did. For goring you are, by goring you are a תם, by kicking you are a תם, etc. But when we say it's a מועד, all five have the same reason for being a מועד, because they were warned a few times, and nevertheless, it caused the damage, so that That that is the reason why it's a מועד because of the התראה, and that is one reason for all five, so it is considered only one number within the מועדין. Then the

משנה continues, ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק. Another מועד is if the שור caused damage in the רשות of the ניזק. What it seems to be saying is, as the גמרא will explain later, that even if it was קרן, and it was a תם, but if it caused the damage through קרן in the רשות of the ניזק, then he is a מועד right away. When do we say that קרן is a תם in the beginning? Only if it was done in the רשות הרבים, but in the רשות הניזק, then even קרן is right away a מועד. That's the fourth. והאדם, and a person. Whenever a person causes damage, he's right away considered a מועד. Then the משנה continues, הזאב, the wolf, והארי, and the lion, והדוב, and the bear, והנמר, and the leopard, והברדלס, and the panther, והנחש, and the snake, הרי אלו מועדין, they are מועדין. One thing is for sure, that if they caused damage through any of the other kinds of נזיקין, certainly they are מועדין, they're not worse than other animals. But the חידוש of the משנה is that even if they caused damage through קרן, through biting, which as we said before is a תולדה of קרן, so nevertheless, even the first time they are considered מועדין, because it is common for them to do it. רבי אלעזר אומר, but רבי אלעזר says, בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדין. If they are tamed, then they are not considered מועדין. והנחש מועד לעולם, a snake is always considered a מועד. Then the גמרא says, מדקתני השן מועדת לאכול, since it says in the beginning of the משנה that a שן is a מועד when it eats, מכלל, is that איידי בחצר הניזק עסקינן, that we're talking in a case where it went into the רשות of the ניזק and ate over there, because we know that שן and רגל are only חייב in the רשות הניזק. And since the משנה says that a שן is חייב, obviously the משנה is talking in the רשות הניזק. וקתני, and nevertheless we learned, בהמה אינה מועדת לשלם כולה, that a בהמה when it does it through קרן is not a מועד to pay full נזק, אבל חצי נזק משלמת, but you only you do pay half of the נזק. The beginning of the משנה says that the five תמין when it does it through these things that mentioned in the משנה, you pay only חצי נזק. And since we said before that we're talking in a case of a חצר הניזק, is משמע from the משנה that קרן even in the חצר of the ניזק, you only pay half of the נזק. מאן ניהו, who is this? רבנן היא, this fits according to the רבנן. דאמרי, they say, משונה קרן, that when קרן is משונה, which means when קרן is a תם. משונה means changed, not normal, and a תם is the first time that the animal the שור gores, that is not a normal thing for the שור to do, so it's called משונה. The רבנן hold that when קרן is משונה, when קרן is a תם, even it was בחצר הניזק, still חצי נזק הוא דמשלם, you still only pay חצי נזק. So that fits to the משנה, because as we said before, the משנה is speaking in a case where it was done in the חצר of the ניזק. As we see that we say you are חייב for שן, which is obviously in the חצר of the ניזק, and nevertheless we say that for קרן תם you pay only חצי נזק, so that fits according to the רבנן that even in the חצר of the ניזק, תם only pays חצי נזק. But if so, אימא סיפא, say the סיפא. In the סיפא it says שור המועד, that amongst those מועדין it says if the שור became a מועד, even by קרן, if it became a מועד, ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק, or the שור that caused the damage in the רשות of the ניזק, which means to say, even if it was קרן, but if it was done in the רשות הניזק, it is right away a מועד, והאדם, or a person. So that, אתאן לרבי טרפון, that only fits according to רבי טרפון, דאמר, that he says, משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם הוא דמשלם, that if it was a קרן תם in the רשות of the ניזק, you pay full נזק. And that's what the משנה is saying in the סיפא. The משנה is saying that if the שור המזיק was in the רשות of the ניזק, so there you always pay נזק שלם, even if it was קרן. So that fits only according to רבי טרפון. So there's a

