here. Bava Kamma here. Bava Kamma דף ב' עמוד ב'. There is a Rashi here that says something that needs explanation. Rashi says it in connection to something of the Gemara, but it's not the the ענין the ענין that we're going to discuss has nothing to do with the ענין that the Gemara talks about, it's just what Rashi says in connection to that Gemara. What Rashi says a Rashi here. בתם שהרג אדם by a שור, an ox that gores. So, we know the דין that if it gores, there is a difference between the first three times and after that. The first three times, it's still called a תם. After that, it's called a מועד. The difference in הלכה between a תם and a מועד is that when it gores and causes damage, so the תם, the first three times you only pay חצי נזק, you only pay half of the damage. If it caused damage worth $100, you only pay 50. Then, after that, after it becomes a מועד, and it causes damage, then you pay נזק שלם. That's only concerning damage.

What happens if an ox gores and kills a person? How? Here also, we find a difference between a תם and a מועד. So, Rashi here So, Rashi says, what is the difference between a תם that kills a person and a מועד that kills a person? A תם is the first or second or third time that the animal does it, and the מועד is after three times, and if it does it again, it's a מועד. So, Rashi says by a תם that kills a person, כתיב the פסוק says: סקול יסקל השור ובעל השור נקי. You stone that the ox, and the owner of the ox is clean, clean, won't do anything to him. By מועד כתיב, it says וגם בעליו יומת. It says by a מועד that if a מועד kills a person, וגם בעליו יומת, also the master has to die. And

Rashi explains here, והיא מיתה היינו ממון. But when the Torah says die, it doesn't mean die. It means that you pay money, שמשלם את הכופר, you pay כופר. But if you have a chumash, it would be this, it would be very, a Chumash Shemos? We'd look through the pesukim, and it's the easiest. Any chumash, yeah? Okay. This is a Chumash Mishpatim. So, what were we saying at the beginning that that you said it pays half? Yeah, that's by damage, that's not by killing. Oh, oh, oh, then it pays, okay. Okay. וכי יגח יגח שור וכי יגח שור את איש או את אשה ומת, reading the pasuk, when an ox will gore a man or a woman and he shall die, סקול יסקל השור, you have to stone the שור, ולא יאכל את בשרו ובעל השור נקי, and the owner of the ox is clean, is innocent. This is the that's how it starts. ואם שור נגח הוא, if he's a שור נגח, he's a goring ox, מתמל שלשם from yesterday and the day before, והועד בבעליו and the owner was warned, ולא ישמרנו and he didn't watch him, והמית איש או אשה and he killed a man or a woman, השור יסקל, you stone the שור, וגם בעליו יומת, and also this owner shall die. Then the pasuk continues: אם כפר יושת עליו, if you will put כופר, if a ransom money will be imposed upon the owner, ונתן פדין נפשו, then he pays the ransom money, whatever the בית דין פסק'ס. This is what the pasuk says. So, clearly, the pasuk says first time, or the second, or the two first few times, you just kill the ox, and the owner pays nothing. Afterwards, if it happens more than later, you kill the ox, and the owner shall die, too. And then the pasuk says, but if you will give ransom money, then he is clean. Then he gives פדיון נפשו, whatever he gives. I take it these are different oxen. No? No. Why That's where I start reading the Rashi. So, Rashi says that a תם, from here we see that a תם that kills a person, stone the ox and בעל השור נקי. By a מועד, it says וגם בעליו יומת. the owner should die. But Rashi adds here, וגם דהא האי מיתה היינו ממון. And it says here that the man, the owner dies, it doesn't mean die, it means he pays money. שמשלם את הכופר, it means that money. When it says further, אם כופר יושת עליו, if ransom money will be put on him, that's what the pasuk means. When the pasuk says וגם בעליו יומת, means money. How much money? So Rashi says דמי נהרג לירשיו. You have to pay to the יורשים, to the heirs, you have to pay the value of the person who died. And the Gemara goes in how you evaluate a person. You would figure out in the market as a slave how much he would be worth. So the person that died, the נהרג, how much he's worth, that's how much you pay, Rashi says. ולא מיתה ממש, but the pasuk doesn't mean that he actually dies, דאמרינן בפרק קמא דסנהדרין, because it says in the first פרק of סנהדרין, על רציחתו אתה הורגו, ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו, that you only could kill a person if he murders. But you can't kill a person for the murder of his animal, of his shor, of his ox. So therefore, it can't mean that you kill the owner. Therefore, what this בעליו יומת, when it says the owner should die, it means mamon. This is what Rashi says here. This is not the sugya, this is not the area where the Gemara discusses the the din of a a shor killing, and the tam and the muad, and how much you pay, there are other sugyot. But by the way, when Rashi is interested in explaining this inyan, this is what Rashi says. The

