Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכתא בבא קמא דף ד, but we will start on דף ג עמוד ב, 16 lines from the bottom of the עמוד, by the two dots, where the גמרא quotes some of the words from the משנה. The גמרא quotes, המבעה וההבער וכולי. The גמרא quotes the last two אבות that were mentioned in the משנה. One is מבעה, and the other one is הבער. And the גמרא says, מאי מבעה? What does מבעה mean? רב אמר: מבעה זה אדם. רב says מבעה means a person, when a person himself causes damage. ושמואל אמר: מבעה זה השן, that מבעה refers to the tooth, that when an animal causes damage through eating through its tooth, that's the אב of מבעה. The גמרא explains: רב אמר מבעה זה אדם, רב says that מבעה means the person, quotes a פסוק where the פסוק seems to indicate that this expression refers to a

person, דכתיב, because the פסוק says: אמר שומר, the watchman said, אתא בוקר וגם לילה, the morning came and also the night, אם תבעיון בעיו, if you will ask your asking. And this refers to השם, he is referred to as the שומר, and the שומר, השם said, that the morning will come, which means there will be light for the צדיקים, there will also be darkness for the רשעים, אם תבעיון בעיו, which means if you will ask for מחילה, for forgiveness, if you will do תשובה. So here we see that the תורה refers to a person, a person who is returning, who is doing תשובה, and we use the expression אם תבעיון בעיו, which is from the same root as the word מבעה, and therefore רב says that when the משנה uses the word מבעה, that it refers to a person. ושמואל אמר, and שמואל says מבעה זה השן, that מבעה refers to the tooth, דכתיב, because there is a פסוק that says, איך נחפשו עשו, how is עשו searched out, נבעו מצפוניו, how are his hidden places sought out. So here we see the פסוק, that it uses the word נבעו, which is from the same שורש, from the same root as מבעה, and from this פסוק he wants to prove that מבעה means the tooth. The

גמרא asks, מאי משמע? How is it משמע? How does this פסוק prove that מבעה means the tooth? So the גמרא says, כדמתרגם רב יוסף, like רב יוסף explained, translated, that the פסוק means, איכדין אתבליש עשו, how was עשו ransacked, אתגליין מטמרוהי, how were his hidden treasures exposed. So we see that רב יוסף translated the word נבעו with the word אתגליין, which means revealed, and therefore refers to tooth, because a tooth is sometimes revealed and sometimes hidden, and therefore the משנה, when it says the word מבעה, which means revealed, refers to the tooth. The גמרא asks now, ורב מאי טעמא לא אמר כשמואל? Why didn't רב say like שמואל? Why does רב feel that מבעה is אדם, why doesn't he learn like שמואל that מבעה is שן? אמר לך, the גמרא says he will answer you, מי קתני ניבע? Does the משנה say ניבע? If the reason it's called tooth is because the word מבעה comes from the word revealed, so it should have said ניבע, which means it is revealed, the tooth is revealed. The משנה uses the term מבעה, which means it makes something revealed. It should have said ניבע, which means it is itself revealed, and since it does not use the term ניבע, obviously רב says it does not mean tooth. ושמואל מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב? Why doesn't שמואל learn like רב, that מבעה means אדם? אמר לך, the גמרא says שמואל will tell you, מי קתני בעיא? Does it say in the משנה the expression בעיא? If we say that the reason it refers to אדם is because of the פסוק that רב quoted, which means the person who asks for forgiveness, so the משנה should have used the לשון בעיא, the asker. לפועל the משנה says מבעה, so then this does not fit to the meaning of אדם, and therefore שמואל does not learn like רב. So now the גמרא asks, מידי דהוה קראי לא כמר דייקי ולא כמר דייקי, the פסוק the פסוקים themselves are not מדויק, do not fit exactly, not like one, not like the other. There is a question on the פשט of רב the way he learns out from the פסוק, there is a question on the פשט of שמואל the way he learns out from the פסוק. So if so, we're back to the question, רב מאי טעמא לא אמר כשמואל? Why doesn't רב learn like שמואל? We can't say it's only based on the פסוקים, because even the way רב learns, it is not a hundred percent understood, the proof from the פסוק is not a hundred percent, so there must be another reason why רב does not want to learn like שמואל. And so too, the גמרא later on will ask, what is the reason why שמואל doesn't learn like רב, because also we can't say the reason is only because of the פסוק, because שמואל's פסוק itself is also not מדויק. So therefore, there must be another reason. But at this

point, the גמרא is asking, why doesn't רב learn like שמואל that מבעה means שן? The גמרא answers, because תני שור, the משנה learned שור, the first of the four אבות in the משנה is שור. So that means וכל מילי דשור, all of all things of שור. How can you say that מבעה means שן, when it says שור, an ox, so an ox includes all three אבות that are connected to the ox, which are קרן, שן, ורגל? And therefore, the משנה already mentioned שן, so we cannot say that מבעה means שן. So the גמרא asks, ולשמואל, so according to שמואל now according to him too, הא תני ליה שור, doesn't it say שור? How can שמואל say that מבעה means שן when it already says שור, which automatically includes שן? אמר רב יהודה, so רב יהודה answers, according to שמואל the פשט is as follows: תני שור לקרנו, שור is for its horn. In other words, when the משנה says שור, at this point the גמרא feels it means קרן. ומבעה לשינו, and when it says מבעה, that means שן. And the גמרא will later ask, what about רגל? But at this point the גמרא feels that שור according to שמואל means קרן, and therefore מבעה would mean שן. But now we will have to see whether this fits to the continuation of the משנה. Because right after the משנה mentions all four אבות נזיקין, the