סתירה, רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי טרפון. The beginning of the משנה fits according to the רבנן that say that even in the רשות הניזק, you still pay for קרן תם חצי נזק, but the סיפא goes according to רבי טרפון that says that if it was done in the רשות הניזק, you pay נזק שלם for תם. The גמרא says, אין, yes, דאמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה, that שמואל said to רב יהודה, שיננא, תלמיד חכם, שבוק מתניתין, leave, go of the משנה, don't think deeper into the משנה, don't look for a תירוץ on this קשיא, ותא בתראי, follow me, say as I say. What do I say? רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי טרפון. Yes, the רישא is the רבנן and the סיפא is רבי טרפון. It is possible for a משנה that the beginning should go according to one מאן דאמר, and the סיפא should go according to another מאן דאמר. But רבי אלעזר משמיה דרב אמר, רבי אלעזר says in the name of רב, כולה רבי טרפון היא, really the whole משנה goes according to רבי טרפון. And the whole question is in the רישא is משמע that חצר הניזק, you still only pay חצי נזק, רישא בחצר המיוחדת לפירות לאחד מהן, the רישא is speaking when it was a רשות הניזק only concerning פירות, that the ניזק was the only one that had a right to bring פירות into that field, ולזה ולזה לשוורים, but both the מזיק and the ניזק had a right to bring in their oxen. So therefore, דלגבי שן הויא לה חצר הניזק, concerning שן, it is considered חצר הניזק, because when the ox of the מזיק ate the fruit of the ניזק, it's called that he ate the fruit of the ניזק in the חצר הניזק, because only the ניזק had a right to bring his fruit in. And therefore the משנה says that you are חייב for שן. But לגבי קרן הוי ליה רשות הרבים, but nevertheless in the same case, if it happened through קרן, then it's considered רשות הרבים, because they both had a right to bring the oxen, so we can't consider it רשות הניזק לגבי קרן, because the מזיק had a right to bring his oxen, and therefore it is considered רשות הרבים לגבי קרן, and even רבי טרפון would admit that you only pay חצי נזק. Then the גמרא says,

אמר רב כהנא, כהנא said, אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא, I said over this דין in front of רב זביד of נהרדעא, ואמר לי, and he said to me, מי מצית מוקמת לה לכולה כרבי טרפון, how can you establish the whole משנה like רבי טרפון? והקתני, didn't we learn in the משנה, השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה, that השן is חייב, becomes a מועד if it eats what is fit for it to eat, food, ראוי לה, אין, is משמע that if it eats things which is fit to eat, then you are חייב. שאין ראוי לה, לא, if it eats things which is not fit for it to eat, you are not חייב. ואי רבי טרפון, if the משנה goes according to רבי טרפון, הא אמר, doesn't he say, משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם משלם, if it is משונה and it's קרן in the חצר of the ניזק, you pay full נזק, so therefore if it would eat something which is not fit to be eaten, it would automatically be included in קרן, it would not be שן, because by שן we know is הנאה להזיקה, it has הנאה from the היזק, it eats food. When it destroys something through biting and it's not normal for it to eat, then it would be קרן. But קרן according to רבי טרפון in the חצר הניזק still pays full נזק, so even if it ate something which is not fit for it to eat, still should be חייב, and the משנה is משמע that if it eats something which is not fit to be eaten, you are

פטור, so how can we say the משנה goes according to רבי טרפון? But the גמרא answers, אלא לעולם, but really what we should say is רבנן היא, the whole משנה goes according to the רבנן, and the question we asked how does the סיפא fit where it says that if it was שור המזיק ברשות הניזק you are חייב, which is משמע not like the רבנן, חסורי מחסרא, there is something missing in the משנה, והכי קתני, this is the פשט in the משנה: חמשה תמין הן, the משנה starts off there are five תמין, ואם הועדו, if the same five became מועדין, חמשה עשר מועדין, the same five are מועד. So when it says there are five תמין and five מועדין, it doesn't mean that the five מועדין are those five that he mentions later, it's the same five that were תמין, those same five are מועדין if they became מועדין. So now we're not limited anymore to say that the next five things that are mentioned in the משנה are all five separate things. Now already we could say that those things are not five separate things, but one could be an explanation of the other, because the five that the משנה means as five מועדין are the same