first question that comes up here on Rashi is, Rashi seems to contradict the Gemara. The Gemara says in Ketubot, that's why he took out Ketubot, חומש is still noga here, the Gemara says in Ketubot, ל״ז, let me read the Gemara. תניא, רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר, Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says, לפי שמצינו למומתים בידי שמים שנותנים ממון ומתכפר להם. We find in the Torah, somebody who deserves to die, מיתה בידי שמים, Hashem could There is such a thing as מיתה בידי אדם, that the בית דין kills, and then there is מיתה בידי שמים, which is similar to כרת. We find in the Torah that a person, there are people who are חייב מיתה בידי שמים and they're able to give money and get forgiven. שנאמר, it says, and he quotes the pasuk that we just learned, אם כופר יושת עליו. That if you give kofer, it takes off your מיתה. And it goes on, יכול, I would think, בידי אדם, same thing maybe happens if בית דין has to kill you, it's also possible to redeem yourself with money, and he quotes a pasuk you can't. What do we see from Rabbi Yishmael b'no shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka? That when the Torah says וגם בעליו יומת, it means he dies. It doesn't mean bidei adam, it means bidei shamayim. So it doesn't mean mamon. What the pasuk means is, first it says that if he's a muad, then the owner deserves מיתה בידי שמים. Then the pasuk says you could take off the מיתה בידי שמים also by giving kofer, that's what he says here, that we find in the Torah that mamon could take off מיתה בידי שמים. So, if we would look at the pasuk, say, is this וגם בעליו יומת, what does it mean? It means mitah, or it means mamon? It means מיתה, מיתה בידי שמים! So how does Rashi write by us here in Bava Kamma, דהא האי מיתה היינו ממון, that this mitah means mamon, v'lo mitah mamash, not mitah mamash. Would that It's a setirah to the Gemara! Depends if he can afford it, he'd have to pay. If he can't afford it No, but the pasuk doesn't mean that. Lechatchilah he has מיתה בידי שמים, if he pays the money But Rashi doesn't say that! Rashi says דהא האי מיתה That's what Rashi thinks. Rashi says the פסוק Rashi says דהא האי מיתה היינו ממון, that when it says mitah, it means mamon, not mitah. The pasuk doesn't mean that. You could say mitah is mitah, but you're able, because it says further, אם כופר יושת עליו. So where do we see in the Torah that you give mamon? From אם כופר יושת עליו! No, from אם כופר, no, but here if he means vadai, that you should. But here it says אם כופר יושת עליו. But but from word Not not in the Gemara. But according to Rashi, not! That's the difference, exactly, see, that's that's

the stira! According to the Gemara, if he wants to pay bidei Shamayim Right! According to the Gemara, if he doesn't pay money, he will get mitah bidei Shamayim. According to Rashi, he won't, cuz Rashi says there is no מיתה here, the מיתה לכתחילה means ממון! According to Rashi, you have no choice. Right, so it's a stira. How did Rashi write something against the Gemara? The truth is, if you look at Rashi in Chumash, on the words וגם בעליו יומת, Rashi says bidei Shamayim! That means he's bidei Shamayim. He even goes further: יכול בידי אדם? Maybe it means that the Beit Din should kill him. תלמוד לומר מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא, like he says here, על רציחתו אתה הורגו, ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו. Kill him for his murder, not for the murder of the שור. That Rashi uses as a re'aya that it doesn't mean מיתה בידי אדם. But Rashi does translate this, that this means mitah bidei Shamayim, which is similar to what the Gemara says in Ketubot! So how could Rashi write here that it's not? Why What was that? What was the second case where Rashi does say bidei Shamayim? Chumash. Rashi Chumash. On the same pasuk. On what pasuk? Huh? On the same pasuk where it says גם בעליו יומת. Rashi doesn't say, גם בעליו יומת, היינו ממון. Adraba, he says mitah bidei Shamayim, mitah bidei Shamayim, which is normal because Rashi because it takes from the Gemara. And here in Bava Kamma, Rashi decided to write, האי מיתה היינו ממון. That's one problem with this Rashi. Then there's another problem. Rashi said, how much do you pay? So Rashi says, דמי ניזק, you pay the value of the one that's killed. Now, this is not so pashut. This is a machloket in the Gemara between Tannaim. On דף מ׳, here in Bava Kamma, here, תנו רבנן, דתניא: ונתן פדיון נפשו.