משנה says, לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה, that שור is not like מבעה. In other words, there is a חומרא in שור which we do not have in מבעה. There is a reason why שור should be חייב that we do not find in מבעה. And then it says, ולא הרי המבעה כהרי השור, there is a חומרא in מבעה over שור. In other words, there is a reason why מבעה should be חייב and שור not. And as we explained when we learned the משנה, that the משנה is here trying to tell us why the פסוק has to tell us both, why the פסוק has to mention שור and מבעה, why wouldn't it have been enough if the תורה would just say one and we would ourselves understand the other? And the משנה is trying to answer that it couldn't say just שור, because then we would not have known מבעה. We would say that, you know why שור is חייב? Because of its חומרא, because of its special reason, that's why it's חייב. But מבעה that doesn't have that reason, maybe is not חייב. Therefore the משנה, the פסוק has to tell us specifically מבעה. And the same if the תורה would just say מבעה, we would not have known שור. We would think that the reason why you're חייב for מבעה is because of its reason, but שור that doesn't have that reason, you are not חייב. And therefore the תורה has to say שור, too. In other words, these are reasons why the תורה has to say שור and מבעה. Now, according to שמואל that says that שור means קרן and מבעה means שן, how can we explain the משנה? What would the משנה mean? What is the חומרא in קרן over שן, and what is the חומרא in שן over קרן? And the גמרא goes on to explain that. הכי קאמר, this is what the משנה would mean: לא ראי הקרן, קרן is not the same as שן, which means there is a חומרא in קרן, there is a reason in קרן why it should be חייב, because שאין הנאה להיזקו, there is no הנאה to the היזק. When the animal gores with its horn, it has no benefit from this goring. And therefore, at this point, the גמרא felt this should be a reason why it should be חייב. So this is not כראי השן, like שן, שיש הנאה להיזקו. שן, when it eats, it does have pleasure, it does have benefit from its היזק, from its damage. So the גמרא felt this should be a reason why שן should not be חייב. And that's what the משנה means, that if the תורה would just write שור, which means קרן at this point, we would not have known שן, because קרן has a reason to be חייב, which שן doesn't, and the reason is, the way the גמרא feels at this point is the fact that there is no benefit in the damage that the קרן does, while by שן there is a benefit. And then when the משנה continues that there is a חומרא in שן over קרן, in מבעה over שור, which at this point is שן over קרן, and therefore if the תורה would just say שן we would not know קרן, so the גמרא explains, what is that? דלא ראי השן, and שן is not the same as קרן, which means there is a חומרא in שן, שאין כוונתו להזיק. When the animal damages through the tooth, it doesn't have intention to damage. And at this point the גמרא feels this is a reason why it should be חייב. So this is different, not the same, כראי הקרן, like קרן, שכוונתו להזיק. When an animal damages through the horn, it intends to damage. And therefore the גמרא feels that קרן might not be חייב. And therefore if the תורה would only write שן and not write קרן, we would not have known קרן. We would think only שן is חייב because of its reason, which is at this point because it has no כוונה to be מזיק, while קרן should be פטור because it does have כוונה to be מזיק. The truth is we do have to understand What was the reasoning of the גמרא? Why did the גמרא think that if it has no pleasure in its damage it is more reason why you should have to pay for the damage? And also if it has no intentions to be מזיק there should be more reason you should have to pay? It would seem just opposite, as the גמרא will really ask later on, because it makes more sense to say that if it has pleasure from its damage you certainly should have to pay. If it intends to damage, you certainly should have to pay. But here the גמרא seems to be thinking just opposite. So תוספות gives a סברא in this הוה אמינא of the גמרא too, because תוספות says the

גמרא thought that it all depends on how hard it was for the person to watch it. The harder it is for the person to watch it, the more reason you should not have to pay. The easier it is for the person to watch it, that is a more a greater reason why you should have to pay. And therefore the גמרא thought that by קרן, since it doesn't have any pleasure from its damage, therefore it's easier to watch it. When the animal has pleasure, the animal is hungry and it gains by its damage, so it's much harder to watch it, because the animal wants to do it because it wants to eat. But קרן, which does not have any pleasure, so therefore the גמרא thought it's much easier to watch it, and since you didn't watch it, therefore you are obligated to pay. And then the same would apply to the סברא of כוונה להזיק. If the animal intends to be מזיק, then it's harder for the owner to watch it because it wants to be מזיק, and therefore there is a reason you should be פטור. On the other hand, if it has no כוונה to be מזיק, it doesn't have intentions to be מזיק, so then it is easier for the owner to watch it, and therefore the גמרא thought that that should be a reason why you should be חייב if you didn't watch it, because it was easier for you. But now the

גמרא will continue and ask, ולאו קל וחומר הוא, isn't it a קל וחומר? Isn't it an opposite סברא? For you're trying to say that שן should be חייב because it doesn't have intentions to be מזיק, while קרן should not be חייב because it does have כוונה to be מזיק, so the גמרא asks, isn't it a קל וחומר? ומה שן, if שן, שאין כוונתו להזיק, which has no intentions to be מזיק, חייב, we say you are חייב, קרן שכוונתו להזיק, קרן, which does have intentions to be מזיק, לא כל שכן, shouldn't it certainly be חייב? In other words, the גמרא does not accept at this point the סברא that תוספות said, that it all depends in how much the person was able to watch it, but it depends on the characteristic of the damage itself. And therefore the גמרא feels that if the damage was done in such a way that the animal had intentions to be מזיק, that is definitely more reason why you should be חייב. And therefore the גמרא asks, how can you say that if it would just say שן, we would not know קרן because we would think only שן is חייב because it has no intentions to be מזיק, while קרן does have intentions, should be פטור? The גמרא says just opposite: if it would just say שן, that you are חייב even if it has no intentions to be מזיק, we would know definitely you are חייב for קרן because it does have intentions to be מזיק. And as רש״י says, the same קשיא applies to the first part of the גמרא here. When the גמרא gave the reason why if the תורה would just say קרן we would not have known שן, and the reason was because קרן has a reason to be חייב, and that is because it has no pleasure to be מזיק, so the same קשיא the גמרא asks here applies for that too: that how can we say that? It's just opposite. If קרן, which there is no pleasure in the היזק, we say you are חייב, שן, where there is pleasure to the היזק, you certainly should be חייב. And that's the גמרא's קשיא here: how can you explain the משנה this way when it's just opposite? And רש״י asks that לכאורה we could have answered very simple: that what he meant was just opposite. When he said that קרן is not like שן, לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה, so till now we were saying that the first of the two that's mentioned is the one that has the חומרא, the second one is the one that doesn't have the חומרא. In other words, when we said that שור, which is קרן, is not like מבעה, which is שן, we meant to say that if the תורה would have just written שור, we would not have known שן. Which means that the first one is the one that should have said, the second one mentioned is the one that could have been learned out. And the משנה tells us that the first one couldn't have been enough because the first one has a חומרא. And the חומרא was, as we said before, קרן has the חומרא of אין הנאה להיזקו, it has no pleasure from its היזק, and שן has the חומרא that it has no כוונה to be מזיק. And that's why we ask the קשיא that it should be just opposite. So

