Today's שיעור will be in מסכת סנהדרין דף ט"ו. But we will start two lines from the bottom of דף י"ד, עמוד ב'. The גמרא here quotes from the משנה where it said that, "הערכן וכו׳", which means הערכין המטלטלין בשלשה. The משנה said that ערכין, which are immovable objects, in order to evaluate the value of it when you come to redeem it, you have to have a בית דין of three people. And the גמרא asks, "מאי הערכין המטלטלין?" What does הערכין המטלטלין mean? We know that the term ערכין is referred to a special case, that when a person says, "ערכי עלי", the ערך, the value of myself is upon me, but he uses the term ערך, or he says, "ערכך עלי", your ערך is upon me, or "ערכו עלי", his ערך is upon me, etc., then the תורה prescribed a specific amount of money he has to give based on the age. It doesn't depend on the value of the person, but there is a specific amount of money prescribed in the תורה how much he has to give depending on the age of the person. But that is only concerning a human being. We don't find the concept of ערך concerning objects. The only thing we find concerning objects is that a person is able to be מקדיש them, he's able to make them holy, meaning he's able to give them away to the בדק הבית, to הקדש, but that is not the concept of ערך. There, you wouldn't use the לשון ערך. You would use the לשון דמים. For instance, you would say, "דמי כלי זה עלי", the money, the value of that כלי is upon me, then you have to give to הקדש the value of that כלי. Or even if you use the term דמים concerning yourself, if you say, "דמי עלי", my value is upon me, then also the דין would be that you have to give to הקדש the value of yourself. Only concerning a human being and if you use the לשון ערך, then there is a special דין of ערך. And that's the גמרא's question here. When it says in the משנה that, "הערכין המטלטלין", הערכין of un- of movable objects need a בית דין of three to evaluate how much you have to give, but there is no such thing as הערכין במטלטלין. הערכין are only concerning a human being. So,

אמר רב גידל אמר רב, said רב גידל said in the name of רב, that this means באומר, if someone says, "ערך כלי זה עלי", the ערך of this vessel is upon me. Now, he used the לשון ערך, which really does not apply to a כלי. So there, the דין is that you do have to give the value of the כלי even though he used the לשון ערך which really doesn't apply, because דאמר רב גידל, because רב גידל said, אמר רב, in the name of רב, האומר ערך כלי זה עלי, if someone says, "The ערך of this vessel is upon me," נותן דמיו, he has to give the value of that כלי. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? Because אדם יודע, a person knows, we assume that a person knows שאין ערך לכלי, that there is no such thing as an ערך to a vessel. So, when he used the לשון, "ערך כלי זה עלי", he didn't make a mistake thinking that there is a concept of ערך to a כלי. He knew there was no ערך to a כלי. But וגמר ואמר לשם דמים, but when he said it, what he really meant was that he would give the value of that כלי. Because we have a rule that אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה, a person doesn't just say words in vain. So, he wouldn't have said these words knowing that ערך doesn't apply to a כלי, he wouldn't have said it in vain. So, if he did say it, probably what he meant was he used the term ערך, but he meant דמים, to give the value. משום הכי, therefore, נותן דמיו. Therefore, he has to give the value as if he would have said that, the דמי כלי זה עלי, the money, the value of the כלי is upon me. And this is what the משנה means. הערכין המטלטלין must have three people to evaluate, that means if you use the לשון ערך concerning מטלטלין where you anyway have to give the value of the כלי and there you need three people. But the גמרא asks, "האי הערכין המטלטלין?" According to that, how could the משנה use the לשון הערכין המטלטלין which seems to be saying that the ערכין is מטלטלין? הערכין של מטלטלין מבעי ליה. It should have said ערכין of מטלטלין, that if you made an ערך of מטלטלין, then you have to pay the value, so you would need three people to evaluate. But when it says, "הערכין המטלטלין", it's משמע that the ערכין are מטלטלין, and therefore, it doesn't seem like this is the פשט in the משנה. The גמרא answers, תני הערכין של מטלטלין. Read it that way, that what it really means is ערכין of מטלטלין. רב חסדא אמר אבימי, רב חסדא, in the name of אבימי, said a different פשט in the משנה where it says, "הערכין המטלטלין", that means דמתפיס מטלטלין לערכין. If you grab onto מטלטלין for ערכין, which means that if a person said, "ערכי עלי", I give my ערך, or "I will give the ערך of somebody else," which is the proper concept of ערך because he said it concerning a human being. But then, when he was obligated to pay for that ערכין, so he took a מטלטלין and he said that I designate this מטלטלין that this