Gemara quotes this pasuk which we just said, אם כופר יושת עליו ונתן פדיון נפשו. How much do you give? דמי ניזק. Rabbanan say the value of the ניזק, of the one that got damaged, got killed. רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר: דמי מזיק. He says you give the value of yourself. And as a matter of fact, the Gemara says, first the Gemara thought the machloket was: מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי, דרבנן סברי כופרא ממונא, ורבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא סבר כופרא כפרה. When you give כופר, is it to pay money for the loss, the the monetary loss, or is it a kapparah for you? So the Gemara wants to say that if it's a kapparah for you, you give how much you're worth. You give to the to the you give, you pay to the יורשים, but your value. If it's mamon, then you give how much the ניזק is worth. And the Gemara says, no, אמר רבא: כולי עלמא כופרא כפרה. Everyone agrees that it's a kapparah. And the machloket is in the kapparah itself, how much do you give? So it's definitely a kapparah, and there's a machloket in Gemara here. Now, if there's a machloket in Gemara here, why is Rashi interested here or why when he brings it does he decide to tell me דמי ניזק? What does Rashi say in Chumash there on on how much you give? ונתן פדיון נפשו. So Rashi: דמי ניזק, דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר: דמי מזיק. Rashi brings both opinions. He brings different names because he brings it from Mekhilta, not from our Gemara, but who says it, but לפועל we have two opinions: דמי ניזק and דמי מזיק. So why did Rashi come and say with a פשטות: you give דמי ניזק, you give דמי ניזק of how much he's worth, not of how much you're worth? So this is two שאלות in what Rashi says. Rashi puts himself in a spot for no reason. It's not even noge'a to the Gemara here, just by the way, when he mentions it, Rashi says something as if this is the only, this is an accepted thing. Why is it like that? Common sense is dictated... There's no whole common sense here, we see what the Gemara says. These things... That's if there's a Gemara that's פקעת... Not if the not if the... Right, so the the first one was that in Chumash he says that it's בידי שמים, but in the Gemara he says היינו ממון. Yeah, but the ikar is not the stira between the Chumash to the Gemara. The ikar is that Rashi goes against the Gemara. Rashi is only mefaresh the Gemara, Rashi can't make up his own things. Has to be a little common sense, how it's how it's set up. Obviously. So this is Rashi says against the Gemara, and there Rashi and another thing, Rashi says also against Rashi comes in here to pasken when no one asked him. See, Rashi would come and say, I pasken? There must be Unless there is some הכרח that this is the הלכה בעצם, so then we could say Rashi writes the way the הלכה is, but why would Rashi Where does Rashi get it from? So to get to this, let me just say this. This nekudah whether there is מיתה בידי שמים or not by this case, it seems, actually what does it seem? The Rabbi in a letter writes that it's a מחלוקת between בבלי and ירושלמי. In בבלי, in our Gemara, it says clearly that you get מיתה בידי שמים. Gemara in Ketubot: מצינו... אמר רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא: מצינו למומתים בידי שמים שנוטלין ממון. So our Gemara says this. Then in the ירושלמי, it's משמע that you don't get מיתה בידי שמים. Where is the ירושלמי? In ירושלמי it says that while Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was sitting with his talmidim, a הגמון came, a goy came in and asked him a shaila. He said to him like this: I want to understand, why does it say וגם בעליו יומת? He asked him a shaila, why does the pasuk say that you should If the ox killed, why should he be killed? So he said to him: A why? שותף לסטים כלסטים. A partner to a thief is a thief himself. And therefore since it's his ox, he gets killed. He walked out. When he left, אמרו לו תלמידיו, his talmidim said to Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai: לזה דחית בקנה. This guy you answered stam azoy, you pushed him away, a stupid answer, but tell us the real reason. Why does the pasuk say וגם בעליו יומת? So he said: I'll tell you. All the pasuk is not The pasuk doesn't mean he dies. The pasuk comes to teach us a new din. And the din is that כמיתת השור, כבעלים כך מיתת השור. That means like this: when this שור kills and you have to kill him, it's an exceptional דין. You have to take the שור to trial. And not only that, normally when you try, when you have a monetary case, three דיינים are enough. When it's a capital case, then you have to have 23 דיינים. There are three types of בית דין: a בית דין of three, a בית דין of 23, and a בית דין of 71. בית דין of 71 is בית דין הגדול. So for monetary things, I owe you money, you don't owe me money, I you damaged, you damaged, whatever, I stole, all these things you only need a בית דין of three. When it comes to judge a person for death, you have to have a בית דין of 23. Certain things you need a בית דין of 71. When you judge this ox, you have to have a בית דין of 23. Judging the ox whether you should kill him or not is a monetary thing. It's like, you know, you break his car, you don't break his car, you kill his ox, you don't kill his ox. Where do you know it from? So the