five as the תמין. So what do we learn פשט further in the משנה? ושן ורגל מועדין מתחלתן, all he is saying is that when it's שן and רגל they are מועד from the beginning. והיכן העדאתן, where do they become מועדין, where are they חייב? בחצר הניזק, in the חצר הניזק. So then when it says the words in the משנה שור המזיק ברשות הניזק doesn't mean another category that there could be a שור המזיק in the רשות of the ניזק and you're always חייב for נזק שלם. This is just an explanation of שן and רגל. מתקיף לה רבינא, a פרעכע קשיא, הא קתני לקמן, we learned later in the משנה, שור המזיק ברשות הניזק כיצד, the משנה explains: What did we mean when we said before that the שור המזיק in the רשות of the ניזק is חייב? So אי אמרת בשלמא, if you're going to say עירובי, that this משנה here talks about it, משום הכי תני כיצד, therefore later on he asks: What is the case? What is the פשט in this? אלא אי אמרת לא עירובי, but if you're going to say that this משנה doesn't talk about it, because as we because as we're saying the פשט now, these words in the משנה שור המזיק ברשות הניזק is not a separate category, this is just finishing off the statement we started before, so מאי כיצד, how can later on the משנה start: What do we mean with the words שור המזיק ברשות הניזק, how is it, when we really we never mentioned a category of שור המזיק ברשות הניזק? אלא אמר רבינא, so רבינא says, חסורי מחסרא, the משנה is missing, והכי קתני, this is the פשט in the משנה, this is what it's supposed to say: חמשה תמין הן, there are these five תמין that the משנה mentions, ואם הועדו, the same five if they became מועדין, חמשה עשר מועדין, they're all five מועדין. So far is the same פשט as we said before. Then we continue, ושן ורגל מועדין מתחלתן, that שן and רגל are מועד always from the beginning, but these are not part of the five, this is just a דין the משנה is saying that שן and רגל are מועדין. וזהו שור המועד, that is the פשט שור המועד.

ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת רבי טרפון ורבנן, but if the שור המזיק went into the רשות הניזק by קרן, here the משנה is supposed to say that there is a מחלוקת between רבי טרפון and the רבנן. So according to this, the משנה is mentioning a category of שור המזיק ברשות הניזק, and therefore the משנה later could start off by saying שור המזיק ברשות הניזק כיצד. And then he explains the משנה further, that the משנה, what it means to say is, יש מועדין אחרים כיוצא באלו, and then there are more מועדין similar to these מועדין we mentioned before, and they are: הזאב והארי והדוב והברדלס והנמר והנחש. And then the גמרא says, תניא נמי הכי, we טאקע learn in a ברייתא ממש as we said פשט in the משנה now. It says in the ברייתא: חמשה תמין הן, there are five תמין, ואם הועדו, and if these five became מועדין, חמשה עשר מועדין, all five are מועדין. Then the ברייתא continues: ושן ורגל מועדין מתחלתן, שן and רגל are מועדין from the beginning, וזהו שור המועד, and this, when these five תמין become מועד and this is שור המועד that we refer to whenever we mention from the תורה, the שור המועד we mean the case of קרן after it became a מועד. Then it says: ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת ר' טרפון ורבנן. When the שור המזיק goes into the רשות of the ניזק, then we have a מחלוקת between ר' טרפון and the רבנן, whether you are חייב חצי נזק by קרן תם in even in the רשות הניזק, or you are חייב נזק שלם. And then the ברייתא continues: ויש מועדין אחרים, there are other מועדין, כיוצא באלו, similar to these, and they are: הזאב, והארי, והדוב, והנמר, והברדלס, והנחש. And the גמרא says: איכא דמירמא רמי לה, some said the same thing, but in a form of a קשיא. They asked a קשיא: תנן, we learn in our משנה, חמשה תמין וחמשה מועדין, there are five תמין and five מועדין. And then they asked: ותו ליכא, isn't there any more? והאיכא, isn't there הזאב, והארי, והדוב, והנמר, והברדלס, והנחש, that they are also מועדין? So how can you say there are only five מועדין? ומשני, and the answer was, אמר רבינא, רבינא said: חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני. The משנה is missing something, and this is what it's supposed to say in the משנה: חמשה תמין הן, there are these five תמין, ואם הועדו, the same five, if they became מועדין, חמשה עשר מועדין, all five are מועדין. ושן ורגל מועדין מתחילתן. שן and רגל are always a מועד. וזהו שור המועד. And this, when these five become מועדין, this is שור המועד that the תורה means. ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק מחלוקת ר' טרפון ורבנן.

