Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור, we're going to start a new סדר of the ששה סדרי משנה. We're entering the סדר נזיקין, the סדר in משניות that deals with the דינים of היזק, with the דינים of damage, and we will start with the first מסכתא in סדר נזיקין, which is מסכתא בבא קמא. The word בבא קמא means the first gate, because we have three gates within the same category, and they are referred to as בבא קמא, בבא מציעא, and בבא בתרא, which means the first gate, the second gate, and the third gate. And according to some opinions, really these three מסכתות are really one מסכתא, just three parts to the same מסכתא, and that's why they are referred to as three different sections of the same מסכתא as בבא קמא, בבא מציעא, and בבא בתרא. The מסכתא we are going to start, which is the מסכתא בבא קמא, is going to deal with the damages that a person causes to another and the payments he must make for the damage that he caused. And when we say a person causes damage to another, it doesn't necessarily mean that he himself personally causes the damage, but it also means and includes the damage that is caused by something that is owned by the person, and therefore he is responsible to pay for those damages. And the beginning of the מסכתא will deal mainly with four principal categories of damages that a person is responsible for. And

before we get into learning the משנה, we will first go through some of the פסוקים in the תורה that are the source for these categories of damages that a person will be responsible for. In פרשת משפטים, which is in חומש שמות, in קפיטל כ\"א, we find in פסוק כ\"ח, it says, וכי יגח שור את איש או את אשה ומת, that if an ox will gore a person and the person will die, so then the punishment is סקול יסקל השור, that the שור, the ox, must be stoned, and as the פסוק continues, and it is אסור בהנאה, a person may not have any benefit from that ox. And then the owner of the ox, the תורה says, אם כפר יושת עליו ונתן פדיון נפשו ככל אשר יושת עליו, that there is a certain amount of payment that the owner of the ox must pay for the death that was caused through his ox. So here we have the פסוקים that deal with the goring of an ox that killed a person. Then the פסוק continues in פסוק ל\"ג, where it says, וכי יפתח איש בור, if a person will open up a pit, או כי יכרה איש בור, or if a person will dig a pit, ולא יכסנו, and he will not cover it, ונפל שמה שור או חמור, and in that pit an ox or a donkey will fall in, so the תורה says, בעל הבור ישלם כסף ישיב לבעליו והמת יהיה לו, which means that the owner of this pit, the one that dug it or the one that opened it up, is responsible to pay for the damage that he caused, since an ox or a donkey fell in and got hurt or killed, and therefore there was a loss of money caused to the owner of that ox, so the one that made the pit is responsible to pay. Then the פסוק continues in פסוק ל\"ה, וכי יגף שור איש את שור רעהו ומת, that if an ox that belongs to a person will make a collision with an ox that belongs to somebody else, ומת, and the other ox died, in other words, the first ox caused damage to the owner of the other ox by killing his ox, so the דין is, as the פסוק continues, that the owner of the first ox must pay. Then the פסוק continues later on in קפיטל כ\"ב, פסוק ד', כי יבער איש שדה או כרם ושלח את בעירו ובער בשדה אחר מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, which means that if a person will send his animal to someone else's yard, to someone else's field, and as the גמרא will explain, it doesn't mean only if he sent, but even if the animal went by itself, and what the animal did, as the גמרא will explain, it means that the animal either stamped, stepped on the food, on the things that grow in someone else's field, or the animal ate things that belong to somebody else in somebody else's field, then the owner of the animal must pay for the damage that his animal, his ox, for instance, caused. to his friend. Then the פסוק continues in פסוק ה, כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים, if a fire will go out, and it will find thorns, ונאכל גדיש או הקמה או השדה, and it will burn the wheat, the grain that's in someone else's field, שלם ישלם המבער את הבערה. So the one that made the fire has to pay for the damage that his fire caused. Then we have פסוקים in פרשה אמור, in חומש ויקרא, קפיטל כ"ד. So there the תורה says in פסוק י"ח, ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה. If someone hit the נפש of a בהמה, in other words, if somebody kills somebody else's animal, so the דין is ישלמנה, he must pay for it. And then the פסוק continues in פסוק כ"א, ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, that if you hit a בהמה, which means if you cause damage to another person's בהמה, you didn't kill it, but you caused some damage to it, ישלמנה, you must also pay.

Based on all these פסוקים, the גמרא will learn out that we find four general categories of kinds of damage that a person is able to cause to his friend. And we will find differences of opinion in the גמרא exactly which the four are. But we will go through them all, which add up to six, and the גמרא will explain which four of the six are considered the four principal categories. But from these פסוקים, we come out with six different types of damage that is caused by a person to his friend. Three are damages that are caused by an ox, by the ox that belongs to a person. And these three are referred to as קרן, שן, and רגל. קרן means the horn, שן is the tooth, רגל is the foot. Because as we noticed from the פסוקים before, there is a possibility for an ox to cause damage to another person through goring, that is קרן, using his horn, or through eating the other person's things, which would be referred to as שן, which is the tooth, and another category, another way a person's ox is able to cause damage to his friend, is through רגל, through the foot, when he stamps, when he goes over other person's property and breaks it and damages it. So these are three which are included in the ox. Then we have the damage a person is able to cause somebody through making a hole, and then because that he didn't cover the hole, someone else's things fell in and were damaged, that is another category of damage. Then we have a damage that could be caused through a fire, as we learned in the פסוק, that if you start a fire and it burns, destroys someone else's property, you're responsible to pay. And then there is a damage that could be caused through the person himself. If the person himself damages someone else's property, for instance, kills someone else's animal, or hurts someone else's animal, which really means that he caused a היזק of money, a loss of money to his friend, he is responsible to pay. Now, it must be made clear that when we say that these are principal categories of damage, it doesn't mean that because they were done by different parts of the body, for instance, one was done through the horn, the other one was done through the teeth, and the other one was done through the feet, therefore they are considered different categories, but these are different categories in kinds of damage, and the part of the body is just a general idea of that whenever it is done with that part of the body, usually it is done in a certain way. In other words, the different categories of damage have different characteristics, and the גמרא will explain exactly the different characteristics of the different kinds of damage. For instance, the characteristic of the damage done through קרן, through a horn, is that כוונתו להזיק, that it is intending to be מזיק, to damage. And therefore, we consider it as a separate category, not only because it was done by the horn, but that represents a general category of whenever an ox damages property of somebody else with the intention of damaging, that is in the category of קרן. The category of רגל, for instance, is היזקא מצוי. It is a kind of damage that is very common. Since the animal walks, and whenever there is something under its feet, it will step on it and therefore damage it, so any damage which is היזקא מצוי, which is a common damage, will be in the category of רגל. And שן, for instance, the tooth, represents a kind of damage when יש הנאה להזיקו, when there is a pleasure, a benefit to the animal through its damage. damage. Just like when the animal eats something, and therefore caused the damage to the other person, but it's a kind of damage that the animal had a benefit from. So anytime the animal will damage, when there is a הנאה, a pleasure to the animal through its damage, that will be in the category of שן. And the same with the other kinds of damages, each one has its own characteristics, and therefore it is considered a separate category of damage. Now,