Gemara says this is where we know it from. The פסוק says וגם בעליו יומת. Not that it means that the בעל actually gets killed. Wants to tell you that שור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת, that you stone the שור similar to what you would do when you would kill if you would have to kill his master. So that's what the פסוק means. This is what Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai answered. So obviously from Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's answer we see he holds there is no מיתה בידי שמים here. So it's a מחלוקת בבלי וירושלמי. In Bavli it says Rabbi Yishmael birabbi Yochanan said it's a מיתה בידי שמים, and in Yerushalmi it says that you don't get מיתה בידי שמים. This Rashi is in Bavli? Oh, this Rashi is in Bavli. Now it seems like this Rashi here is somehow decided to go like Yerushalmi. Why would Rashi decide to go like Yerushalmi? Es vayzt oys that for some reason Rashi holds like that. In a moment we'll see why how Rashi could go. Usually when you have a מחלוקת בבלי וירושלמי you pask'n like Bavli. So it should be like Bavli. Nevertheless here for some reason Rashi holds like that. And it seems like it's a מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafos what the halacha is here. Whether the halacha is here that you do get מיתה בידי שמים, you're just in kofer you could take it off, or there is no מיתה בידי שמים at all. Is the lashon in the in the Gemara... In the lashon of the Gemara is it just death or it says בידי שמים? In Bavli what does it say? מיתה בידי שמים. It says clearly מיתה בידי שמים. Because there is another Gemara. A Gemara Sanhedrin. Let's take it out, see... Sanhedrin דף ט״ו. No, I'm just looking at the print. It's just because I have another one over there. It's a little smaller and easier to handle. Okay. Sanhedrin דף ט״ו? Huh? Very good, very good. On דף ט״ו the Gemara brings the Mishnah: שור הנסקל בעשרים ושלשה. That when you kill a שור, this type of שור, you have to have 23. שנאמר, the Gemara says where do we know it from, so it quotes this pasuk: שור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת, כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור. The same way you kill him. אמר ליה אביי לרבא, the Gemara says, Abaye asked רבא, ומאי דהאי וגם בעליו יומת כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור הוא דאתא? How do you know that the pasuk comes to teach us by וגם בעליו יומת that you should kill the שור the same way you kill the בעלים? אימא למקטליה הוא דאתא? Maybe it comes that you should kill him takeh? So he says, אם כן, in that case it should say... it's a different lashon. Then he goes vayter, maybe this is what it means. Anyway the Gemara finishes off that we have a re'aya that we can't kill the person. The Gemara here comes out, אמר קרא... מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא, you can't say that the pasuk means you should kill him, because על רציחתו אתה הורגו ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו, because we know that we kill a person for his murder, not for his שור's murders. That's what Rava answered... Abaye answered Rava? Who asked who again? Abaye asked Rava, so Rava answered Abaye that the פסוק cannot mean that you should kill him, because another פסוק says you don't kill a person if his שור kills. So obviously what does the פסוק mean? To teach you כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור. That's what the Gemara says here. Comes Rashi, when he asked him a קשיא, אימא למקטליה, maybe the פסוק comes that you kill him, לחייב, so Rashi טייטשט עס לחייב מיתה לבעלים. Maybe the פסוק tells you to חייב מיתה. ולחייביה מיתה, and let's give him takeh מיתה. והיכי מפקינן ליה מפשוטיה לגמרי? How could we take the פסוק out from its complete peshat at all? We're saying that when it says וגם בעליו יומת, we're taking it out, it doesn't mean that, we're taking it out from its peshat completely. Why would you do that? And according to this, what's the answer? Why do we do that? Because we have another פסוק that we don't kill a person for רציחה of somebody else. When Tosafot explains this Gemara, Tosafot goes in a whole עסק here, and Tosafot פירט אויס a lot further words, מכל מקום כי מוקמינן ליה כמיתת הבעלים, even after the Gemara says כמיתת הבעלים that the פסוק וגם בעליו... בעליו יומת teaches you that you have to have 23 by שור, דרשינן נמי מיתה בידי שמים. We still use it for מיתה בידי שמים, because אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. We can't change the פסוק from its simple פשט, דמשמע דבעלים חייב במיתה. So what do we see the סוגיא here between Rashi and Tosafot? That Rashi says that when we darsh the pasuk to teach you that you need 23 for the שור, we're taking away the pasuk completely from the peshat, which means that according to the maskana, we takeh don't learn מיתה at all here. Tosafot says that even after we take it out, what do we mean we take it out of the peshat? Normally you might learn means מיתה בידי אדם, or שבית דין kills. What happens is we say no, it means Beit Din doesn't kill, but it still remains מיתה בידי שמים. So we

see clearly here a machloket Rashi and Tosafot, lemaskana, that Tosafot learns that even after we have the darsh that it means that showed that you need 23, bleibt, וגם בעליו יומת means מיתה, but it doesn't mean, we could have thought מיתה בידי אדם, no, so we have a pasuk it means מיתה בידי שמים. Rashi says that we take it out פשוטו לגמרי, completely out of the peshat. If simple peshat it means מיתה, Rashi took it out. So mimela, obviously the machloket Rashi and Tosafot is whether we pasak like the Bavli, pasak like the Yerushalmi. In Bavli, in Ketubot it says that there is no מיתה בידי שמים, that there is, I mean this is מיתה בידי שמים, and that's how Tosafot follows. Rashi, for some reason, her, learns that we take it out לגמרי, and therefore there is no מיתה בידי שמים at all. So what does וגם בעליו יומת mean? Lechatchila that means money, can't mean מיתה, and why does it say, to teach you that דין of that there be 23? Because of that, Rashi in Chumash, Rashi in Chumash we know explains the חומש על פי פשוטו של מקרא, so Rashi can't change the pshat. So when you explain it על פי פשט, you have to write it means מיתה. Fakert, it could have meant מיתה בידי אדם also, and Rashi has to explain why not. But Rashi in the Gemara, which doesn't go על פי פשט, for some reason, Rashi feels that the halacha is that you don't get מיתה at all, and that's why Rashi says no מיתה at all. The question is, but it doesn't fit in the Bavli. Where now we're still, I just tried to put it all together to show how Rashi go goes. But Rashi does not go according to the Bavli. Rashi goes according to the Yerushalmi. And the klal is that בבלי ירושלמי, הלכה כבבלי. Unless we're going to find some re'iyah that this דעה, this that the Bavli says, if Shmuel, whether Reish Lakish or Rabbi Yochanan says, it's only an opinion of a yachid. The Gemara takeh brings it, and in that Gemara we don't find anyone arguing, so lichorah the Gemara brings it, this is it. If we will find out somehow that this is an opinion of him, but there are arg, no, others that argue against him, and they are the majority, automatically we will say that the halacha is like the others. The only thing is, we have to look for the Bavli, do we find someplace in the Bavli that shows that this is a machloket, and not only a machloket, a machloket that the others are are the Rabbanan, and because of that we go... So obviously, before I even explain how, this will be the machloket Rashi and Tosafot. Tosafot will say, since the Bavli says it, there is no one arguing, it's against the Yerushalmi, the הלכה כבבלי, that's why I pask. Rashi somehow feels that we will find in the Bavli a ראיה that this is not what the Bavli brings it only as an opinion, but this is not the halacha. Now, how can we get to find that? So let's get to this. What is takeh the sevara whether he gets מיתה בידי שמים or not? We have two opinions here. Whether if again, what is it, an ox gores and kills a person, does the owner need to get מיתה בידי שמים, and he could take it off by mamon, or there is no מיתה בידי שמים to begin with? These are the, what are the two tzadadim? So, bipashtut to explain the two sevarot is as follows. In the whole concept of a person being responsible for his ox that gores, which we call נזקי ממון, there's a whole discussion in the Acharonim. What We learned in the beginning of the משנה, ארבעה אבות נזיקין, there are four types of נזיקין. If your שור gores, קרן, שן, רגל, different forms of נזיקין, if you make a בור, fire, all the things, you are chayav to pay. Why are you chayav to pay?