רש״י says maybe that's not what רבי יהודה meant. רבי יהודה learned פשט in the משנה just opposite. He learns that when the משנה says, לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה, that שור is not like מבעה, he meant to say that why didn't the תורה just say מבעה and not שור, and we would have learned out שור from מבעה? And when he explained that שור, which is קרן, has the characteristic of אין הנאה להיזקו, which is not like שן, which has הנאה להיזקו, he meant to use it as a קולא, not as a חומרא. He meant to explain why couldn't we learn out קרן from שן, why couldn't the תורה just write שן, because קרן has a קולא. We would not have known קרן because קרן has no הנאה להזיקו. And the same thing with the second half, when he said that שן is not like קרן, because שן אין כוונתו להזיק, has no intention to be מזיק, and קרן does have, he didn't mean that this is a reason why we could not learn out קרן from שן, he meant just the opposite. This is a reason why we could not learn out שן from קרן. Because שן has a קולא that אין כוונתו להזיק, and קרן has a חומרא of יש כוונתו להזיק, and therefore if it would just say קרן, we would not know שן from it, because שן is not as strict as קרן, because שן אין כוונתו להזיק. And if we would say that, the גמרא's קשיא would fall off. And רש״י explains, we couldn't learn that, because this is not the דרך of the ש״ס, the דרך of the גמרא. The דרך is that whenever we say the expression לא הרי זה כהרי זה, we always mean that the first one should have said, and we would learn out the second one from the first. Especially by us in the משנה we see it very clearly, because in the second part of the משנה, where the משנה says why it wouldn't be enough if it would just say שור and מבעה, and we would be able to learn out אש from it, and the משנה says the reason is because לא זה וזה שיש בו רוח חיים כהרי האש שאין בו רוח חיים. So we see clearly that the משנה uses the חומרא in the first part, and the קולא in the second. So therefore, in the beginning of the משנה, probably the פשט is the same. That when it says לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה, it means that שור has a חומרא over מבעה. לא הרי המבעה כהרי השור means that מבעה has a חומרא over שור. So when רב יהודה explained that לא הרי הקרן כהרי השן, that קרן is אין הנאה להזיקה and שן is הנאה להזיקה, and לא הרי השן כהרי הקרן, that שן is אין כוונתו להזיק and קרן כוונתו להזיק, he definitely meant that the first one was the חומרא, and the second one is the קולא. And that's why the גמרא has a קשיא that it really should be just the opposite. That the idea of קרן not having הנאה להזיקה is not a חומרא. So if the תורה would just write קרן, and we would say that if you're חייב by קרן, which doesn't have הנאה להזיקה, we would know ourselves definitely you're חייב by שן, which has הנאה להזיקה. And the same in the second part, if the תורה would just write שן, and say you're חייב even though אין כוונתו להזיק, we would know definitely that by קרן, which is כוונתו להזיק, you are definitely חייב. And that was the גמרא's קשיא: that how can you say that if it would say just שן we would not know קרן because of שן אין כוונתו להזיק, really it should be just the opposite. And the גמרא answers: איצטריך, we do need to tell us. In other words, it's possible that something which is כוונתו להזיק and nevertheless you should be פטור. So the קל וחומר that we just made, that if it's כוונתו להזיק you certainly should be חייב, is not really true, because we do find a case where כוונתו להזיק is still a reason to be פטור. Because סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, מידי דהוה אעבד ואמה, so just like the דין of an עבד or an אמה, a slave or a woman slave, a גויישער עבד or a גויישער אמה, that the דין is: עבד ואמה, isn't the דין by עבד ואמה, לאו אף על גב דכוונתו להזיק, even though they intend to be מזיק, if a person's עבד, a person's גויישער עבד, would go and be מזיק someone's property, for then, for instance, he would put someone's house on fire. So he has כוונה to be מזיק, he did it intentionally, and nevertheless אפילו הכי פטירא, still the owner is פטור. So we would say הכא נמי here too לא שנא there is no difference. We

see that there is a possibility for something that belongs to you that intends to be מזיק and still you are פטור. So we would think here too, that in the case of קרן that כוונתו להזיק and still you should be פטור. So we couldn't make the קל וחומר that מה דכאן אין כוונתו להזיק you are חייב, certainly if כוונתו להזיק, because here we see something כוונתו להזיק, your עבד and אמה, and still the דין is you are פטור. Where do we see that you are פטור? So רש״י quotes the גמרא later on in דף פ״ז, where it says העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה, that an עבד or a woman, if you meet up with them it's very bad, because החובל בהם חייב, if somebody does damage to them you are חייב, והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין, if they cause damage to others they are פטור. And so is their master פטור. So there we see that if an עבד causes damage, even though כוונתו להזיק, still the owner is פטור. תוספות on the other hand says it doesn't mean the גמרא in החובל later on, but it's לכתחילה he says, refers to the משנה which is in the end of מסכת ידים, where it says clearly there that if an עבד or an אמה are מזיק, the owner is פטור. So the גמרא says: אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said, how can you compare עבד ואמה to the case here? How can you use the עבד ואמה as a ראיה that it's possible to have כוונתו להזיק and still be פטור, and you want to use that as a ראיה to the דין of קרן, that maybe קרן, which is כוונתו להזיק, you're also פטור? אטו עבד ואמה לאו טעמא רבה אית בהו? Doesn't עבד ואמה have a very special reason? The reason given why you are פטור: שמא יקניטנו רבו, his master might get him angry, וילך, he will go, וידליק גדישו של חבירו, and he is going to put on fire the crop of of his friend, ונמצא זה מחייב את רבו מאה מנה בכל יום, so this עבד will have his master pay a hundred מנה every day, because if the דין will be that when an עבד causes damage, his master has to pay, anytime the עבד will get angry at his master, he's going to go and cause some damage and have his master pay a lot of money. So that is the