being that these are different categories of damage, different דינים could apply to the different categories, whether it is concerning when you are חייב to pay and when you are פטור to pay. There could be different conditions concerning one kind of damage that you would have to pay under such conditions, while if it would happen through a different kind of damage, you would be פטור to pay, or it would be consider, concerning the amount of money you have to pay. That one type of damage you might have to pay more than if it happened through a different type of damage. And one of the דינים that are important to note before we even start the גמרא is that concerning the category of קרן, there is a difference between a תם and a מועד. קרן, being that it is a kind of damage where כוונתו להזיק, where the animal intends to damage, therefore this is called משונה. This is a kind of damage which is really not a normal thing to do. It is a change in the style, in the nature of the animal. And therefore, if it happened the first time by this animal, or even the second time, or according to some opinions even a third time, the animal is still considered a תם. And therefore, the owner would only have to pay חצי נזק, half of the damage that the animal caused. Afterwards, after the third time, if the animal damages again, now the owner would have to pay נזק שלם, the complete amount of money that the damage was. While by other kinds of damage, the other categories, even if it happens the first time, the owner must pay נזק שלם, the complete נזק, the complete amount of money. Another difference between קרן and the other categories of נזק is that קרן you only pay מגופו, which means even that half of the נזק, half of the amount of money of damage that the owner has to pay, you only pay up to the worth of the animal that caused the damage. For instance, if the animal that caused the damage was worth $50, and the damage that he caused was worth 110, then if we would just have to pay half of the damage, it means he would have to pay 55. But since the animal itself is not worth more than 50, so then the owner would not have to pay more than 50. While in the other categories of damage, in addition to the fact that you pay נזק שלם, the complete amount of money, you also pay מן העלייה, which means that it doesn't depend on the worth of the animal, but you have to pay the full amount of money, whether you have to go take it from your house or wherever you would get it, you would have to pay the complete amount of money that the damage was. And there are many, many more דינים in the different categories of נזיקין, as we will learn throughout the פרק. And now we will learn the משנה inside. The