There are two major sevarot, and there's an argument, and there's a chakirah which of the two sevarot is the main. There are definitely two conditions that must be in order to be to be chayav. It has to be yours, and you have to have not watched it properly. That's the din. Let's say your your your ox, if it's not your ox, then you're not responsible. Even if it is your ox, you have to have it not watched. If you watched it properly, and an ones happened, something somebody went and broke the door open and the ox went out, you wouldn't have to pay. So, negligence. It's not definitely לא שמרו, we call it peshiah, you could say that, we don't use the word peshiah, but לא שמרו. So, these are two conditions. Now, the question of it is Which of these these two conditions is the reason why you're chayav, and the other one would be a condition that if it's not met you'd become patur? So which of the two is like that? In other words, you could one shita is to learn the reason you're מחייב a person for the נגיחה, for the goring of his ox, because he didn't watch it. Why are you responsible? Because you didn't watch it. But there is a condition: the fact that you didn't watch him is only applies if it was yours. So the real reason is the cause, לא שמר. The fact that it's ממונך, that it's yours, is a condition. There is a סברא פארקערט: the reason you're chayav is because it's your your שור. Whatever your שור does, you are responsible. It's yours, just like if a child your child goes and breaks someone's window, you'll pay. Why will you pay? You didn't do it. Because it's yours, it's your child so you. Same thing lehavdil, but this is your animal, so you're responsible. I just used an example. I know the din there is not that way. That's a that's only an example of understanding it, because in our blunt mind it's the din is that the child does על פי הלכה you don't pay. And nevertheless we would feel that we would pay. So the other way is that the reason is because it's ממונך. Now there is a condition: even if it's yours, which means that there is the reason why you should be responsible, if you didn't, if you watched it, you become patur. So that's the The she'eilah is לא שמר or or or or or ממונך. The difference is in logic. When are you, which part do you have in the aveirah of the of the נזיקין? If it's because לא שמר, you did something before which brought the שור to be מזיק. While the שור is מזיק, you didn't do anything. The שור is מזיק, that's the שור. But since you did something before that you didn't you weren't careful, you brought the שור to do it. According to the other way, when, which part are you in the היזק? While the שור is מזיק, that's you. It's an extension of you, that's why you're chayav. That's the difference between the two. Which באמת could be the pshat in that Yerushalmi in the first sentence or the second sentence. When the guy came to ask him, \"Why does it say גם בעליו יומת?\" So what did he answer to the goy? שותף ליסטים כליסטים. A partner of a thief is a thief. What did he mean? That's you. He did it, it's yours, so you're part. Came the came the talmidim and said to him, \"No, we know it's not true.\" So he told them that what does the pasuk come to teach you, a different din. That he takeh doesn't get killed. Why? Because it's not you. In other words, the difference whether there is a חיוב מיתה on the owner will depend on these two reasons. If the

reason is for not watching him, you, the owner, have no part in the in the murder. The שור murdered, killed. You just did something before which has nothing to do with murder. You just weren't careful. So therefore, it happened, but you are not a רוצח. There is no way you have a connection to רציחה. According to the other way, that it's ממונו הזיק, while he is doing it, you are, avadai not like you're shooting the guy, but you are part of you is being רוצח, you are a רוצח. Now the difference will be whether there is even any possibility of חיוב מיתה. If the reason is because לא שמר, why would you חייב מיתה? For not watching you get מיתה? But if you have a share, if it's ממונו הזיק, you have a share in the רציחה, you have a share in the murder, yeah, you get מיתה. But you didn't murder with your hand, and the pasuk says you only get killed for murdering yourself, so you get מיתה בידי שמים. Not real מיתה, but מיתה בידי שמים. So the מחלוקת between the two is based on this. The Yerushalmi, we said, holds that you don't get מיתה בידי שמים, because the Yerushalmi the מסקנא holds that the reason is לא שמר. The hava amina that he answered, which they didn't accept, was you're a שותף, which means it's ממונך. And they said, \"No, that's just\" The מסקנא is not, that's why Yerushalmi holds that way. Now the the