should be the payment for the ערכין that I owe. And this is what the משנה says, that when the בית דין will come to take this מטלטלין for the sake of payment for his ערכין, you would have to have three people to evaluate the value of that מטלטלין. And the גמרא asks, how ערכין המטלטלין? How can the משנה use the לשון ערכין המטלטלין? It should have said מטלטלין של ערכין מיבעי ליה, the מטלטלין of ערכין, because that's really what it is. He made ערכין, and now he has מטלטלין of that ערכין that he's going to pay with the מטלטלין, and that's what the משנה means. So it should have said מטלטלין של ערכין. The גמרא answers, תני, learn מטלטלין של ערכין, that read it that way, this is what it really means, the מטלטלין of ערכין. Then the גמרא says רב אבהו, אמר רב אבהו says a different תירץ, that what does the משנה mean ערכין המטלטלין? באומר, someone says ערכי עלי, my ערך should be upon me, the regular case of ערכין. בא כהן לגבות ממנו, when the כהן comes to collect, because if the person himself does not pay for his donation, for his promise of ערכין, then the כהן would come and take things away from him as payment for his promise. So when the כהן comes to collect, so if it's מטלטלין, if the כהן gets מטלטלין of this person to collect his debt, so then בשלשה. That's what the משנה means, you will have to have three people evaluating the מטלטלין that will be taken as a payment for his ערכין. But if it's קרקעות, if what the בית דין will take, what the כהן will take will be real estate, land, then בעשרה, you must have 10 people there to evaluate the value of the land. And that's what the משנה means, ערכין המטלטלין בשלשה, that means that the ערכין that will be paid with מטלטלין that the כהן will take away, you must have three people to evaluate. אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא, רב אחא מדפתי said to רבינא, בשלמא לאפוקי מהקדש בעינן שלשה, מילא we understand that when you come to take away from הקדש, you must have three people to evaluate. That when something, an object is הקדש, and then you want to redeem it from הקדש, so what'll happen when you redeem it from הקדש? You'll give the money to הקדש and the object goes to you, and the object is not הקדש anymore, it becomes חולין. So every time you redeem an object from הקדש, you're taking it out of הקדש, putting it into חולין. So there we understand that you have to have three people to evaluate, to make sure that you don't cheat הקדש. אלא לעיולי להקדש שלשה למה לי? But according to this last פשט, that the מטלטלין will be taken away as payment for the ערכין, so what's happening here is that the מטלטלין is being made into הקדש now. Until now the מטלטלין belonged to the person, we want to take it away from him and turn it into הקדש, and for that we need three people? Why should we need three people to make an object into הקדש? What really he's saying is, that according to the first two פשטים in the גמרא here, we understand why you need three people. According to the first פשט, when he said ערך כלי זה עלי, and we said that he has to have three people to evaluate, we understand why. Because when he said the ערך of this כלי is upon me, and we said that what he meant was the value of this כלי, so automatically the כלי became הקדש. Now, we want to know how much he has to pay to redeem it. That means that we have to see how much he has to pay to take it out of הקדש, so then we know why we need three people. The same according to the second פשט, when a person said ערכי עלי, and then he was מתפיס the מטלטלין for the payment, that he said, let this מטלטלין be the payment for my ערך. So when he said that, the מטלטלין became הקדש as payment for his ערך. Now, when he comes to pay to redeem for those מטלטלין, he is trying to take the מטלטלין out of הקדש, so we understand why we need three people. But according to this last פשט, that it means that he didn't designate the מטלטלין for הקדש, the מטלטלין are his, he just said ערכי עלי, then the כהן comes to take the מטלטלין away, and that's when we need three people, when he takes it away from the person and gives it to הקדש. So in this case we need the three people to take it away from him to turn it into הקדש. And that's his question, why should we need three people to turn an object into הקדש? אמר ליה, so he said to him, סברא הוא, it's a logical סברא. מה לי עולי, מה לי אפוקי, what difference does it make whether we want to bring something into הקדש or we want to take something out of הקדש? אפוקי מאי טעמא? What is the reason when we want to take something out of הקדש we need three people? דילמא טעו, just in case they might make a mistake. The person might pay less than the value of the object, and he will be cheating הקדש, and that's why we have to have three people for the evaluation. עיולי נמי דילמא טעו, when we take it into הקדש, we're also afraid they might make a mistake. You might evaluate it wrong, and you might think the object is worth more than it really is, is, and then you'll be cheating הקדש, because הקדש will be taking the object thinking that this is worth the full amount when it really isn't. And therefore, even for bringing it into הקדש, you must have three people. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, וכולי, which means that רבי יהודה said when you come to evaluate the הקדש, you must have one כהן amongst them. By מטלטלין, when we said that you have to have three people to evaluate, you must have one of the three a כהן. By קרקעות, when you have to have 10 people to evaluate, you must have one of the 10 a כהן. The גמרא asks, אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי, רב פפא said to אביי, בשלמא לרבי יהודה, מילא according to רבי יהודה, who says that there must be a כהן amongst them, היינו דכתיב כהן. So that is the reason why the תורה mentions כהן, and the תורה says that when you'll come to evaluate, the תורה refers to a כהן, because there has to be at least one כהן amongst them. אלא לרבנן, but according to the רבנן, which is the previous opinion, that doesn't mention a כהן, so obviously the רבנן hold that you do not need a כהן, one of those who evaluate, so the question is כהן למה להו? Why does the תורה have to write כהן if there is no need for a כהן? And the גמרא says, קשיא, this is a question that remains unanswered. Then the גמרא continues, הקרקעות תשעה וכהן, it said in the משנה that when you come to evaluate קרקעות, real estate, you have to have nine people with one כהן, together 10, but of the 10, one has to be a כהן. The גמרא says, מנא הני מילי? How do we know that? אמר שמואל, שמואל answered, עשרה כהנים כתובין בפרשה, there are 10 times the word כהן in the פרשה. In this פרשה that deals with הקדש. And as we learned in the previous דף, that in the פרשה of הקדש there are three portions: one is the פרשה of ערכין, then the second פרשה is of פדיון בהמה, and the third פרשה is of קרקעות. And we have three times the word כהן in the פרשה of ערכין, three times the word כהן in the פרשה of פדיון בהמה, and we have four times the word כהן in the פרשה of קרקעות. So together we have 10 times the word כהן, and therefore we have to have 10 people, and one of them has to be a כהן. Why only one of them a כהן? So he explains, because when the תורה says 10 times the word כהן, חד לגופיה, one is for itself. The first time it says כהן, that teaches us that you have to have a כהן. Now הנך, the rest, the next time it says כהן, הוה מיעוט אחר מיעוט, that's an exemption of an exemption, a מיעוט after a מיעוט. And the rule is, אין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות, that whenever the תורה writes a מיעוט after a מיעוט, it comes to include. When the תורה writes an expression which seems to exclude, so that if it says once, it excludes, but if the תורה writes that expression twice, so it's an exclusion after an exclusion, so we say that this does not come to exclude, but it comes to include. As the general rule that two negatives make a positive, so when the תורה writes two times something that excludes a certain thing, we know what the תורה really means is to include. And therefore, here too: the first time it says כהן, so that means a כהן, so you have to have a כהן. Then the תורה writes again כהן and again כהן, so then it's already a מיעוט after a מיעוט, because the word כהן excludes, it excludes a ישראל, it has to be only a כהן, not a ישראל. So when the תורה excludes it twice, so it's really לרבות, it comes to include. So really what it comes to tell us that you don't need a כהן, but a ישראל is also good. And therefore, all the other nine times that the תורה says כהן, they're all in the category of a מיעוט after a מיעוט, after a מיעוט, after a מיעוט. So therefore we say that they all come to include that you don't need only a כהן, a ישראל is also good. So it comes out that we need nine ישראלים, because nine times the word כהן later and they are מרבה a ישראל, so you have to have nine ישראלים, and the first time, which is not the מיעוט אחר מיעוט, remains as the simple פשט, which means כהן, you must have one כהן. So it comes out that אפילו תשעה ישראל ואחד כהן, even if you have nine ישראל and one כהן, is good enough. מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן, but רב הונא בריה דרב נתן asked a question: אימא, let us say, חמשה כהנים וחמשה ישראלים, maybe we have to have five כהנים and five ישראלים, because he learns like this: the first time it says כהן, you need a כהן. The second time it says כהן, that is a מיעוט אחר מיעוט, so that comes to include a ישראל. Now the third time it says כהן, that starts all over again, because now we already included a ישראל. So why does the תורה write again כהן? Obviously the תורה wants to teach us that you have to have a