משנה says, ארבעה אבות נזיקין, there are four fathers of damages, which means that there are four general, principal categories in damages. And the משנה mentions them: השור, the ox. And there are two opinions in the גמרא later on, what that refers to. According to one opinion, it refers to all three categories of נזיקין that we find in the ox, which means קרן, שן, ורגל. So the משנה just gives one general word, but it really means all three. And according to another opinion, the word שור refers to one of the three, which is רגל, to the damage that is caused through the foot of the ox. And the גמרא explains the reasons why we should, according to one opinion, hold it means all three, and why the other opinion holds it only means רגל. The second one is והבור, the pit. Then והמבעה. In the גמרא, we also have a מחלוקת what מבעה means. According to one opinion, the one that holds that שור means רגל, he learns that מבעה means שן, the second category, the other category within the ox. According to the opinion that holds that שור means all three, so the word מבעה means the person. That if the person personally causes damage to somebody, he is also one of the categories in the אבות נזיקין. And the גמרא later on will explain why, according to this opinion that holds that שור means רגל and מבעה means שן, why the משנה doesn't mention קרן, and why the משנה and it doesn't mention אדם when the person himself damages. And then we have the fourth one, וההבער, which means the fire. These are four principal categories. And as רש"י says, why are these referred to as אבות? So רש"י says, because the ones that are mentioned in the תורה specifically outright, they are referred to as אבות. And the משנה continues, לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה. שור is not like מבעה. The משנה here is trying to answer an obvious question. One might ask, why did the תורה have to tell us all four categories of damage? Why wouldn't it be enough if the תורה would just say that if you cause damage to another person through שור for instance, you are obligated to pay? So we would understand ourselves that just like you cause the damage through שור you have to pay, the same if you would cause the damage through any other way, you would have to pay. So the תורה could have just told us one of these categories, and we would understand the rest. The only way we could answer that question is if we would find that there is a חומרא in one of them over the other. In other words, if there is something stricter, if there is a reason in one of them why we would think that there is more reason that this one pays damage, and that same reason we do not find in the other kinds, that would answer the question why the תורה has to write them both. Because if the תורה would write the first, we would think that only in that case you have to pay, because that has that special חומרא, and the other that does not have the special חומרא, we would think you do not have to pay. And therefore the תורה has to write the second one too to tell us that even though the other one does not have this חומרא, nevertheless you would have to pay. And that's what the משנה is saying: לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה. שור has a חומרא over מבעה. There is something in שור that מבעה doesn't have. There is some reason in שור why שור has to pay that we do not find in מבעה. And therefore, if the תורה would just tell us שור, we would not know that מבעה also has to pay. And the גמרא later on will explain which is the חומרא that שור has over מבעה. And the גמרא will explain it according to both opinions: whether שור means רגל and מבעה means שן, or the other opinion that שור means all three and מבעה means אדם. But the גמרא will explain what is the חומרא that שור has over מבעה, which would be the reason why if the תורה would just tell us שור, we would not know מבעה. But the question comes up now, that if there is a חומרא in שור over מבעה, so why didn't the תורה just write מבעה and not write שור? And we would understand ourselves that if מבעה has to pay, even though it doesn't have that special חומרא, certainly שור has to pay when it does have that חומרא. So the תורה should have just written מבעה and not שור. So the משנה continues, ולא הרי המבעה כהרי השור. There is some special חומרא in מבעה that שור doesn't have. And therefore, if the תורה would just write מבעה, I would think that only מבעה, being that it has that חומרא, only that has to pay, but שור which does not have that חומרא, you do not have to pay. And therefore the תורה has to write שור also. In other words, since there is a חומרא in שור over מבעה, and a חומרא in מבעה over שור, therefore the תורה has to write them both. Then the משנה continues, ולא זה וזה שיש בהן רוח חיים כהרי האש שאין בו רוח חיים. Now the משנה is going to explain, why isn't it enough that the תורה should write just שור and מבעה, and we wouldn't need אש, the תורה didn't have to tell us fire, and we would understand ourselves that if you cause damage through שור or through מבעה you have to pay, so too if you cause damage through אש, through a fire, you also have to pay? And the משנה says that it wouldn't be enough because there is a חומרא that we find in שור and מבעה which we do not find in אש. And therefore if the תורה would just write שור and מבעה, we would not understand ourselves that you're also חייב by אש. We would think that only שור and מבעה, being that they have this חומרא, that's why you have to pay, while אש that doesn't have this חומרא, the fire doesn't have this חומרא, you do not have to pay. And in this case, the משנה tells us בפירוש which is the חומרא that we find in שור and מבעה that אש doesn't have. And the חומרא is רוח חיים. They both are alive. They're both done through something which is alive. Whether שור and and מבעה means שן and רגל, or it means all three categories and אדם, but whatever it is, it has a רוח חיים, it is done through something that is alive. And that is a reason why we would think a person should have to pay, while אש is done through something which doesn't have any life, we would think maybe does not have to pay. And therefore the תורה also has to write אש. Now the question is, so let the תורה just write these three and we wouldn't need the fourth, which is בור? But the משנה continues continues: ולא זה וזה שדרכן לילך ולהזיק, that these three are not like the other, the בור, being that they have a חומרא that they travel and they cause the damage. So they are not like הרי הבור, like the pit, שאין דרכו לילך ולהזיק. It doesn't have the characteristic of going and being מזיק. These three, the way they cause the damage is by traveling. They go to the one they cause the damage to. And therefore we would think that only in these three categories do you have to pay. But if you cause damage through a בור, since the בור does not travel, does not go to the object it causes the damage to, the object or the person or whatever it was came to the pit, so here we would think that maybe you do not have to pay. So if the תורה would not write בפירוש that if you cause damage through a בור you have to pay, we would not know that. And therefore, the תורה also has to mention בור. And the משנה continues, הצד השוה שבהן, the common point in all four is שדרכן להזיק. It is common that they would cause damage, all four are common to cause damage. ושמירתן עליך, all four are things that you are obligated to watch. They are in your control, and you are able to watch them. And the דין is by all four, וכשהזיק, when the damage was done, חב המזיק, so the one that caused the damage is responsible לשלם, to pay תשלומי נזק, the payment for this damage. And he has to pay במיטב הארץ. If he doesn't pay with money, and he wants to pay with property, he has to pay with the best of the property. And as the גמרא explains, we have three kinds of property, three categories of land, which are referred to as עידית, בינונית and זיבורית. עידית is the best, בינונית is the middle, the average, and זיבורית are the worst. And the

דין is, if you pay for damage with property, you must pay with the עידית, with the best property. Now one might ask in the משנה, why is it that when the משנה says that there is a חומרא in שור over מבעה, and in מבעה over שור, the משנה does not mention what is the חומרא? And the גמרא later on will have to explain that. While when the משנה says that there is a חומרא in שור and מבעה over אש, the משנה says what the חומרא is, that the חומרא is that these two have a רוח חיים and אש doesn't. And the same when the משנה says that the three, שור and מבעה and אש have a חומרא over בור, the משנה does mention what the חומרא is, that these three is דרכן לילך ולהזיק, they go, while the בור does not go. But תוספות says the reason why the משנה doesn't mention the חומרא in the first is because when we want to find a חומרא in one over the other, so then it is easy to find. You just think a little bit and you will see the difference between one and the other. But when we want to find a חומרא in two over one, in other words we have to find a common point which is in two over one, then that is harder, especially when it's three over one. So therefore, when it comes to the חומרא of שור and מבעה over אש, and the חומרא of שור, מבעה and אש over בור, the משנה feels that it has to say it outright, because otherwise maybe we wouldn't understand which is the חומרא. Then

there's another question that is very obvious here. When it speaks about שור and מבעה, the משנה says it both ways. First the משנה says let us say just שור and not מבעה, and the משנה says that it couldn't because שור has a חומרא. But then right away the question comes up, but then let us say just מבעה and not שור, and we would understand ourselves with a קל וחומר. If מבעה which doesn't have the חומרא you are חייב, certainly שור which does have the חומרא. And therefore the משנה has to say that there is a חומרא in מבעה over שור too, and therefore if it would just say מבעה we wouldn't know שור. Why didn't the משנה do that later on? When the משנה said there is a חומרא in שור and מבעה over אש, and therefore it has to say אש, and it wouldn't be enough if it would just say שור ומבעה, why doesn't the משנה go back again and say: Now let it say just אש, and since אש doesn't have the חומרא, and nevertheless you are חייב, we would understand ourselves that שור and מבעה which do have the חומרא, definitely you're חייב. And the משנה doesn't do that. And תוספות says, and the same we find in other ראשונים, that the reason is because there is no חומרא that we find in אש over שור ומבעה. But the question is in that case, so why doesn't it say just אש? But there are a lot of details, complicated details to answer this question. But the main point is that later on in the גמרא we find that the truth is that if the תורה would just write בור and one of the others, we would automatically have learned them all out. And the גמרא later on goes into the details of how it is. And the reason the גמרא says the תורה does mention them all four outright is because of the separate different דינים that we find in each one of the categories. So therefore the תורה couldn't rely on just writing two and we would know the rest. We might have known the general דין that you are obligated to pay in the other categories of damage too, but since there are different דינים in each category, the תורה has to write them outright. And because of that, really, all this that the משנה says, the different חומרות we find in שור over מבעה and מבעה over שור and the others over the others, it is really not needed. Because סוף כל סוף, even after all that, the תורה still could have written just בור and one more, and the reason it doesn't is not because of the חומרות, but because of the different דינים that apply to each category. So really, when the משנה says all this, it is really not needed. And the only reason תוספות says the משנה says it is להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה, in order for us to learn more תורה, to get an understanding in the תורה more, to have more details in the studying of תורה, but in truth, after all this, we still have to come on to a different answer why the תורה has to mention them all four. And therefore, in the case here, where the משנה did not find a reason, a חומרא in אש over the others, the משנה did not mention it, because there is no חומרא in אש over שור ומבעה, but nevertheless, the משנה did go through the different חומרות that we find in some over the others because of להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה.