ויש מועדין אחרים כיוצא באלו, there are more מועדין similar to these: הזאב, והארי, והדוב, והנמר, והברדלס, והנחש. Then the גמרא continues: it said in the משנה: ולא לירבוץ, that it's not a מועד when it comes to lay down, that if an animal lays down on כלים and breaks it, it is considered קרן and it is a תם. אמר ר' אלעזר, ר' אלעזר said: לא שנו, this was not said, אלא בפכים גדולים. If it lays down on big jars and breaks it, that is not common, therefore it is considered קרן and it's a תם. אבל בפכים קטנים, if it lays down on small jars and breaks it, אורחיה הוא, that is common for it to do it, and therefore it is not considered קרן, and you would be חייב נזק שלם. The גמרא says: לימא מסייע ליה, let's say we could bring a ראיה to ר' אלעזר, because we learned: הבהמה מועדת להלך כדרכה ולשבר, a בהמה is a מועד to walk normal and to break anything it steps on, ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים, and to crush a person, or a בהמה, or כלים, if it happens, and the בהמה is a מועד and חייב נזק שלם. So here we see that if the בהמה crushes כלים, it is not considered קרן and you're חייב נזק שלם. So לכאורה it's a סתירה to the משנה! In the משנה it says that if it crushes כלים, if it lays down on כלים, you're חייב חצי נזק because it's קרן. So obviously, you must make the difference that the משנה is speaking by great, big jars, and the ברייתא is speaking by small jars. So that's a ראיה to ר' אלעזר, that by small jars it is called אורחיה and it's not קרן. But the גמרא says: no, it's no ראיה, דילמא מן הצד. Maybe what the ברייתא means, if not if it steps on it, but on the side. If it walks and there are כלים on the side next to a wall, and it crushes it next to the wall, that's when we say that you are חייב נזק שלם. But maybe when it happens to small jars, it's still considered not אורחיה and you're חייב חצי נזק only. And the גמרא continues: איכא דאמרי, some used said it differently. They said לכתחילה אמר ר' אלעזר, ר' אלעזר said just opposite, that לא תימא, do not say, פכים גדולים הוא דלאו אורחיה, that only if it steps on big jars, that's not considered normal and it would be considered קרן, אבל פכים קטנים אורחיה הוא, but if it happened to small jars it is normal and it's not קרן, אלא אפילו פכים קטנים נמי לאו אורחיה הוא. What he said was it's not so, even by small ones it is also not the דרך, it is not common, and therefore if it steps on small jars, it is also considered קרן. And the גמרא said: מיתיבי, let's ask a קשיא. We

learned in the ברייתא: ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים, that when the בהמה walks and crushes a person, or a בהמה, or כלים, it is a מועד and you're חייב נזק שלם. So it's a קשיא on ר' אלעזר that said that whatever it breaks under its feet, it's always called קרן! And the גמרא says: אמר ר' אלעזר, ר' אלעזר answered, דילמא מן הצד. Where it says that it's always a מועד when it steps on breaks כלים, that could be not when it steps on it, but when it breaks it from the side, when it crushes it next to a wall. And איכא דמירמא רמי לה, some asked it as a question, they asked a סתירה: תנן, we learn in our משנה, ולא לירבוץ, that it is not considered a מועד when it steps on כלים. והתניא, we had learned in the ברייתא: ולמעך את האדם ואת הבהמה ואת הכלים, that if it steps on כלים, it is called a מועד. So it's a סתירה between the ברייתא and the משנה! אמר ר' אלעזר, ר' אלעזר said: לא קשיא, it's no קשיא, כאן בפכים גדולים, כאן בפכים קטנים. When it's big jars and it's not the דרך, so then the דין is it's called a תם, קרן. But if it stepped on small jars, then it is the דרך, and it's not a תם, it's not קרן, and then it would be מועד. So this is another opinion, how the discussion took place. Then the גמרא continues: we

learned in the משנה, הזאב, והארי, וכולו, one of the animals which are a מועד מתחילתן is a ברדלס. מאי ברדלס? What is ברדלס? אמר רב יהודה, רב יהודה said, נפראזא, it means a נפראזא. מאי נפראזא? What is a נפראזא? אמר רב יוסף: אפא, רב יוסף said, אפא, which seems to be a hyena. But the גמרא says: מיתיבי, I'll ask you a קשיא: we learned, ר' מאיר אומר אף הצבוע, ר' מאיר adds to those of the משנה which are considered מועדים מתחילתן, that also a צבוע is a מועד from the beginning. ר' אלעזר אומר אף הנחש, ר' אלעזר says so also a נחש, a snake. ואמר רב יוסף, and you know that רב יוסף said, someplace else he said, that צבוע זה אפא, צבוע is אפא. So since ר' מאיר adds צבוע which is אפא, obviously in the משנה we did not have אפא mentioned. So how can you say that the ברדלס, which is mentioned in the משנה, is אפעה, and the גמרא says לא קשיא, it's no קשיא. כאן בצבוע