reason why the חכמים said that when an עבד causes damage, the owner is פטור. So how can you use that as a comparison to the דין of קרן, that there too כוונתו להזיק you should be פטור? Here, in spite of כוונתו להזיק you are פטור, because of this reason that he might cause his master to pay a lot of money. But normally, the idea of כוונתו להזיק is a reason to be חייב. So therefore, the question comes back, how can we say that קרן, since כוונתו להזיק, therefore we would think that you should be פטור? It's just the opposite. If we would know that by שן, which אין כוונתו להזיק, you are חייב, we would definitely know that קרן, which is כוונתו להזיק, you are certainly חייב. So therefore we cannot say that when the משנה says לא הרי המבעה כהרי השור, it means that שן has a חומרא of אין כוונתו להזיק, and if it would say that, we would not know קרן, which is כוונתו להזיק, because it's just the opposite. Therefore, the גמרא says, אלא פריך הכא, but ask this way, in other words, explain the משנה differently, just the opposite. That the first part of the משנה, where the משנה says לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה, which means, as we're holding now, that לא הרי הקרן כהרי השן, it means to say לא ראי הקרן, קרן is not the same, in other words there is a חומרא in קרן, and what is the חומרא in קרן? שכוונתו להזיק, that קרן has intentions to be מזיק, that's the חומרא. So if the תורה would just say קרן, we would not know שן, because it's not כראי השן, it's not like שן שאין כוונתו להזיק. שן does not have that חומרא of כוונתו להזיק because by שן it doesn't intend to be מזיק, so we would not know that you are חייב for שן too, because the idea of כוונתו להזיק is a חומרא. So if the תורה would just say קרן, we would not have known שן. And לא ראי השן שיש הנאה להזיקו כראי הקרן שאין הנאה להזיקו, and if the תורה would just say שן, we would not know קרן, because שן is not like קרן, there is a חומרא in שן over קרן. What is the חומרא? That שן has a reason to be חייב because הנאה להזיקו, there is pleasure to its damage, while קרן does not have pleasure to its damage, and therefore if the תורה would just say שן, we would not know קרן. So now we're using just the opposite סברות than we said before. And this is the way שמואל is going to explain the משנה, that שור means קרן, מבעה means שן, and when the משנה says לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה ולא הרי המבעה כהרי השור, it means as we just explained before. But the גמרא asks according to that, ורגל מאי, what's with רגל? Why doesn't he mention רגל? שייריה, did he leave it over? Why should he leave out רגל? If he mentions קרן, and he mentions שן, what about רגל? And the גמרא answers, כשהזיק חב המזיק לאתויי רגל, that when at the end of the משנה where it says that when it causes damage the מזיק is חייב to pay, which are really extra words, that comes to include something else, that there is another category of damage which was not mentioned yet, and that is included by these extra words, so that refers to רגל. And as תוספות explains, this does not refer to the words of our first משנה, where it said at the end of the משנה כשהזיק חב המזיק, but it refers to the משנה later on, where the משנה again repeats the words כשהזיק חב המזיק, and those are extra, so that's what שמואל says, those words come to add רגל. Then the גמרא asks, וליתני בהדיא, but why doesn't he learn it outright? Why, the others are mentioned clearly in the משנה, but the רגל is only included through an additional extra words? So therefore, the גמרא changed its mind. אלא אמר רבא, therefore רבא said, it's not the way we said before, but according to שמואל, תנא שור לרגלו ומבעה לשינו. It's not as we said before that שור means קרן and מבעה means שן, but שור means רגל and מבעה stays that it means שן. But the same question will come up, so what happened to קרן? The גמרא will explain that soon. והכי קאמר, and this is what the משנה means. Now that we know that שור means רגל and מבעה means שן, so we have to explain the לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה ולא הרי המבעה כהרי השור, in other words there is a חומרא in שור over מבעה and מבעה over שור, we have to explain it according to the way we're learning now. We have to find what is the חומרא in רגל over שן, because now we're saying that שור means רגל, and we have to find a חומרא in שן over רגל. And the גמרא explains והכי קאמר, this is what the משנה means: לא ראי הרגל שהזיקה מצוי כראי השן שאין הזיקה מצוי, that רגל is not the same as שן. רגל has a חומרא over שן. What is the חומרא? שהזיקה מצוי, that its damage is common. Whenever it walks, it could cause a damage. While שן is not a common damage. And therefore, if the תורה would just write רגל, we would not know automatically that שן is also חייב. We would think only רגל is חייב because of this חומרא, while שן that doesn't have that it's common that it would be פטור. Then, ולא ראי השן שיש הנאה להזיקה כראי הרגל שאין הנאה להזיקה. And שן is not like רגל. In other words, there's a חומרא in שן over רגל, and that חומרא is that שן, there is pleasure towards damage, while by רגל there is no pleasure towards damage. And therefore, if the תורה would just write שן, we would think only שן is חייב because of this חומרא, while רגל would not be חייב. And now the גמרא asks to קרן, what about קרן, מאי, what's with that שייריה he left it over, why should he leave over קרן? If he mentions רגל and mentions שן, why doesn't he speak about קרן? And the גמרא answers, כשהזיק חב המזיק, לאתויי קרן. The same answer as before, that the extra words later in the משנה where it says that when the damage happened, the מזיק is חייב to pay, those are extra words that comes to include another category of damage, and that comes to include קרן. So the