There is another obvious question here in the משנה. What is the reason for the order of the four מזיקין: שור, then בור, then מבעה and הבער? So רש״י says that they are written here according to the סדר the way they are written in the פרשה. Because in the פרשה we find the first speaks about שור, then the next פרשה about בור, then מבעה, and then הבער. And תוספות goes more into detail in explaining that according to the מאן דאמר, the one that holds that שור is רגל, this order doesn't seem to fit according to the פרשה, because the פרשה of רגל, which is learned out from ושלח את בעירה וביער בשדה אחר, comes after the פרשה of בור. But תוספות says, but nevertheless, since we do find a דין concerning שור before בור, as I mentioned in the beginning of the שיעור, that the תורה speaks about a שור goring and killing a person before the תורה speaks about בור, so even though the שור of the משנה, the word שור of the משנה refers to רגל, which says after בור, but since the תורה does mention the general category of an ox goring before the דין of בור, therefore the משנה mentions it first. Then תוספות asks: what about מבעה? According to the one that holds that מבעה means אדם, that is not mentioned till later on in פרשת אמור. So why did the משנה put מבעה before הבער? And one of the תירוצים תוספות gives is that since it is in a in different פרשיות altogether, it's much further away, it does not have to be written in the משנה in the order of the פרשה. When something when there are a few things in the same פרשה, so then the משנה mentions all the things of the same פרשה in the order the way they are mentioned in the פרשה, but something that is in a different פרשה altogether doesn't have to fit to the order of the way things come, and therefore the משנה put it in a different order. And that is the order of the משנה later on, that the way the משנה says later on the לא הרי זה, so there מבעה comes before הבער, so therefore the משנה also puts in מבעה before הבער. The