זכר, כאן בצבוע נקבה. That the ברדלס of the משנה, which is צבוע, means the male צבוע, and what רבי מאיר added צבוע, he added a female צבוע. And the reason why this צבוע has many names, we call it אפעה, we call it נפרס, and we call it צבוע, because תניא we learned that צבוע זכר לאחר שבע שנים נעשה עטלף. This צבוע זכר after seven years becomes a bat. עטלף לאחר שבע שנים נעשה ערפד. This bat after seven years becomes an ערפד. ערפד לאחר ז' שנים נעשה קימוש. This ערפד after seven years becomes a קימוש. קימוש לאחר שבע שנים נעשה חוח. That this קימוש after seven years becomes a thorn. חוח לאחר שבע שנים נעשה שד. That this thorn after seven years becomes a demon, becomes a שד. So we see that it changes, and therefore it has many different names. And by the way, the גמרא also said that שדרו של אדם לאחר שבע שנים נעשה נחש. That if the spine of a person after seven years becomes a snake, but הני מילי that is only דלא כרע במודים, if he doesn't bow down when he say מודים in שמונה עשרה. Then the גמרא says, אמר מר we learned before, רבי מאיר אומר אף הצבוע, רבי מאיר says that also a צבוע is one of those animals which are a מועד from the beginning. רבי אלעזר אומר אף הנחש, רבי אלעזר says also a snake. And since he says also a snake, obviously he holds that the rest of them are also מועד from the beginning. He's just adding a snake. So the גמרא asks, how can we say that, והתנן, now didn't we learn in our משנה, רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says concerning all those animals mentioned in the משנה, רבי אלעזר says, בזמן שהן בני תרבות, if they are tamed, אינן מועדין, and they are not מועדין, והנחש מועד לעולם, but a snake is always a מועד. So it seems from our משנה that רבי אלעזר holds that the other animals are not called מועדין. And in this ברייתא it says that רבי אלעזר says also a נחש is a מועד, obviously he holds that they are also מועדין, so it's a סתירה between the ברייתא and the משנה. And the גמרא answers, תני, we should learn נחש, that in the ברייתא where it says that רבי אלעזר says אף הנחש, that also a נחש is a מועד, we have to take out the word אף, also, that all the ברייתא would be saying is that רבי אלעזר holds נחש, that a נחש is a מועד, but the rest of the animals are טאקע not מועדין מתחילתן. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר שמואל, שמואל said, ארי ברשות הרבים, a lion in public ground, דרס ואכל, פטור, if it seized another animal and it ate it before it killed the other animal, פטור is פטור. טרף ואכל, if it first killed it and then ate it, חייב, you're חייב. And the גמרא explains why: דרס ואכל, פטור, if it grabbed it and ate it before it killed it, you're פטור, because כיוון דאורחיה למידרס, that is the custom of the lion to do, to grab an animal and to eat it without killing it, so הוה ליה כמי שאכלה פירות וירקות, so it's as if it ate fruit or vegetables, it ate its normal food, הוה ליה שן ברשות הרבים, ופטור, so it is שן, because when an animal causes damage through eating, it's called שן, and since this was done in the רשות הרבים, you are פטור, as we know the דין that שן ברשות הרבים is פטור. But if טרף, it first killed the animal and then ate it, לאו אורחיה הוא, it is not its custom, and therefore it is not considered שן, it is considered קרן, and קרן ברשות הרבים is חייב. Then the גמרא asks, למימרא, let us say, דטריפה לאו אורחיה הוא, that to kill an animal first is not a custom of a lion? How can we say that, והכתיב, doesn't the פסוק say, it's a פסוק in נחום, אריה טורף בדי גורותיו, that a lion will kill in order to bring enough food for little lions, so we see that a lion does kill and bring home. And the גמרא answers, בשביל גורותיו, only to bring home for the little lions, that's when it'll kill, but not when it'll eat right away. But then the פסוק continues there, ומחנק ללביאותיו, that it'll choke in order to bring food for the female lions, so we see that it chokes first and brings home? The answer is בשביל לביאותיו, also, only if it does it in order to bring home food for the females, that's when it'll kill first, but not if it'll eat right away. Then the פסוק continues, וימלא טרף חוריו, it'll fill up its holes with טרף, with the animals that killed and then brought home? So the answer is also בשביל חוריו. If it's going to bring home for its holes to put away, that's when it kills first, but not if it's going to eat right away. ומעונותיו טרפה, and it fills up its dwelling places with טרפה, with killed animals. So here, too, we see that a lion will kill the animal and then bring it home? And the גמרא answers the same תירוץ, בשביל מעונותיו, only