Bavli where it says here that you do get מיתה בידי שמים is because it holds that the ikar it is because ממונו הזיק, so you get מיתה בידי שמים. Okay, that's that's a sevara. Now the other מחלוקת that we have, how much do you pay כופר? If the the שור gored the מועד, and you and you assess money, whether it's דמי ניזק or דמי מזיק, you pay the value of ניזק, דמי מזיק, depends on the same שאלה. If the vort is that it's you, you have a חלק in this, then what is the pshat? Why do you pay? You pay because the מזיק, because you killed. So you need a kaparah for yourself, so you have to pay דמי מזיק. If it's because לא שמר, so you didn't really have a חלק in the you can't give for you, but what you have to You are a cause for someone's life to be lost, so you have to pay דמי ניזק. So it comes out like this: it's interesting that in both places, it's the same person. Who says in Kesubos that you get מיתה בידי שמים? Rabbi Yishmael beno shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka. Who is the one here that says that It's דמי מזיק, Rabbi Yishmael beno shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka. It's somewhere here. What was it here? דף מ'? Here: ונתן פדיון נפשו דמי ניזק, רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר דמי מזיק.

It's לשיטתו! It's the same person because it's all based on the same klal. If you hold דמי מזיק, then automatically you hold... So, so it comes out like this: that Rabbi Yishmael beno shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka over there, he says you get misah bidei shamayim because the ikar is ממונך הזיק, that's the reason. Here he says דמי מזיק because the ikar is ממונך הזיק. Now, Rabbi Yishmael beno shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka here has a machlokes with the Rabbanan. The Rabbanan are rabbim, so the halacha by the how much you pay is like the Rabbanan, which is you pay דמי ניזק. No, against Rabbi Yishmael beno shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, the one that's ניזק. So, so obviously we pasken that the ikar is because לא שמר, and not because of ממונך, that's what we pasken. So even though the Gemara over there in Kesubos there is no machlokes of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, but if it's all based on the same klal, so you have to say that the Rabbanan who argue here argue there too. And memeila, just like here the halacha is like the Rabbanan, which means the halacha is על לא שמר, the halacha should be over there בנוגע כרת מיתה בידי שמים also like the Rabbanan that you don't get. That's why Rashi in, in, in, in Sanhedrin says, \"No, that it's מיתה מפשוטו לגמרי.\" Why? Because Rashi says, \"I have a Gemara that says the machlokes of Rabbi Yochanan, the halacha is דמי ניזק, so automatically you can't give כל מיתה.\" And that's why Rashi in Bava Kama here says both things. Both she'eilos we had are answered together. We asked the she'elah, \"Why does Rashi say גם בעליו, הרי מיתה היינו ממון? Where does he take it from?\" And then he says דמי נערך. The two things go together. He says דמי נערך because the halachah is דמי נערך, and mimeila it must be מיתה בידי שמים you do get... that you don't get! That you don't get. Ay, the Bavli, מחלוקת בבלי וירושלמי? It's not a machloket. Now we're saying it's not a מחלוקת בבלי וירושלמי, because the Bavli, where do we see Bavli says it? The Bavli brings Rabbi Yochanan, Yishmael, and no argument. But that's a דעת יחיד now that we know that the two things are connected. So lefo'al, we have a re'ayah the Bavli also agrees. This is how Rashi will say it. Tosafot will obviously not connect it to machloket. You don't have to, you don't have to say the sevara in every machloket. So בנוגע מיתה בידי שמים, Tosafot will say this is lo davka it's connected, and mimeila what will Tosafot say? And there are re'ayot, we'll have time, from many places in Bava Kama, that בכלל Tosafot is of the opinion that the reason for היזק is ממונו הזיק. That's the opinion of Tosafot. And if we have time, I'll show you in more places. And Rashi's opinion, the halachah is that it's על לא שמר שורו, and therefore if Tosafot says that's the halachah, so for some reason Tosafot says that if Rabbi Yishmael beno shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says that you get מיתה בידי שמים, that's the halachah, because Tosafot holds the shitah that the ikar is mamon. And over here, this machlokes must be based on something else. I mean, there are all kinds of biurim you could explain what the machlokes is here by דמי מזיק וניזק. Tosafos doesn't connect the two, and if Tosafos doesn't connect the two, we're left that in Bavli we have an opinion of Rabbi Yishmael bno shel Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka that it's מיתה בידי שמים without a machlokes. So automatically, what comes out from there? That the ikar is that Bavli argues on the Yerushalmi, and the halacha according to the Bavli is that you do get מיתה בידי שמים. That's why Tosafos in Sanhedrin says clearly that even that the Gemara says that it doesn't mean מיתה, Tosafos says, \"Well, but we're not taking it away מפשוטו לגמרי, מיתה בידי שמים you get,\" because Tosafos holds there is a reason to give מיתה בידי שמים. What do you do with the אם כופר? No, if you give money, you take off the misah. That everyone agrees. I mean, מצינו במיתה בידי שמים שניתן כפרה. But is it the mazik or the nizak by by Tosafos? What what... Could be Tosafos פסקנט like the Rabbanan anyways, דמי ניזק, but for a different reason, he doesn't connect this machlokes. The interesting thing we see is like this: the