כהן. Then when the תורה writes a fourth time כהן, that's already a מיעוט after the third כהן, so it's a מיעוט אחר מיעוט. So now it comes to include a ישראל. Then we're finished, the תורה writes a fifth time כהן, so now we start all over again, that now the תורה means a כהן. And then the sixth time would come to include a ישראל, and that's how it would go on. So it would come out that the first and the third and the fifth and the seventh, and the ninth word כהן, and they should all mean a כהן ממש. But the second, and the fourth, and the sixth, and the eighth, and the tenth, they're each a מיעוט after the מיעוט, they should come to include a ישראל. So it should come out that from this פרשה we should learn that you have to have five כהנים and five ישראלים. And לפועל we say that nine ישראלים and one כהן is enough, because we learn that all nine times the word כהן are considered a מיעוט אחר מיעוט. But his question is, maybe we shouldn't consider it that way, we should only consider the each two as מיעוט אחר מיעוט. And the גמרא says קשיא, this is a קשיא, a question which is not answered. Then the גמרא continues, ואדם כיוצא בהן, that when you come to evaluate the value of an אדם for הקדש, you also have the same דין like the previous cases. The גמרא asks, אדם מי קדיש? Is an אדם holy? Is there such a thing as a person becoming קדוש, that we should say that when you evaluate the אדם, you must have a certain amount of people? A person, a human being cannot become הקדש. אמר רב אבהו, so רב אבהו said, באומר דמי עלי. The case is when a person says דמי עלי, that means my value upon me. But he doesn't use the לשון ערכי, then he would have to pay a fixed amount that the תורה prescribes. But he used the לשון דמי עלי. So then the דין is, דתניא we learned, האומר דמי עלי, if someone says דמי עלי, my value is upon me, שמין אותו כעבד הנמכר בשוק. You evaluate him as the in the price of a slave that is sold in the market. You look at him, how much would he be worth if he would be sold as a slave in the market, and that's how much he has to give to הקדש. So since the value of a person depends on the price of him being sold as a slave, עבד איתקש לקרקעות, and we have a rule that עבדים, slaves, גויישע slaves are compared to קרקע, to land. Because there is a פסוק that says concerning גויישע slaves, והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם לאחוזת עולם, that you should inherit them to your children. So the תורה uses the concept of inheritance concerning slaves, the same לשון as we find concerning קרקע. So therefore we say that many of the דינים that refer apply to קרקע apply to slaves also. So just like by קרקע we said that you have to have ten people to evaluate, so by a slave also. And a person who says דמי עלי, since his value depends on his price as a slave, so he also needs ten people to evaluate his value when he pays his value to הקדש. But תוספות asks a קשיא, what's the גמרא's question? אדם מי קדיש, can a person be קדוש? Yes! Why can't we say we're talking about an עבד himself, that if a person is מקדיש an עבד, a person owns an עבד and he says let this עבד be עבד be הקדש? And we know the גמרא says in פרק השולח, that if somebody is מקדיש his property and amongst them were עבדים, so then the גזברים of הקדש, the treasurers of הקדש have no right to set them free. But what we see from there is that the עבדים do become הקדש, they belong to הקדש. And we see later on from the גמרא here too, there's a question concerning the hair as we will see, what we see from this גמרא too that עבדים can be הקדש, and maybe that's what the גמרא the משנה means when it says that an אדם is the same as קרקע. Maybe it means when you are מקדיש an אדם, an עבד. So what is the גמרא's question, אדם מי קדיש? Can אדם be holy? Sure an אדם could be holy, an עבד can become הקדש. And תוספות answers that the word אדם is not משמע that it means an עבד, it would have said עבדים. When it says אדם, it usually doesn't mean an עבד. Plus תוספות says it's possible that here the גמרא asks according to רב who holds that if somebody is מקדיש his עבד, he automatically goes out free. And therefore, there is no such thing as being מקדיש an עבד. Now according to רב, the question will be: What does the משנה mean אדם? And according to that we have to answer that we mean when a person says דמי עלי, we have to have ten people to evaluate his value before he pays to הקדש. Then the גמרא continues, בעי רב אבין, רב אבין asked a question, אבעיא: שער העומד לגוזז, בכמה? A person is מקדיש the hair, but hair that's long and is ready to be cut, so how many people do you have to have to evaluate that? Do we say כגוזז דמי ובשלשה, that it's like it's cut already? Since it's ready to be cut, it's as if it's cut already, and if it's cut it is מטלטלין, and therefore three would be enough like מטלטלין. Because we do have a rule