if it's going to bring home, that's when it'll kill first, if it's going to bring it to store, but if it's going to eat it right away, it is not the custom of the lion to first kill and then eat it. Then the גמרא asks, והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, וכן חיה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק, if a חיה entered the yard of the ניזק, טרפה בהמה ואכלה בשר, if it killed that בהמה and it ate the meat, משלם נזק שלם, you pay full נזק. And since you pay full נזק, that is a ראיה that it's considered שן, because if it would be קרן, if it wouldn't be a normal thing for it to do, and therefore it would be considered קרן, you would pay חצי נזק. Since you pay נזק שלם, that shows that it's the normal custom for it to do. So we see clearly here that when an animal entered a yard and killed a בהמה and ate it, so you do pay נזק שלם, that shows that it is the custom of the animal to kill a בהמה. And the גמרא answers, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case, שטרפה להניח, that it killed it not to eat right away, but to put away. And as we said before, that that is the custom of an animal to kill and put away, but if it's going to eat right away, it is not the custom. But the גמרא asks, how can we say that, והא אכלה קתני, doesn't it say in the ברייתא clearly that it killed an animal, and it ate the meat. So we're talking in a case where it did eat the meat, and we see that even if it ate the meat right away, nevertheless, it is the custom of the חיה to kill. And the גמרא answers כשנמלכה ואכלה, that it changed its mind and it ate. When it killed, it didn't have a mind to eat it, that's why it's normal. Then it decided and ate the meat. But the גמרא asks מנא ידעינן, how do we know that? We see an animal enter the yard and kill a בהמה, and eat the meat, how do we know that it first intended to kill it and not eat it, and therefore it's considered normal, and it's considered שן, not קרן, and then when it ate it, it changed its mind? How do we know, maybe לכתחילה when it killed it it intended to eat it, and therefore it is not a normal thing, so it shouldn't be considered שן and it should be considered קרן? ועוד, another thing, לשמואל נמי, דילמא הכי הוא? Maybe the case of שמואל is the same, when שמואל said that if a lion kills and eats, so it's not considered normal, it's considered קרן because it's משונה, how do we know, maybe that's what the lion had in mind, when it killed it didn't have a mind to eat it, and then he changed his mind and decided to eat it? So therefore it should not be considered קרן. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said, בדזדוקין תני, that this ברייתא where it says that if a חיה entered the חצר הניזק and killed a בהמה and ate the meat, you pay נזק שלם, and from here we wanted to prove that it shows that it is the דרך of a חיה to kill and then eat, that you have to put into two sides, you have to divide that into two parts. The פשט would be like this: שטרפה והניחה, that if it entered the חצר of the ניזק and killed, and not ate, and it didn't eat it, או דרסה ואכלה, when it says in the ברייתא ואכלה בשר, it ate the meat, it doesn't mean it in the same case, it killed the animal and ate its meat, it means it killed the animal and didn't eat it, or if it did not kill the animal and it ate it. So then the דין is משלם נזק שלם, it pays נזק שלם, because both of these cases are אורחיה, are normal for the animal to do. And the גמרא says,

רבינא אמר, רבינא says, כי קאמר שמואל, when did שמואל say his דין? In other words, שמואל didn't mean to say that it is not the custom of a lion to kill and then eat, what he meant was why is it considered not his custom, because he was talking בארי תרבות, by a tamed lion, ואליבא דרבי אלעזר דאמר לאו אורחיה, according to רבי אלעזר who says that these animals, if they are tamed, it is not their custom to cause damage, so therefore he said if the lion did kill, it is considered not its normal thing, and therefore it is considered קרן. But this is only according to רבי אלעזר who holds that a lion that is tamed it is not his דרך to kill, and if it does it is קרן. So the גמרא says, אי הכי, if so, אפילו דרסה נמי לחייב, if so, even if it didn't kill the animal, it just ate the animal while it was alive, you also should be חייב. Because שמואל said that if it killed the animal and it ate, then you're חייב, but if it didn't kill the animal and it ate it, you are פטור, and the reason why you are פטור he said because that is normal for it to do. And it is שן, and שן ברשות הרבים is פטור. But