Rambam says like this, the Rambam brings this din, the din of שור המועד that killed, and he says the pasuk says גם בעליו יומת, מפי השמועה למדו, means the chachamim learned out that this misah does not mean מיתה בידי אדם, it means מיתה בידי שמים. Not like, not like Rashi, which according to Rashi it's a rabim, according to Tosafos it's not a רבים, we don't have a יחיד ורבים in here. The Rambam says this: interesting is not only the Rambam says that it's מיתה בידי שמים, he even says in a lashon that the חכמים had have a special לימוד that it's not מיתה בידי אדם. In other words, you could have even thought it's מיתה בידי אדם, that בית דין should kill, but they learned out, \"No, it's מיתה בידי שמים.\" So the Rambam learns that it's מיתה בידי שמים, that it is, which is not like Rashi. When we stay in the Rambam, the beginning of הלכות נזקי ממון, people might, you know what, let's look at, I'm already looking into the sefarim so we'll look, it's it's much geshmaker. Nezikin. In the beginning of הלכות נזקי ממון. I like having the whole house. It's far more loose. It says like this: כל נפש חיה שהיא ברשותו של אדם, any living animal that belongs, that's in the רשות of a person, שהזיקה, if it's מזיק, הבעלים חייבים לשלם. The owners have to pay. Then you would wait now and see why. שהרי ממונם הזיק. He doesn't say, \"שהרי לא שמרו,\" שהרי ממונם הזיק. It's a משמע that the Rambam follows the shita, that the ikar reason why you're chayav is ממונם. Then there's a condition. That later it'll say that if you did watch it, you don't pay. If you didn't watch it, you do pay. But the gantze sugya, the Rambam gives that שהרי ממונם הזיק. So we see that the Rambam goes with the shita that it's ממונם הזיק. Now we understand that if the Rambam goes with the shita of ממונם הזיק, so automatically when it comes to explain what וגם בעליו יומת means, he, that's why he says בידי שמים. And it could have, since ממונם הזיק you're part of the רציחה, he has to have onesh. Don't think it's בידי אדם, you could have even thought, but certainly have onesh. So it's not like Rashi, but it's like Tosafos. So Tosafos and the Rambam will go with one shita, and Tosafos and the Rambam, and Rashi will go with another shita based on this nekudah. This Rashi will be based on the nekudah whether it's ממונו הזיק or אשר לא ישמרנו. And we find different places between Rashi and Tosafos where the difference would is between the two. Just to use one example, just a small one. It's a big one. It wouldn't be too long. Here in the Mishnah, It's a long page. Here in the Mishnah the