גמרא asks, וליתני בהדיא, why doesn't he mention it outright? Why רגל and שן he mentions specifically, and קרן he only includes through extra words? And the גמרא gives a reason, דמועדין מתחלתן קא מיירי, ותמין דלבסוף מועדין לא קא מיירי. He only talks about those things which are מועדין from the beginning. And as we explained, a מועד means when you are חייב to pay the complete נזק. A תם is when you are חייב to pay only half a נזק. Now this difference between a תם and a מועד, that the first few times you are only a תם and you pay half a נזק, and later on you pay נזק שלם, that is only by קרן. By the other kinds of damages, even on the first time you pay the complete נזק. Only by קרן there is a difference between תם and מועד. And therefore the משנה doesn't mention קרן specifically, because the משנה only talks about such damages which from the beginning you are a מועד. But a damage that you start off with being a תם and at the end you turn into a מועד, that it doesn't talk about. Now the גמרא continues, ושמואל מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב? Why doesn't שמואל learn like רב? Why does שמואל learn that מבעה means שן, why doesn't he want to learn that מבעה could mean אדם? The גמרא answers, אמר לך, he will tell you, אי סלקא דעתך אדם, if you would think that מבעה means אדם, הא קתני סיפא, didn't we learn that in the סיפא, later on in the משנה it says שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק והאדם? This refers to the משנה on דף ט״ו עמוד ב׳. There the משנה mentions which things are considered מועדין and which things are considered תמין. So amongst the מועדין he mentions that a שור המועד, a שור, even by קרן, but after it turned into a מועד, then it has a דין of a מועד and you pay נזק שלם. Or even a שור תם, if he did the damage in the רשות of the ניזק, in the property of the one that got the damage, then even though he's a תם he pays נזק שלם. והאדם, or if a person causes damage, he pays נזק שלם. So that's what שמואל says, that how can you say that מבעה of our משנה means אדם, when in the משנה later on he mentions אדם? So since he mentions אדם there, obviously he doesn't mean אדם in the first משנה. So the גמרא asks, וליתני ברישא. Okay, we see that he says אדם later, but why doesn't he mention it in the first משנה? The גמרא answers, בניזקי ממונו קא מיירי, בניזקי גופו לא קא מיירי. The first משנה only talks about the damages that were caused through a person's property, through something that belongs to him. But the נזק that came through himself, that the משנה doesn't talk about. Now the גמרא asks, ורב נמי הא קתני אדם בסיפא? Now we have a קשיא on רב. How can רב say that מבעה means אדם? Doesn't the משנה in the סיפא, in the later משנה mention אדם already? אמר לך רב, so רב will answer, ההוא למיחשביה בהדי מועדין הוא דאתא. There, the משנה doesn't mean to tell us that there is such an אב, such a category of damage called אדם. There he just wants to mention that אדם has a דין of a מועד, he wants to mention him amongst the מועדין. In other words, the first משנה is the one that tells us the different categories of נזק, so it mentions אדם as one of the categories. The second משנה is just telling us certain דינים about these things, so it mentions that אדם is also a דין of a מועד, but that is not the place where the משנה tells us about אדם. Then the גמרא asks, ומאי לא הרי, according to רב that says that מבעה means אדם, so when the משנה says לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה ולא הרי המבעה כהרי השור, so it means that שור, which includes all three as רב said, קרן, שן, ורגל, have a חומרא over מבעה which is אדם, and אדם has a חומרא over all three of שור. Now what does that mean? Which חומרא do we find in שור, in קרן, שן, ורגל over the דין of a person who is מזיק, and which חומרא do we find in the נזק that is done through a person over the נזק which is done through an animal? And the גמרא says, הכא קאמר, this is what the משנה means: לא הרי השור שמשלם את הכופר כהרי האדם שאין משלם את הכופר. שור has a חומרא that you pay כופר. The דין is that if a שור killed a person, if an ox killed a person, so then the owner of the ox has to pay כופר, has to pay a certain amount of money. And we find in the גמרא a מחלוקת as how much he has to pay, whether it is דמי מזיק or דמי ניזק, whether it is the amount of money that the owner of the מזיק, of the ox that killed, how much he is worth, or how much the person who died is worth. But whatever it is, there is a certain amount of money that you have to pay if the ox killed a person. While if a person kills a person, if אדם kills a person, then there is no money that you have to pay, or the person will be punished by death penalty if he did it במזיד, if he did it בשוגג then he will have to go to גלות, but whatever it is, there is no דין of כופר. And that's what the משנה means: there is a חומרא in שור over אדם that שור pays כופר, while אדם does not pay כופר. And then, לא הרי האדם שחייב בארבעה דברים כהרי השור שאין בו ארבעה דברים. And then there is a חומרא in אדם over שור, that if a person damages somebody else, he has to pay four things, which really means he have to pay five things, but one of the five a שור also pays, so the חומרא an אדם has over שור that there are four additional things that a person has to pay if he damaged himself over if his שור damaged. And those four things are צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת. צער means the pain he had, ריפוי are the doctor bills, שבת is the fact that he wasn't able to work, and בושת are the embarrassment. How do you measure them? So רש״י explains in עמוד ב׳, צער is if, for instance, a person cut off someone else's hand, so you would have to estimate how much would a person be willing to give that he should be cut off through a way that it'll hurt less, it'll be done through medicine rather than to be cut off, and that is the amount of money which the צער is worth. ריפוי are the bills, the שבת is the amount of loss he had as far as work is concerned, and בושת is how much embarrassment he had, you have to estimate and the גמרא later on will explain how much that is. So these are four things a person has to pay if he causes someone else's damage, while if his שור, his ox damaged somebody, he did not have to pay these four. And this is what the משנה meant, that there is a חומרא in אדם over שור, that the אדם pays ארבעה דברים, these four extra things, and the שור doesn't. There is a fifth thing which is נזק, the actual damage, but that the גמרא doesn't mention because that a שור also pays. So the גמרא just mentions the four which an אדם has that a שור does not have. The גמרא asks: How can you say that? In the משנה it continues and it says, הצד השוה שבהן שדרכן להזיק, that the equal point, the common point amongst all the four אבות נזיקין is that they have a דרך, it is common for them to be מזיק. וכי שור דרכו להזיק? Is a שור a דרך to be מזיק? According to שמואל that learns that שור means, as we said before, רגל, so that's true. The דרך of a רגל is to be to be מזיק like we said before that היזקו מצוי, it is common to be מזיק. It is definitely the דרך of a רגל to be מזיק. But now according to רב that he says that שור includes all three, it also includes קרן, and we said that by קרן, if it wasn't a