now that we're saying that it goes according to רבי אלעזר, and it's speaking in a case where the lion was tamed, so if the lion was tamed, and according to רבי אלעזר it doesn't kill, so even if it didn't kill the animal, even if it just ate the animal while it was alive, you still should be חייב, because it's still not שן, because it is not normal according to רבי אלעזר for a tamed lion to eat a live בהמה. So therefore, why did שמואל say that if it ate the בהמה alive you are פטור because it's שן, if it is according to רבי אלעזר you still should be חייב because it's still not שן, it is still קרן, because it is not the custom of an animal to do that? And the גמרא answers, אלא, therefore, you must say that רבינא לאו אשמואל איתמר, when רבינא said that it's speaking in a case where the lion was tamed and it goes according to רבי אלעזר, he didn't say it concerning שמואל, because if it would have been said concerning שמואל, there wouldn't have been a difference whether it killed the בהמה first or it didn't kill the בהמה first. אלא אמתניתא, he said it on the ברייתא! In the ברייתא as we brought before, that if a

חיה enters the חצר הניזק and kills a בהמה and eats the meat, you pay נזק שלם, so we would think, why is it? Because it is the דרך of the animal to do that, and therefore it is considered שן, and that is the reason why you are חייב if it happened in the חצר הניזק. That's where he said that it's not so, that you could say that it is even talking in ארי תרבות, in a lion that was tamed according to רבי אלעזר, and you still would be חייב, but you wouldn't be חייב for שן, you would be חייב for קרן. Since according to רבי אלעזר it wouldn't be the דרך of the animal to do it, so it is משונה, so it would be קרן, so you would be חייב in the חצר הניזק as קרן. But the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if that's what the ברייתא means, חצי נזק בעי לשלומי, you would have to pay חצי נזק! Since it would be קרן then, why does the ברייתא say you pay נזק שלם? You would have to pay only חצי נזק! So the גמרא answers, דאיעד, it is speaking in a case where it became a מועד already. It happened a few times already, so therefore it is a מועד, and that is the reason why you are חייב נזק שלם. But the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, מאי האי דקתני לה גבי תולדה דשן? Why is it written among the תולדות of שן? גבי תולדה דקרן בעי למיתני, it should have been written among the תולדות of קרן! And this ברייתא, as it is brought down later on דף י״ט עמוד ב׳, is brought among the תולדות of שן, but if we're going to say that it's speaking according to רבי אלעזר, and it's a תם animal, and the reason why you are חייב is because it is not its דרך, and you are חייב for קרן, and the reason you are חייב נזק שלם is because it became a מועד already, but then it should have been written among the תולדות of קרן, not among the תולדות of שן. And the גמרא says, קשיא, this is a קשיא that has no תירוץ.

Concerning what we learned before that the שדרה of a person becomes a snake if a person doesn't bow down by מודים, so תוספות says that what is the reason? Because it's מידה כנגד מידה. Since it says that when you bow down and you get up, you have to get up like a snake, and this person who didn't bow down by מודים, so he will be punished מידה כנגד מידה, and his spine will become like a snake. And then תוספות says that what is the meaning of this punishment that his spine becomes like a snake? Because it says in the מדרש that every person has a bone in his spine, which that will be the bone from which השם will recreate the body after by תחיית המתים. That bone is a very hard bone, it is called עצם לוז, and fire doesn't burn it, and it doesn't get destroyed, and because of that bone, a person will get up by תחיית המתים. So when the גמרא says that a person's spine becomes a snake, that means that he loses this bone, and therefore this person will not get up by תחיית המתים. This is the punishment. But תוספות says it's hard to say that for such a small עבירה like not bowing down by מודים, the person will not get up at תחיית המתים. Especially that we say, כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא, that every ייד has a part in the world to come, which refers to תחיית המתים, so why should this person, who didn't bow down by מודים, not have a חלק לעולם הבא? And therefore we must say that there must be a different reason in this punishment, and not that he will not have a חלק in עולם הבא, but on the contrary, he will also get up to תחיית המתים, because every ייד has a חלק in עולם הבא.