Mishnah says, we learned it last week, לא זה כזה, well the Mishnah goes into explaining why the Torah has to tell us all four mazikim. If the Torah would say one of them, we would all have our own learn out. Well if this is chayav, why wouldn't you be chayav? Why did it, so the Mishnah goes, all kind, and it gives reasons why not. Because if we would say this we would think, \"Well, maybe only this one is chayav because it has a certain chumra, and the other one not.\" Now one of the things the Mishnah doesn't bring is what would be if it would say just eish? One of them is eish, if you start a fire. And the Mishnah doesn't say if you could say the Torah just that you're chayav for eish, we would know the rest, and the Mishnah has to explain why not. The Mishnah doesn't mention this. So, Tosafos says, \"You know why the Mishnah doesn't mention it? Because the Gemara didn't find anything.\" There was nothing, no chumra in eish, there's nothing in eish that's more strict than others that we would be able to say that if we could say just eish we would think that's special. So the Gemara doesn't say it. Then Tosafos says, \"Well it's not true. We look later in the Gemara. The Gemara gives the characteristics of every one of these מזיקים.\" And we went through that last למשל, one of the things is קרן, if you do by horn. What is the אב, the case of קרן? Is כוונתו להזיק. Any time it does נזק with kavanah. So if it gores, it's kavanah to be מזיק, what else does it do it for? The same, so the תולדות, there are other things that we learn out. If it steps, if it bites, then we have רגל, if it walks סתם normally and it breaks things on the way. That characteristic is היזקן מצוי. It's a common thing to happen. Anything that happens that way, like if it's walking and it's just normally and it with with the hand with the foot does something, Then Then שן. שן is a third case, if it eats. That means it's a characteristic of having הנאה from the היזק. If it eats, anything that has הנאה is in that category. Then the Gemara categorizes אש. אש is כח אחר מעורב בו. The characteristic is that the way it מזיק, the way it does the damage is because there is air and with the air it travels. There's another thing that's involved. Anything that is מזיק because of a wind, because of anything else, למשל, you put a rock on top of the roof, and the wind comes and blows it down, and the common wind, and while it blew it down it hurt somebody, you're chayav. In which category? It's אש. It's like אש. So Tosafos asks here, don't we find a characteristic of אש, why doesn't the Mishnah say it? So he says, \"No, it's a characteristic, but not a chumra. There's, this is not a description of why it's more chamur because it's a כח אחר מעורב. אדרבה, כח אחר מעורב בו, why is that a reason to be chayav? See, כוונתו להזיק, if something that has the kavanah to be is a reason to be chayav. It did it with kavanah. It has הנאה when it's מזיק, it's a reason to be chayav, that's a chumra. But the fact that there is another כח involved, there is no, When Rashi explains explains כח אחר מעורב בו, Rashi end of דף ד׳ עמוד ב׳ says here clearly: כח אחר מעורב בו you're חייב, והוה ליה לאסוקי אדעתיה. You should have thought of that it could happen. You're chayav. So you have a machloket between Rashi and Tosafot whether כח אחר מעורב בו, the fact is is a chumra or not. Is a reason to be chayav or not. Now Rashi gives a good reason, because you should have watched it better. Why doesn't Tosafot accept the reason? Very simple. Rashi says the ikar of the הזיק is לא שמר. So anything that helps out in the in the problem of לא שמר is a reason for הזיק. Tosafot says that's a side thing, that's not ikar is ממונו. So the fact that לא שמר is not a reason enough to make it into a to be a sevara for a מזיק. That's why he doesn't say it. Just to use another thing in Rashi, not in Tosafot, this is no machloket, it's totally in Rashi, just one vort. Rashi says in the Mishnah, like I said, it's just a short vort here. Rashi says in the Mishnah, after the Mishnah goes through all the אבות and everything, then the Mishnah says what is These are all מזיקים. Now what's the din? כשהזיק, when one of these things do הזיק, חב המזיק, so the מזיק, the owner of the שור or whatever, is responsible לשלם תשלומי נזק, responsible to pay for the נזק, במיטב הארץ, מיטב from the best of the land. That's a special din by נזיקין. That when you pay by נזיקין, if you pay with money, fine. You pay with מטלטלין, fine. If you

pay with land, it has to be עידית, has to be the best. And that's a special din that נזיקין is גובה מעידית, from the best. You can't give just, you know, the זיבורית, the worst. Other things you could. When you pay a בעל חוב, The Mishnah, there's a Gemara in other places, it says, when you pay your כתובה, you can pay the worst, זיבורית. When you pay a בעל חוב, you must give בינונית. And when you pay for נזק, you must give עידית. And the pasuk says, clear pasuk: מיטב שדהו Okay, never mind. When it speaks about נזיקין here, it says you have to pay מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם. Here: מיטב שדהו, the best of your field, the best of your vineyard you have to pay. So that's what you you pay מיטב. Comes Rashi, quite explains it very no no big deal here, במיטב הארץ, so Rashi says with the best of your land, מעידית נכסיו, from the עידית of of your property, יגבה, he should collect, the ניזק should collect the money of his נזק, he should collect from the best of the property, אם רצה לפרעו לקרקע, if he wants to pay קרקע, he wants to pay land. If he wants to pay money or מטלטלין, there's no problem, but if he wants to pay land, he must give the best. The Mishnah says is a is going to be a דיוק in a word, ממש, an expression. The Mishnah says that when this happens, the מזיק has to pay the נזק with the best of the land. Comes Rashi and explains it and says that we want that the ניזק should collect the best of the land. Why why does he change it from paying to collecting? Do we So the difference is very pashut. If you

hold ממונו הזיק, then the focus is on the מזיק. If you're a ניזק, then the focus is on the on on the collecting. This whole din of מיטב is a special din here because of what? Is it because it's a מזיק or because it's as a ניזק? So according to Tosafot, it would be a מזיק. So when the and according to Rashi, it would be ניזק. So Rashi comes and says even though the Mishnah says it a very generic word about pay, Rashi everywhere Rashi says you collect the עידית. So he changed it from from this to collect, because Rashi goes the shita of of לא שמר שורו, ממילא it's all the ניזק's part. And we go on with this masechta and I can tell you so many things that we could find מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafot and the Rambam falls falls into it, and it goes with this guide that according to Rashi the main thing is because of לא שמר שורו, and according to Tosafot and the Rambam it's because of ממונו הזיק. This was very good. Very nice. Is the film on the nose? Yeah. Got the records? Schluggin? You forgot for the first time. Last week I saw you at Mincha. And I forgot, it's just So the calling wouldn't have helped. I

saw you at Mincha, like not long before, and you said I'm coming. I know, I just I forgot. And your father also didn't come, and I saw your father also. I just forgot. It was You know why, because we had such a big break. That's That must be the problem. No more no more breaks. I have that on tape now. Break is a wrong word. You have it on tape that you said it. That's not a good idea. That's five weeks to have a break. Seven weddings. All What? Weddings on Tuesday? Oh, really? [Non-speech audio]