מועד yet, the first few times, you only pay חצי נזק. The reason is because that is not common and we can't expect the person to watch the animal in the beginning because you don't expect the animal to do it. So how can the משנה say that all four נזיקין, including שור, which includes קרן, is דרכן להזיק when the truth is by a שור it is not דרכו להזיק? So the גמרא answers: במועד. That even by קרן it is also the דרך to be מזיק when he becomes a מועד. And that's what the משנה means that all of them דרכן להזיק, including קרן, because קרן also has one type of קרן which is דרכו להזיק. And the גמרא asks: ומועד דרכו להזיק? Is it true that when the שור becomes a מועד, after he does it a few times, it becomes his דרך, his way to be מזיק? And the גמרא answers, yes, כיון דאייעד אורחיה הוא, since he became a מועד, yes this became his דרך that he is מזיק. Then the גמרא continues: אדם דרכו להזיק? One of the four is מבעה, and רב holds מבעה is אדם as we said. Now how can the משנה say that all four their דרך is to be מזיק, if one of the four is אדם, is it the דרך of a person to be מזיק? And the גמרא says, yes, בישן, if he is asleep. So the גמרא says: ישן דרכו להזיק? And when a person is asleep it is his דרך to be מזיק to cause damage? And the גמרא answers: כיון דכייף ופשיט, since he stretches out and pulls back, אורחיה הוא, it is the דרך. And as תוספות brings from ירושלמי this only means if he laid himself down next to the כלים that he damaged or next to the person that he damaged. But that is clear that if a person lays down and there is nothing next to him and then someone else puts down כלים and he damages it, he wouldn't be חייב because when he lay down there was nothing there. But if he lays down next to כלים and goes to sleep, it is דרכו להזיק, it is the דרך that he's מזיק. Then the גמרא continued to ask a קשיא on רב: It said in the משנה ושמירתן עליך, one of the common points of all the four נזיקין was that its שמירה is upon you, in other words you are obligated to watch it. Now if one of the four is אדם, אדם שמירת גופו עליו הוא, by a person it's not the פשט that you have to watch it. By a person the expression should have been the שמירה of his גוף is upon himself that he has to watch himself. But the way the משנה puts it is that you have to watch it. So how can it refer to אדם? So the גמרא answers: ולטעמיך, and according to you, in other words if you do not want to accept my opinion and you will not say that the word מבעה in the משנה means אדם, you think everything will be straight? It still won't be good because הא דתני כנא, כנא learned, כנא is the name of a person and he learned, ארבעה אבות נזיקין נזיקין, he also mentioned the four אבות נזיקין, ואדם אחד מהן, and he mentioned clearly אדם is one of them. There there is no question what he meant because he said the word אדם. And he also mentioned the word שמירתן עליך, that its שמירה is upon you. So there you could have the same question: אדם שמירת גופו עליו הוא, isn't by a person the שמירה of himself upon himself? How could you say שמירתן עליך? So really he is saying, it's not a קושיא on me, it's a קושיא on everybody. But on me it would be a קושיא only the way I learn פשט in the משנה. But according to everybody, it's a קושיא on קרנא. So what will everybody answer in what קרנא said? אלא you must say, כדאמר ליה רב אבהו לתנא, but you must say, the פשט is like רב אבהו said to the תנא, to the one that taught, that was learning. He said, תני אדם שמירת גופו עליו, that when it speaks about a person, you have to learn, you have to explain, that concerning the person, it means שמירת גופו עליו. In other words, even though the general expression is שמירתן עליך, that the obligation of watching it is upon you, but when it means by a person, is that you have to watch yourself. So just like we're going to answer that in קרנא's words, and that answer will have to go according to everybody, הכא נמי, so too in the משנה, תני אדם שמירת גופו עליו. Learn that in the משנה, when it says שמירתן עליך, so when it speaks about the person, there it means that the שמירה of the person is upon himself. In other words, what he's trying to say, that we cannot ask a קושיא from the word שמירתן עליך, because even though the literal translation would be that its שמירה is upon you, but if we speak about אדם specifically, it would mean that he has to watch himself. And the גמרא continues, מתקיף לה רב מרי, רב מרי asked a question, ואימא let us say, מבעה זה המים, that מבעה means water, if they caused damage to somebody through water. Now, what is the connection between מים and מבעה? כדכתיב because there is a פסוק that says, כקדוח אש המסים מים תבעה אש. Just like fire melts certain things, as רש״י says, for instance, tar or wax or anything else, the same, and מים תבעה אש, and water is bubbled through fire, so too השם says He will show, when He will destroy the enemies He will show His great Name. But in the meantime we see that the פסוק uses the word מים תבעה אש, that the word תבעה refers to מים, so ממילא the question is maybe when it says in the משנה מבעה, which is from the same root as תבעה, maybe it refers to the מים, if a person caused damage through water. And the גמרא answers, מי כתיב מים ניבעו? תבעה אש כתיב. Does it say מים ניבעו? It says תבעה אש. If the word תבעה would refer to the water, since מים is לשון רבים, it's plural, so it should have said מים ניבעו, the water will bubble, they will bubble. But since it says תבעה אש, תבעה, which means it will make bubbles, so really the word תבעה refers to the fire, that the fire will make bubble the water. So we cannot say that מבעה means מים, because we do not find the word מבעה should refer to water, because in this פסוק, the word תבעה does not apply to the water, but it applies to the fire. Then the גמרא asks, מתקיף לה רב זביד, so רב זביד asked a קושיא, ואימא so let us say מבעה זו האש, that מבעה means fire, דהא כתיב תבעה אש, ודכתיב because as we just said the word תבעה applies to the אש, to the fire, so ממילא we find מבעה meaning אש. So when it says in the משנה מבעה, it means אש. So the גמרא asks, אי הכי if so, מאי המבעה וההבער? What's the פשט in the משנה when it says המבעה וההבער? הבער definitely means the fire. So when it says in the משנה המבעה וההבער, so definitely מבעה does not mean fire, because the next word הבער means the fire. So how can we say that מבעה means fire? וכי תימא and if you will tell me, פירושא קמפרש, that really he's explaining himself, מבעה means fire, but since people wouldn't understand what it means, so he says וההבער, and what did I mean with מבעה? I meant fire. So really מבעה does mean fire and הבער is only the explanation. But we couldn't say that, אי הכי if so, ארבעה? How could the משנה say that there are four אבות נזיקין? תלתא הוו! There are only three! Because it says שור and בור, that's two, המבעה וההבער are really one, because we're just saying now מבעה means fire and הבער is the explanation. So therefore we cannot say that the word מבעה means fire, because in the משנה it says there are four אבות נזיקין. וכי תימא and if you're going to tell me and try to answer, תנא שור דאית ביה תרתי, that really there are four, because the word שור would include two. שור might mean שן and רגל. And קרן, as we said before, would not be mentioned