reason why the משנה says לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה, that when the משנה starts with the question why the תורה has to write them all, and the משנה starts by saying that if it would say שור, we would not have known מבעה, so the רש״י asks, why did the משנה mention מבעה? Right after שור in the משנה comes בור. So the first thing the משנה should have said, לא הרי השור כהרי הבור, that if it would say שור, we would not know בור, since בור is the second. Why did the משנה skip בור and jump directly to מבעה and say that if it wouldn't say שור, we wouldn't know מבעה? It should have said לא הרי השור כהרי הבור. And רש״י says that the reason for that is because if the משנה would say that, so then after the משנה would explain that we need them both, then we would have to go on and say, why can't it say just the both and not the third? We would have to say that לא הרי השור והבור כהרי המבעה, that there is a חומרא in שור and בור, which are the first two, over מבעה. And we wouldn't be able to say that these two have a חומרא of רוח חיים, being that בור is not a רוח חיים. And therefore, in order to find a חומרא in these two over the first two over the third, the משנה had to mention שור and מבעה, and then you're able to find a חומרא, which is יש בו רוח חיים over the third, over בור. While if the משנה would have started with שור ובור, then we wouldn't be able to say this חומרא of רוח חיים in שור ובור over the third, which would have been מבעה. Another reason רש״י gives is that the משנה is trying to tell us a רבותא, a חידוש, that even though שור and מבעה both have a חומרא of רוח חיים, nevertheless, we wouldn't have known one from the other. If the משנה would start by saying that we cannot learn out שור from בור, or בור from שור, it wouldn't be such a big חידוש, because they're two separate categories. שור is something which is alive, and בור is something which has no life. But the משנה is trying to tell us that even though שור and מבעה both have a רוח חיים, nevertheless, the תורה must tell us both, because if it would just say one, we wouldn't know the other because of the חומרא that which each one of these two has. And now we'll continue with the גמרא: מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות, since you called them אבות, which means fathers, that shows that there are children. If there wouldn't be any derivatives from these categories, you couldn't call them אבות. A father means that he has a child. So since the משנה refers to these four that they are fathers, which means they are general categories, obviously they are there are other kinds of damages which would be derived and they would be considered תולדות, children of these categories. So before the גמרא even goes in to explain which are the תולדות of these אבות, the גמרא has a general question: תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן? The תולדות that will be derived from these אבות, will they be like the אבות or not, which means will they have the same דין like the אבות? And the גמרא explains why there is a question, because we find other places in ש״ס where we also have אבות and תולדות. And in some places the תולדות have the same דין as the אבות. In some places the תולדות do not have the same דין as the אבות. And therefore the גמרא wants to know what about the תולדות of the אבות נזיקין? And it says: גבי שבת תנן, concerning שבת we learned, אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת. There are forty minus one, which means thirty-nine אבות מלאכות, thirty-nine אבות categories of מלאכות that you're not allowed to do on שבת. And there we have the same דיוק: אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות, that since we call them אבות, that shows there are תולדות, which means there are other מלאכות which are derived from these thirty-nine categories. And over there the דין is: תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן, that the תולדות have the same דין as the fathers, as the אבות. In other words, לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת. There's no difference whether you do an אב, you're חייב a חטאת, or if you do a תולדה you're חייב a חטאת. The דין by שבת is that if you do a מלאכה of שבת, and you do it unintentionally, you do it בשוגג, you have to bring a קרבן חטאת. If you do it במזיד, then if there are witnesses and you are warned, you would get death penalty, you get killed. So the דין is that whether you do an אב of the מלאכות, if you do it unintentionally you bring a חטאת, the same דין applies to a תולדה, if you do a תולדה unintentionally you bring a חטאת. And the same thing: לא שנא אב סקילה ולא שנא תולדה סקילה. Makes no difference whether you do an אב intentionally you get killed, the same applies to a תולדה, if you do it intentionally you get killed. So here we see that the תולדות have the same דין as the אבות. But then the גמרא asks: ומאי איכא בין אב לתולדה? So what is the difference between an אב and a תולדה? Why is this called an אב and this called a תולדה if they have the same דין? And the גמרא says: נפקא מינה, the difference would be, דאי עביד שתי אבות בהדי הדדי, if a person would do two אבות together, for instance if he would cook on שבת and make a fire, which are two אבות, אי נמי שתי תולדות בהדי הדדי, if he would do, or if he would do two תולדות together, מחייב אכל חדא וחדא, he would be חייב for every one. If he would do two separate תולדות from two separate אבות, then he would be חייב for each one a קרבן חטאת. דאי עביד אב ותולדה דידיה, but if he would do an אב and its own תולדה, he would do the principal מלאכה and he would do also at the same time another מלאכה which is in the same category, which is a תולדה of that אב, לא מחייב אלא חדא, then he'd only be חייב one. So here we see a difference between an אב and a תולדה. If that תולדה would not be considered a תולדה of this אב, but if that תולדה would be considered as a separate אב, so then he would be חייב two. And therefore we call it a תולדה, that if he does that תולדה with its own אב, you are only חייב one. And the גמרא asks: ולרבי אליעזר דמחייב אתולדה במקום אב, according to רבי אליעזר who holds that if you do a תולדה together with its own אב, you are חייב for both, אמאי קרי ליה אב ואמאי קרי ליה תולדה? So according to him, why is one מלאכה called an אב and why is another one called a תולדה? Even if you would do the אב with its תולדה you would be חייב two. In other words, the תולדה would be considered like a separate thing altogether. So why call it a תולדה? And the גמרא answers: הא דהוה במשכן חשיבא קרי ליה אב. Whatever was in the משכן important is called an אב. הא דלא הוה במשכן חשיבא קרי ליה תולדה. Whatever was not considered a חשוב an important מלאכה in the משכן is called a תולדה. Because as we know, the 39 מלאכות are learned out from the משכן. The תורה just says לא תעשה כל מלאכה, like you're not allowed to do a מלאכה on שבת. You're not allowed to do a work. Now, what is considered work, the תורה doesn't say. But since the תורה tells us the דין of שבת very close to the דינים of the משכן, so we learn out that whatever was considered a מלאכה in the משכן is considered a מלאכה concerning שבת. And that's what רבי אלעזר is saying, that any מלאכה that was considered an important מלאכה by the making of the משכן is called an אב. Whatever was not considered an important מלאכה by the making of the משכן is considered