sometimes, כל העומד לגזוז כגזוז דמי, anything that's ready to be cut it's as if it's cut. So therefore this hair would be considered מטלטלין, and three would be enough. או כמחובר דמי ובעשרה, or since it's still connected to the person, and by a person we said you have to have ten people to evaluate, so the hair which is connected to the person, you would also have to have ten people to evaluate. And hair definitely has a value, as רש''י says there are certain things you could make with human hair. And if the person was מקדיש his hair, the question is how many people do you have to have to evaluate that? And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come and hear, I'll answer your question. We learned in a ברייתא, המקדיש את עבדו, if someone makes his עבד הקדש, אין מועלין בו, you are not מועל So like this, if somebody has use from an object that belongs to הקדש, he is

מועל בהקדש, and there are certain דינים that apply, קרבנות he has to bring, etc. So if a person is מקדיש his עבד, you are not מועל, and the reason is because we know that this דין of מעילה does not apply to קרקעות. Only if you are מועל in an object, in a מטלטלין, in a in a movable object, that's when the דין of מעילה applies. But if you are מועל, you have use from הקדש, from קרקע, from real estate of הקדש, then the דין of מעילה does not apply. And therefore he says the same, if someone is מקדיש his עבד, and his עבד is הקדש, you are not מועל in that because the עבד has a דין of קרקע. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, but רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, מועלין בשערו. טאקע, in the עבד himself you are not מועל because he is like קרקע, but if you have use from his hair, you are מועל. וקיימא לן, and we understand, we know, דבשערו העומד לגזז פליגי, that the מחלוקת is here between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and the first תנא is concerning hair which is ready to be cut. If the hair is not ready to be cut, then everyone would agree that you are not מועל, because this is part of the עבד, and the עבד is like קרקע. The מחלוקת is, since the hair is ready to be cut, so the תנא קמא holds that you are not מועל in the hair either, because he holds, even if it's ready to be cut, it's still not cut and therefore has a דין of קרקע. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says you are מועל in the hair because he holds since it's ready to be cut, it's considered as if it's cut, and it's מטלטלין, and therefore you are מועל. שמע מינה, so from here we see the answer to the question.

His question was whether you need 10 people or three people to evaluate the hair that is ready to be cut. So now we see this is a מחלוקת between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and תנא קמא. According to תנא קמא who holds that you are not מועל in the hair even if it's ready to be cut, because it's still like קרקע, so by the case of the people that we need to evaluate, he would hold you would need 10 to evaluate. And רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that you are מועל in the hair when it's ready to be cut because it's מטלטלין, he will hold that you only need three people to evaluate the hair. Then the גמרא says, נימא, let us say, הני תנאי כתנאי, that the מחלוקת between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and תנא קמא is the same מחלוקת as other תנאים who argue. דתנן, because they learned in the משנה, רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says, יש דברים שהן כקרקע ואינן כקרקע, there are certain things which are like קרקע, which really are קרקע, but in הלכה they don't have the דין of קרקע. ואין חכמים מודים לו, but the חכמים are not מודה to him. They argue and they say that they do have a דין of קרקע. כיצד,

what is the דין? What case is it? עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך, if one person says to another that, "I gave you 10 full vines of grapes," והלה אומר, and he says to him, אינן אלא חמש, "You only gave me five, and I only owe you five." So if this wouldn't be concerning vines, it would be concerning money for instance, then the דין is that מודה במקצת חייב שבועה. If somebody denies half and admits to half, or denies part and admits to part, he is חייב a שבועה. So the דין would be that the person would have to swear that he only owes him five. But then there is also a דין that by קרקע you don't swear. If the same thing happens by קרקע, if two people argue and he says, "You owe me this amount of קרקע," and he says, "I only own you owe you part of it," so the דין is that he doesn't have to swear because by קרקע you don't swear. So here we have a case where he said, "You owe me 10 גפנים טעונות, 10 full vines of grapes," and he says, "I only owe you five." רבי מאיר מחייב, רבי מאיר says you are חייב a שבועה. וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say, no, כל