because the משנה only talks about such things which are מועד from the beginning, but קרן is a תם in the beginning, so קרן is not mentioned. So maybe שור means two, it means שן and רגל, then we have בור, מבעה and הבער really mean the same. So we would have four. So we're back to the question, maybe מבעה means fire. The גמרא says, אי הכי if so, when the משנה continues and says, לא זה וזה שיש בהן רוח חיים, that there is a חומרא in שור and מבעה, that it has a רוח חיים, אש מאי רוח חיים אית ביה? What kind of life is there in אש? If we're going to say that מבעה means fire, and the משנה says that שור and מבעה have a רוח חיים, have a life, now if מבעה means fire, now what kind of life does it have? So we couldn't say that מבעה means fire. ותו, and also, מאי קא רמי האש? It says clearly in the משנה that there is a חומרא in שור and מבעה over אש. Now if מבעה means אש, it wouldn't make sense. What do we mean that there is a חומרא in מבעה over אש, when really they're the same? So all that proves that מבעה couldn't be fire. So then what does מבעה mean? As we said before, according to שמואל, מבעה means שן, and according to רב, as we said before, מבעה would mean אדם. Then the גמרא continues:

תני רב אושעיא, רב אושעיא learned, שלשה עשר אבות נזיקין, there are thirteen אבות נזיקין, thirteen principal kinds of נזיקין that a person would be obligated to pay for. So he says, שומר חנם, if a person watches something for somebody for free, without getting paid, and then the object is lost or spoiled, so there is a case where the person who watched would have to pay. והשואל, if you borrow something from somebody, and then it's not there, it got spoiled or lost, you would have to pay. נושא שכר is if you watch something for somebody and you do get paid for it, so here too, if something happened to it, you must pay. והשוכר, or if you rent something from somebody, you also must pay. These four are considered the ארבעה שומרים, the four שומרים, and there is a difference in the דינים concerning these four שומרים. The דין is that a שומר חנם, a person who watches for free, in most cases, he is פטור from paying if something happens to the object. The only time he is חייב to pay is if he is פושע, if it got spoiled or lost through his negligence, then he has to pay. The שואל is the one that has to pay under all circumstances, in most cases. If it got stolen or lost, he has to pay, even if it happened through an אונס, through force, which means under abnormal circumstances, he still has to pay. Then the נושא שכר, which is the one that watches and he gets paid for his watching, he has to pay for regular גניבה ואבידה, if it got stolen or lost, he has to pay, certainly if it was through his negligence. The only time he would be פטור is if it happened באונס, by force. And the שוכר, the one that rents, has the same דין as the נושא שכר. But whatever it may be, in every one of these four cases, there is a possibility for the שומר, for the person who took it, to have to pay. So these are the first four cases that רב אושעיא says that a person is obligated to pay, so these are the first four of the thirteen אבות נזיקין. Then he

mentions נזק, whenever you cause any damage to somebody, you must pay for the damage. צער, along with that, as we said before, you must pay for the suffering, for the pain that the person has. וריפוי, you must pay for the person's cure, you must pay the doctor bills. שבת, you must pay for the person's lack of work because he couldn't work through your damage. ובושת, you must pay for the embarrassment you caused him. So here we have nine already, וארבעה דמתניתין, and also the four of the משנה: השור והבור והמבעה וההבער, so together, הרי תליסר, we have thirteen. Then the גמרא asks: ותנא דידן, and in our תנא, the תנא of our משנה, מאי טעמא לא תני הני? Why doesn't he mention these nine? Why does he only mention the four he does? Why doesn't he mention the other nine? And the גמרא explains: בשלמא לשמואל, well, we understand according to שמואל, שמואל that holds that שור means רגל, and מבעה means שן, so we understand why he doesn't mention the rest, because בניזקי ממונו קמיירי, בניזקי גופו לא קמיירי. The משנה is only talking about the damages caused through one's property, through something that belongs to a person, but not through the damage that the person himself caused. And all nine that רב אושעיא adds are all damages caused through the person himself, whether he was a שומר, or the נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת that he has to pay. But those are all things that you have to pay if you yourself caused the damage. And since our משנה only talks about damage that something that belongs to you caused, so therefore, the משנה does not mention those nine. אלא לרב, but according to רב, that he learns that מבעה means אדם, so the משנה also talks about the damage caused through the person himself, ליתני, let our משנה, the תנא of our משנה, also learn the nine of רב אושעיא. And the

גמרא answers: תני אדם וכל מילי דאדם. Since it says מבעה, and מבעה means אדם, so that includes already everything that an אדם would be responsible to pay for, and therefore he doesn't have to mention those nine, because all those nine are included in the one word of מבעה, which means אדם, because these are all obligations of the person when he damages. Then the גמרא asks: ולרב אושעיא נמי, so according to רב אושעיא too, הא תנא ליה אדם, didn't he learn אדם? Since רב אושעיא also learns the four of the משנה, and one of them is מבעה, and according to רב, מבעה means אדם, so since רב אושעיא learns אדם too, why does he learn all the other nine? Why aren't they included in the one word of אדם? And the גמרא answers: תרי גווני אדם. רב אושעיא wants to write two categories of אדם. תנא אדם דאזיק אדם, ותנא אדם דאזיק שור. He wants to separate the אדם, the person, when he damages another person, or a person when he damages an ox. In other words, you could have a person damage someone's property, and you could have a person damage another person. So the אדם that's included in the משנה in the word מבעה, according to רב אושעיא only refers to a person when he damages someone's property. And therefore, he adds all the others, like צער, ריפוי, שבת and בושת, because those are only when the person damages another person. And that's why he mentions them separately. The reason why we say that the אדם of the משנה would refer to a person when he damages someone's property, since the משנה doesn't say that, the משנה just says מבעה, which means אדם. Now why would רב אושעיא say that that אדם means when he damages someone's property rather than damage another person? So רש"י says because since מבעה stands right next to בור, it says השור והבור והמבעה, so we would learn out from בור to מבעה. בור definitely only speaks about the damage that was caused to someone's property, not to another person. Because as רש"י says, the דין is that we learn out from a פסוק that if a person falls into a pit that someone made, the one that made the pit is פטור from paying. So since בור definitely does not refer to the damage caused to a person, because if it was caused to a person he would be פטור, so too the מבעה which stands right next to בור, which means אדם, would also refer only to the damage caused to someone's property and not to a person. And that's what רב אושעיא says, that the מבעה, which is one of the four, refers to an אדם דאזיק שור, an אדם that damaged a שור or other person's property. But the אדם that I am adding, those things of אדם, those are the damages that a person caused to another person. But then the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, שור נמי, concerning שור too, ליתני תרי גווני שור. Why doesn't it say two kinds of שור? Why doesn't he divide it into two? ליתני שור דאזיק שור, וליתני שור דאזיק אדם. Let it speak specifically about a שור that caused damage to another שור, and about a שור that caused damage to a person. Why doesn't he divide that into two categories, too? Just like we said רב אושעיא wants to divide the היזק a person causes into two: the היזק a person causes to a שור and the היזק a person causes to a person. And the גמרא answers: הא מאי, what kind of comparison is it? בשלמא אדם דאזיק שור, מילא if we're going to divide concerning the אדם, so there is a difference between the אדם when he damages someone else's property, or when he damages another person. Because when he damages another person's property, like he damages someone's שור, נזק הוא דמשלם, all he pays is נזק. All he pays is for the damage. But אדם דאזיק אדם, when a person causes damage to another person, משלם ארבעה דברים, he pays all four things, as we mentioned before: צער, ריפוי, שבת and בושת. אלא שור, but when we talk about the damage a שור caused, מה לי שור דאזיק שור, מה לי שור דאזיק אדם, what difference is it whether the שור caused damage to another שור, or whether the שור caused damage to a person? אידי ואידי, in both cases, נזק הוא דמשלם. All he pays is נזק. All the owner of this שור that was מזיק pays is נזק. And therefore, there is no reason for רב אושעיא to divide it into two categories. But then the גמרא asks: והא שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר, דאדם דאזיק שור הוא, וקתני? We said before that the reason רב אושעיא adds these nine, because the מבעה of the משנה, the אדם of the משנה, only refers to a person when he was מזיק a שור, when he was מזיק someone's property. And therefore, he wants to add the case where a person damages another person. But the גמרא says that is not true. That would only be good concerning צער, ריפוי, שבת and בושת, he says. But רב אושעיא also added the four שומרים. He added the שומר חנם and the שואל, the נושא שכר and the שוכר. And these are cases דאדם דאזיק שור הוא. What kind of damage did the שואל or the שומר do? He lost the object that belonged to his friend, so it was a damage caused to an object, and still קתני, he still says it. How can we say that רב אושעיא only adds the case of אדם דאזיק אדם, when we see he adds also these four שומרים, which are cases of אדם דאזיק שור? And the גמרא answers that there's another reason why he adds these. תני היזקא דבידים, he wants to learn a damage that was caused through the hands of the person, וקתני היזקא דממילא, and he also wants to learn separately a case of damage that was done automatically, by the way, not directly, but indirectly. In other words, even though he says that the word מבעה, which means אדם, refers to אדם דאזיק שור, refers to a person that caused damage to someone else's property, nevertheless he adds these four because that is only concerning the damage that was caused בידים, when a person actually walks over to somebody else's property and damages it with his hands. For instance, he walks over to his ox, and he kills his ox or hurts his ox. But he also wants to add the case where the person caused damage to somebody not direct, but indirect. And this is the case of the four שומרים. These four שומרים, he didn't damage someone else's property, he was responsible to watch it, and he didn't watch it properly, and therefore he has to pay. So therefore he makes it into a special category, because he wants to divide even אדם דאזיק שור, the case where a person caused damage to someone else's property, he also wants to divide into two categories: the category whether he did it בידיים, or when he did it indirectly as the case of the four שומרים. But one might ask a question. Now that the גמרא said that רבי אושעיא wants to divide אדם into two categories: אדם דאזיק שור and אדם דאזיק אדם, an אדם that was מזיק someone's property and an אדם that was מזיק another person, so it seems to be saying that רבי אושעיא likes to divide everything into more categories. So