a תולדה. And therefore, we call one אב and one תולדה even though the תולדה has its own דין that even if you do it together with its אב, you are חייב. But one thing we do see from all this, that a תולדה has the same דין as an אב, which means תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן. But גבי טומאה תנן, concerning the דין of טומאה of impurity, it says אבות הטומאות. We learn in the משנה that we have אבות הטומאות, principal categories of טומאה, which is a שרץ, certain type of reptiles, there are שמונה שרצים, eight kinds of שרצים which if you touch them when they're dead, then you become טמא, and you become an אב הטומאה, you have a דין of a father of טומאה we could call it, ושכבת זרע, and the semen that comes out of a person is also considered אב הטומאה, וטמא מת or a person who touched a dead body, so that person is also an אב הטומאה. And then we have תולדות. Anything that this אב, this person who became an אב will touch, will be considered a תולדה, it will be considered a child, a derivative of the original טומאה. So there the דין is תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן, that the תולדות of the טומאה do not have the same דין as the אבות. דאילו אב, because some, a person who is an אב הטומאה, מטמא אדם וכלים, if he will touch another person, or he will touch a vessel, he will make that טמא. ואילו תולדות, but a תולדה, אוכל ומשקה מטמא, it could only make טמא food or liquid, אדם וכלים לא מטמא, but if a תולדה, which is a derivative of the אב, if that will touch a person, or touch a vessel, will not make it טמא. So here we see that we also have אבות and תולדות, and nevertheless, the תולדות have a different דין than the אבות. So the question is, הכא מאי? Here, what is the דין concerning אבות and תולדות of נזיקין? What is the דין? Are the תולדות of the נזיקין, those kinds of damages that are caused by a different way, not one of these four, but they are תולדות of these four, would they have the same דין as the אבות? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said: יש מהן כיוצא בהן ויש מהן לאו כיוצא בהן. We find some which have the same דין as the אבות, and we find some which do not have the same דין as the אבות. And at the end, the גמרא will come out that there is only one case of a תולדה which does not have the same דין as the אב. But the rest of the תולדות of נזיקין have the exact same דין as their אב. And now the גמרא is going to go into trying to figure out which ones are the ones that do not have the same דין as the אב. And the גמרא starts: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: ג' אבות נאמרו בשור, we find concerning an ox that it's in the ox itself we find three categories of נזיקין: הקרן, the horn, והשן, and the tooth, והרגל, and the foot. And the גמרא goes to explain, where do we see in the תורה these different categories? קרן מנלן? Where do we know that there is a kind of damage that is caused through a קרן, through a horn? דתנו רבנן, because the רבנן learned, it says in the תורה כי יגח, if an ox will gore, and we know that אין נגיחה אלא בקרן, that goring, whenever it says in the תורה the expression נגיחה, which means goring, only means if it was done through a horn. So therefore, since the תורה tells us that if a שור was נוגח, gored, you have to pay, so here we see that if the damage was done through a horn, you have to pay. But how do we know that when the תורה says יגח, נגיחה, goring, it means through a horn? So the גמרא brings a פסוק, שנאמר, it says in תנ''ך, in מלכים it says, ויעש לו צדקיה בן כנענה קרני ברזל, that צדקיה בן כנענה made for him metal horns, ויאמר, and he said, כה אמר ה', this is what ה' said, באלה תנגח את ארם וגומר, with these you you are going to gore ארם. So we see there that the תורה uses the לשון תנגח, you will gore, and it says clearly it will be done through קרני ברזל, through metal horns. So here we see that נגיחה, whenever it says the expression נגיחה, it means through a horn. ואומר, and there's another פסוק that will also prove that whenever it says נגיחה, it means with a horn, because the פסוק says: בכור שורו הדר לו, קרני ראם קרניו בהם עמים ינגח. It's a פסוק in ברכה, it is the ברכה given by משה רבינו to שבט יוסף, and he says that בכור שורו הדר לו, which means that it was given to him the strength of an ox, to יוסף, who was the king like a בכור, וקרני ראם קרניו, and nevertheless his horns look like the horns of a ראם, and with these horns he is going to gore the different nations. So here too we see that the תורה uses the expression ינגח, goring, and it says with what will he gore? With קרני ראם קרניו, with the horns. Then the גמרא asks: מאי ואומר? Why do we have to have that second פסוק? Why isn't the first ראיה, the first proof from the first פסוק enough? But the גמרא answers: וכי תימא, because I would have thought דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן, that we cannot learn out the words of תורה from the words of נביאים. נביאים are referred to as דברי קבלה, and we have a rule that we cannot learn out any דינים from the words of the נביאים. And therefore, here too we would think that how can we learn out that when the תורה says כי יגח it means with a horn, because in תנ״ך, by the נביאים we find that they use an expression of נגיחה and it meant through a horn? So therefore תא שמע, therefore we have to come and bring the other פסוק, בכור שורו הדר לו, and in that פסוק, which is a פסוק in תורה, we also see that we use the term נגיחה for a horn. Then the גמרא asks: והא מיליף הוא? Is this something that you're learning out? גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא, it is only revealing something, דנגיחה בקרן הוא, that נגיחה means with a horn. In other words, this דין that you cannot learn out anything from דברי קבלה, from נביאים, is only if we're going to learn out a דין. But here we're not learning out a דין, we're just learning out the translation of the word. And that you could learn out from דברי קבלה, from נביאים. So we cannot say the reason why the first פסוק was not sufficient because it's דברי קבלה, because that would have been sufficient. And therefore the גמרא answers: אלא, but the reason why we need a second פסוק is because מהו דתימא, I would think, if we'd only have the first פסוק, I would think כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד, when did the תורה make a difference between תם and a מועד, that a תם pays half of the נזק, and a מועד pays נזק שלם, the complete נזק? הני מילי בתלושה, that's only if the horn was not connected, not connected to the animal. אבל במחוברת, but if the horn was connected, אימא, I would think, כולה מועדת היא, then it is always considered a מועד, and you have to pay the complete נזק. תא שמע, therefore we have to have the second פסוק, בכור שורו הדר לו וגומר, and from that פסוק we know that even if the horn is connected, there is still a דין of קרן that you only pay חצי נזק while he's a תם. In other words, like this: when the תורה says כי יגח, the תורה continues saying that when the animal gores, then the דין is that if it happened the first few times you only pay half of the נזק, if it happened later on you pay נזק שלם. Now if we would learn out that this נגיחה means with a horn from the first פסוק in תנ״ך, there it speaks about קרני ברזל, which means a metal horn, so I would think that the כי יגח that the תורה speaks about the שור is also in a

similar way, which means that if the ox took a horn in its mouth and gored and damaged, then the whole פרשה applies. And what does it say in the פרשה? That if it happened the first few times you pay חצי נזק, half of the נזק, if it happened as a מועד, you pay נזק שלם. So we would think that this whole דין that makes a difference between חצי נזק and נזק שלם is only if it was done through a נגיחה with a קרן that was תלושה, was not connected, just like the נגיחה that the תורה refers to in the נביאים. But if it was done through a horn which is connected to the head, since we wouldn't feel that that's what the פרשה speaks about, we wouldn't know that in that case too there is a difference between תם and מועד. And what would we say? That if it was done by the horn that's connected to the ox, you always pay נזק שלם, the complete damage. So therefore we have to have the second פסוק, where that there the תורה mentions the horn that is connected to the ox, and we say that from there we know that when it says כי יגח it means with a horn. So obviously the פרשה that deals with the כי יגח speaks also about a horn that is connected to the head, so we know that even if it was a horn connected to the head, the דינים of the פרשה apply, and then too there is a difference between a תם and a מועד, that if it's a תם it pays half of the נזק, and if it's a מועד you pay נזק שלם. Then the

גמרא continues: תולדה דקרן מאי היא? What are the תולדות of קרן? We said before that all the אבות נזיקין have תולדות, have derivatives. Now what דין, what kind of damage do we derive from קרן? The גמרא says: נגיפה, which means collision, נשיכה, biting, רביצה, laying down if it lays down on something with force and breaks it, ובעיטה if it kicks. All these type of damages are all in the category of קרן, they are תולדות of קרן. But the גמרא asks: מאי שנא נגיחה דקרי ליה אב? Why do we call נגיחה, when you gore with the horn, we say that's the אב? Because דכתיב in the תורה it says כי יגח. And as we said in the beginning, that if it's mentioned specifically in the תורה, that is considered an אב. נגיפה נמי כתיב. The נגיפה, which is the collision, also says clearly in the תורה. The תורה says in משפטים: כי יגוף, if it says if the ox will collide into another ox, so the דין is you have to pay. So we see the תורה specifically speaks about נגיפה. So why did we say before that נגיפה is only a תולדה of נגיחה, of קרן? So the גמרא answers: האי נגיפה נגיחה היא, that in that פסוק where the תורה says כי יגוף, it does not mean it will collide with its body, but it means it will do it with its horn. So really נגיפה over there is not the נגיפה what we are talking about as a תולדה. When we say נגיפה is a תולדה, that's if it collides with the body. When the תורה says כי יגוף, if an ox will make נגיפה into another ox you have to pay, that really means נגיחה done with the horn. How do we know that? דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא: פתח בנגיפה וסיים בנגיחה. That same פסוק starts using with, using the word נגיפה, and finishes with using the word נגיחה. This refers to the פסוק in משפטים כ״א, פסוק ל״ה and ל״ו. There the תורה says: וכי יגף שור איש את שור רעהו ומת, if an ox belonging to a person will collide into an ox that belongs to his friend and it will die, so the פסוק says: ומכרו את השור החי, you have to sell the live one, etcetera. And the next פסוק starts: או נודע כי שור נגח הוא, if it would be known that this is an ox that gores, מתמול שלשום, from the day before and the day even before that, so then you have to pay. But we see here that the תורה starts off by saying וכי יגוף שור איש את שור רעהו, so we're talking about נגיפה, and the next פסוק says, but if it would be known that he is a שור נגח. Now, if נגיפה here would mean the regular נגיפה, that it pushes with the body, it collides with the body, then the תורה should have continued: או נודע כי שור נגף הוא, the same expression as in the beginning. But that's not what the תורה does. The תורה says: או נודע כי שור נגח הוא. So this תורה starts with the word נגיפה and finishes with the word נגיחה. So why is that? לומר לך, to tell you: זו היא נגיפה, זו היא נגיחה, that נגיפה and נגיחה are the same thing, that here when the תורה uses the term נגיפה, it is the same as נגיחה, really it means goring with the horn. But then the גמרא asks: מאי שנא גבי אדם דכתיב כי יגח? What is the difference, why, when the תורה speaks about an animal, an ox, goring a person, the תורה uses the term כי יגח? And that is in פסוק כ״ח, it says: וכי יגח שור את איש או את אשה ומת, if an ox will gore a man or a woman and he will die, so there the תורה uses the word כי יגח. ומאי שנא, what is the difference, גבי בהמה דכתיב כי יגוף? Why is it when the תורה speaks about an ox goring an animal, it uses the term כי יגוף? Because this פסוק, כי יגוף, speaks about an ox goring another ox. So why does the תורה use here the expression כי יגוף? And the

גמרא answers: אדם דאית ליה מזלא, כתיב כי יגח. A person that has a מזל, which could mean either a מזל, a מלאך which is in control of the person, or a מזל means that a person has דעת, has שכל, to watch himself, but whatever it should mean, a person has that, so therefore it says כי יגח, because the word כי יגח has meaning, means more that it was done with a strong intention of the animal. So by a person who is able to watch himself, or there is a מלאך, a מזל that's watching over him, so there, in order for the ox to gore the person, it has to have a stronger effort, so therefore the תורה uses the term כי יגח. But בהמה דלית לה מזלא, a בהמה has no מזל, so therefore כתיב כי יגוף. There it uses the term כי יגוף, because יגוף shows less effort on the side of the ox to gore, because an animal cannot watch itself, or the מזל does not watch over it, and therefore it takes less effort in the ox to damage the other ox, to gore the other ox, therefore it uses a lighter term. But the purpose of that is, what difference does it make to us? Why does the תורה have to tell us that, that it's easier for an ox to gore another ox than it is for an ox to gore a person.

ומילתא אגב אורחיה קמשמע לן, the תורה wants to teach us something by the way, דמועד לאדם הוי מועד לבהמה, ומועד לבהמה לא הוי מועד לאדם. That when a an ox is it becomes a מועד in goring a person, automatically it is considered an a מועד in goring a בהמה. But if it's a מועד in goring a בהמה, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a מועד in goring an אדם. Which means as follows: a מועד, as we said before, means an ox that did it three times. And the דין is that if a an ox became a מועד in goring a specific thing, so we consider this ox a מועד only concerning that that it became a מועד in. But if it will gore something else that it didn't gore before, so concerning that something else, it will be considered a תם. But it's self-understood that that is only if the other thing it will gore is something that is harder for the animal to do than the previous ones. But if it will gore later on something that is lighter for it to do, and it became a מועד for the harder one, so then automatically it is a מועד for the lighter one. And that's what the תורה is trying to tell us. It is harder for an animal to gore a person than to gore an animal. And therefore, if an animal gored a person three times, it became a מועד for the person, and therefore, if it'll gore a fourth time a person, it'll be considered a מועד. So the תורה is telling us that even if the fourth time it will gore an animal, it'll also be considered a מועד. Because even though it didn't gore an animal before, but since it gored a person, which is harder, it definitely is a מועד for the animal, which is easier. On the other hand, if it became a מועד to goring an animal three times, and then it will gore a person, it will not have a דין of a מועד, because it is harder to gore a person, so therefore it did not become a מועד for the person. And that's what the תורה is trying to tell us. By the תורה saying that it's harder to gore a person than an animal, because the תורה uses the word כי יגח by a person and by an animal the word כי יגוף, it's to teach us that if an animal becomes a מועד for a אדם, it automatically is a מועד for a בהמה. If it becomes a מועד for a בהמה, it doesn't automatically become a מועד for an אדם. Then the גמרא continues, נשיכה תולדה דשן היא.