תוספות asks a question: so why then doesn't he divide שור into the three categories? Why doesn't he specify קרן, שן ורגל? Since there are three אבות in שור itself, and רבי אושעיא is the one that tries to divide everything into more categories, so then why doesn't he divide שור too into קרן, שן ורגל? And תוספות answers that רבי אושעיא would rather not do that because he didn't want to change from the תנא of the משנה. Since the תנא of the משנה only writes the word שור, and doesn't specify קרן, שן ורגל, so רבי אושעיא too doesn't want to change, and also wants to write שור, and not specifically קרן, שן ורגל. But as the מפרשים ask here, we don't understand what תוספות answers, because concerning אדם we have the same thing: the תנא of the משנה does not divide אדם into separate categories. He doesn't divide it into אדם דאזיק שור and אדם דאזיק אדם, even though, and nevertheless, רבי אושעיא does divide it. So we see that רבי אושעיא does not care to change from the לשון of the תנא of the משנה. So then why does תוספות say that when it comes to שור, he does not want to change the לשון and he would rather not write קרן, שן ורגל, because the תנא of the משנה does not write קרן, שן ורגל either? So the מהר״ם answers that there is a difference. Concerning אדם, רבי אושעיא did not have to change the expression of the תנא in order to divide it into more categories. He could still stick with the word מבעה as the תנא of the משנה, and then in order to divide it into more categories, all he has to do is add more cases. He would use the same word of the משנה, but the תנא of the משנה would mean with that word all conditions, all cases of אדם, while רבי אושעיא using the same word as the תנא of the משנה would only mean the אדם דאזיק שור. But when it comes to שור, if רבי אושעיא would want to divide it into separate categories and and divide it into קרן, שן ורגל, he would have to change the expression of the משנה. He couldn't write the word of the משנה which means שור, he would have to change and write קרן, שן ורגל. That's what רבי אושעיא doesn't want to do, and therefore, when it comes to change the לשון of the משנה, he'd rather stick to the תנא and stick to the לשון of the משנה and include all three in one word of שור. But where he does not have to change the לשון of the משנה, and nevertheless he could divide it into more categories, that's where he does it. And therefore, by אדם, he stays with the word מבעה which means אדם, and just adds on it the case of אדם דאזיק אדם, or the case of אדם דאזיק שור, but in a case of a בדרך ממילא not בידיים. There's one more thing interesting to note concerning the גמרא we learned previously.

When the גמרא says that there is a חומרא in שור over אדם, that שור pays כופר while אדם doesn't, that if an ox killed a person then the owner of the ox has to pay כופר, while if a person killed a person you don't pay כופר, and the גמרא used that as a חומרא in שור over אדם, so תוספות asks a קשיא: what kind of חומרא is that? The reason תוספות says why a person does not pay כופר is not because there is a קולא in the דין of אדם, but because since the person will get killed for the act that he did, for killing the other person, we say קם ליה בדרבה מיניה. There is a דין that if a person is חייב two punishments, one a stronger one and one a weaker one, for instance, he is חייב מיתה for an act that he did, but at the same time he the same act brings about an obligation of money, so the דין is that we say קם ליה בדרבה מיניה. We only give him the stricter one, where we only kill him, and we would not make him pay, because the one that is lighter is automatically included in the one that is stronger. So here, too, when somebody kills somebody else you are פטור from כופר, it is not because there is a קולא in the דין of the person killing somebody, but it is because of קם ליה בדרבה מיניה, because he will get killed for his act, so therefore we do not make him pay, because that payment is, so to speak, included in the other thing that he gets which is the מיתה. So in that case תוספות asks, how could the גמרא use this דין that an אדם is פטור from כופר as a קולא in אדם and as a חומרא in שור over אדם? And תוספות answers in the first תירוץ, the ריב״א answers that since the same דין would apply also in a case of שוגג, as תנא דבי חזקיה says. In other words, when a person person kills somebody else בשוגג, he does not get killed for it, and nevertheless he would be פטור from כופר. So here, we see that the fact that he is פטור from כופר is a קולא, because we do not give him the stricter punishment, because for killing somebody בשוגג, you are not חייב מיתה, and nevertheless, you are פטור from כופר, so therefore we could use this as a קולא in the דין of אדם. But then the ר״י says in תוספות, that this is no question to begin with, and he proves with all kinds of ראיות, that the reason an אדם is פטור from כופר is not because of קם ליה בדרבה מיניה. In other words, if it would only be because of קם ליה בדרבה מיניה, he probably would be חייב to pay כופר. And the reason he is פטור from כופר is because he is essentially פטור from כופר. And therefore, the גמרא could use this as a קולא in אדם לגבי שור, because an אדם is essentially פטור from כופר, while a שור is חייב בכופר, so therefore we see a חומרא in שור over אדם, and therefore the גמרא could use this as an explanation in פשט of the משנה, לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה, according to רב that מבעה is אדם, that there is a חומרא in שור over מבעה, that שור has to pay כופר, while an אדם does not have to pay כופר.