One of the תולדות you mentioned of קרן was biting, shouldn't biting be a תולדה of tooth because you bite with your teeth? And the גמרא answers, לא, no. שן יש הנאה להיזקא, the category of שן is when it does a damage that it has benefit from. הא, but this one, when it bites, אין הנאה להיזקא, it has no benefit from its damage. In other words, שן is when it eats something. נשיכה, that is a תולדה of קרן, is when it bites something and doesn't eat it, so there is no pleasure it gains, and therefore it is a תולדה of קרן. Then the גמרא continues, we mentioned among the תולדות of קרן, רביצה ובעיטה, if it lays down or if it kicks, so the גמרא asks, תולדה דרגל היא, shouldn't it be a תולדה of רגל because the damage caused through laying down or through kicking is with the foot? And the גמרא says, לא, no. רגל, the characteristic of the category of רגל is הזיקא מצוי, it's a damage that is common, because when a animal walks, it'll break anything that's under its foot, so that is a common thing. But הני, these, the damage that is caused through laying down with force or that is caused through kicking, אין הזיקא מצוי, it is not a common damage, and therefore it cannot be included in the category of רגל. But it is included in the category of קרן, because as we said before, the category of קרן is כוונתו להזיק, if it does anything that intentions it's is to be מזיק. And the same here, when it lays down on something or when it kicks something, it intends to be מזיק, and therefore it is in the category of קרן. So now the גמרא

asks, אלא תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן דאמר רב פפא אהיי, what רב פפא said, that there are certain תולדות of certain אבות which do not have the same דין as the אב, concerning which תולדות of which אבות did he mean? אילימא אהני, if you're going to say on these, the תולדות of קרן that we have just mentioned, those are the ones that do not have the same דין as קרן, so the גמרא says it couldn't be, because מאי שנא, what is the difference between these and קרן? Why should there be a difference between the תולדות of קרן and קרן itself? In other words, they are exactly like their אב, and therefore there is no reason why they should be different. קרן, מאי שנא קרן, why should קרן be different? דכוונתו להזיק, the characteristic of קרן is that you have a כוונה to be מזיק, the animal intends to cause the damage. And also ממונך, it is your ממון, since it belongs to you, that's why you are responsible to pay. ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it, it's under your control, and therefore you should watch it. And that is the reason why there is a דין that you must pay for their damage. הני נמי, these תולדות of קרן, also כוונתן להזיק, they are done in a way that animal intends to be מזיק, וממונך, and they are your money, they belong to you, ושמירתן עליך, and you are obligated to watch them. And therefore, you should be obligated to pay the same way you are obligated to pay for קרן. So there is no reason to think that the תולדות of קרן should have a different דין than the קרן itself. So therefore, it makes no sense to say that when רב פפא said that certain תולדות do not have the same דין as the אבות, he referred to the תולדות of קרן. And therefore, we're back to the question that which תולדות did רב פפא mean when he said that they do not have the same דין as the אבות?

One interesting thing to bring out here is concerning the משנה. The משנה was looking for a reason why the פסוק had to mention all the different אבות, why wouldn't it have been enough if it would mention one and we would learn out the other ones from this one? We would say that just like this one, if you cause a damage, you are חייב to pay, so if you cause a damage any other way, you'd also be חייב to pay. But the question is, we know אין עונשין מן הדין, that you cannot punish a person based on a דין, which meant on a קל וחומר. For instance, if the תורה says something and if you do a certain עבירה, you will get punished, now we cannot use that as a source to punish somebody for doing a worse עבירה. Even though על פי שכל it would make sense to say that if for this smaller עבירה the punishment is so-and-so, if you do the same עבירה, but in a much stricter form, you certainly should be חייב. Nevertheless, the דין is that אין עונשין מן הדין. You cannot punish based on a דין, on a קל וחומר, or any other לימוד that we would learn out. So according to that, what is the question of the משנה? How could the משנה say that if the תורה would just say the דין by one of the אבות, we would know the rest, we would learn it out with a לימוד from the first one. But since אין עונשין מן הדין, you cannot learn out a punishment from a לימוד, from a דין. So we would not have learned out from the one that the תורה would say, and therefore the תורה has to say all of them. So what is the question of the משנה? So תוספות says, from here we see that when it comes to ממון, עונשין ממון מן הדין. That if it's a question of money, not other kind of punishment, but it's a question of paying money, so this rule of אין עונשין מן הדין does not apply. And therefore, if the תורה would say it concerning one דין, concerning one of the אבות, we would on our own learn it out concerning the other אבות, and we would make him pay even if he would do the damage in another way, because we do say עונשין ממון מן הדין. But תוספות brings that it seems that this is a מחלוקת between our גמרא and the מכילתא, because in the מכילתא we find that the מכילתא says clearly אין עונשין ממון מן הדין. And this is a מכילתא where it says concerning the פסוק that we quoted in the beginning, concerning בור. It says in the תורה: כי יפתח איש בור או כי יכרה איש בור, if a person will open a בור, or if a person will dig a בור, and someone will fall in, an ox or a donkey, then you have to pay. So the מכילתא asks the question: why does the תורה have to mention both opening a בור or digging a בור? If the תורה would just say if you open a בור, you're חייב, certainly if you actually were the one that dug the בור! So why does the תורה have to tell us both? And the

מכילתא answers: ללמדך שאין עונשין ממון מן הדין, to teach us that you cannot punish even money based on a דין, on a קל וחומר. And therefore, if the תורה would just say that you are חייב for opening a בור, even though על פי שכל it makes sense that certainly you should be חייב if you dug the בור, still we wouldn't make the person חייב, because אין עונשין ממון מן הדין. So here we see that the מכילתא argues with our משנה. From our משנה we see that עונשין ממון מן הדין, while in the מכילתא we see that אין עונשין ממון מן הדין. And תוספות goes ahead even further and says that concerning the same question the מכילתא asks and proved from there that אין עונשין ממון מן הדין, we find later on by us in the גמרא that the גמרא gives a different answer to that question. The גמרא also asks the question: why does the פסוק have to say כי יפתח and כי יכרה? Wouldn't it be enough if the תורה would say just כי יפתח? And one of the answers given in the גמרא is to teach us להביא הכורה אחר הכורה, that is the first person dug, but he didn't dig it deep enough that the person who fell in should be able to get killed, and then the second person came and made another אמה or dug it more, and through the מעשים of the second person it became a בור that could cause the damage or could have the person die, so then the second one is the one that's חייב, not the first. So we see that the גמרא gave a different answer to the question than the מכילתא, so this fits to what תוספות said that our גמרא does not hold of this כלל אין עונשין ממון מן הדין like the מכילתא, but our גמרא and also our משנה hold that עונשין ממון מן הדין.