המחובר לקרקע הרי כקרקע, anything that's connected to the ground is like קרקע. And since he argues over things which are connected to the ground, therefore you are פטור, because the argument between the two is over קרקע, and by קרקע there is no דין of a שבועה. ואמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא, and רבי יוסי בר חנינא said, בענבים העומדות ליבצר עסקינן, that we're talking here in a case where the grapes were ready to be gathered to be taken off the vines. And the מחלוקת between them is, מר סבר, our one holds, כבצורות דמי, it's as if it's cut off. רבי מאיר holds that since it's ready to be taken off, so we consider them as if they were taken off already, so they are not קרקע anymore. So therefore the דין is that he is a מודה במקצת who has to swear. ומר סבר, one holds, the חכמים hold, לאו כבצורות דמיין, they are not as if they were already taken off, gathered. And therefore they are still considered קרקע, and by קרקע there is no דין of a שבועה. So it seems as if that this מחלוקת between these תנאים is the same מחלוקת as the תנאים before. Just like we had before a מחלוקת between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and the חכמים whether, when you're מקדיש an עבד, if you are מועל in the hair that's ready to be cut off, and the מחלוקת was whether we consider that hair as if it's cut off already or not, seems to be the same מחלוקת as here, that the grapes are ready to be taken off the vines, are they considered as if they are taken off already or not? And the גמרא says, לא, no, אפילו תימא רבי מאיר, באמת you could say, in the previous מחלוקת would also go according to רבי מאיר. In other words, that even ר' מאיר, who holds in this מחלוקת concerning the grapes that you are חייב, because he holds it's as if it was taken off already, nevertheless, by the hair, he might hold that it's not considered as if it's taken off. Why? Because עד כאן לא קאמר ר' מאיר, only ר' מאיר says here, התם in the case of the grapes, because כל כמה דשבקיה, as long as you will leave it, מכחש כחיש, it'll get weaker. In other words, it'll deteriorate by staying on the vines, and therefore we consider it as if it's taken off because a person normally would definitely take it off. אבל הכא, but in the case of the hair, כל כמה דשבקיה, לאשבוחי משבח, as long as you leave it, the more you leave it, the better it will be. And therefore there, since it is not necessary to take it off, he could leave it, so there לאו דוקא that we say that it is considered as if it's taken off already. Then the גמרא continues to quote from the משנה: דיני נפשות וכולי, it said in the משנה that when it comes to judge capital punishment, that it comes through 23, you have to have a בית דין of 23. הרובע והנרבע, it said in the משנה, בעשרים ושלשה. If someone has relations with an animal, then the דין is that you have to kill the animal and the person, so also you have to have 23 people to judge the person and to judge the animal. So the

גמרא says: קפסיק ותני, you're saying it in a very clear-cut way, לא שנא רובע זכר ולא שנא רובע נקבה, that there's no difference whether the עבירה with the animal was done through a male or it was done through a female. In both cases, it has to be through 23. And the גמרא's question is: בשלמא רובע נקבה, we understand if the person is the female that is doing the עבירה with the animal, we understand why the animal also has to have 23 for its judgment, דכתיב because the פסוק says: והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה, you should kill the woman and the בהמה. If a woman has relations with a בהמה, the פסוק says you should kill the woman and the בהמה. So the תורה compares them both, so we understand that just like to kill the woman you must have a בית דין of 23, to kill the בהמה you also must have a בית דין of 23. אלא רובע זכר, but if the male did the עבירה with the בהמה, מנלן? How do we know that in order to kill the בהמה you also have to have a בית דין of 23? And as it seems, the main question of the גמרא is only in the case where the male is the נשכב, because concerning a male doing an עבירה with a בהמה, there are two possibilities: you could have the male being the active participant, he is the שוכב, he is the one that's doing it with the בהמה; or he could be the נשכב, he could be the one that's bringing the בהמה upon him. So in the case where he is the שוכב, he is the one that is actively participating in this עבירה, then the גמרא wouldn't have a question, how do we know that the בהמה also has to have a בית דין of כ"ג? Because we have a פסוק for that, too. Because in the same place where we have a פסוק concerning the woman where it says והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה, מות יומתו דמיהם בם, and we learn out from that פסוק that just like the woman needs כ"ג, so does the בהמה, the פסוק before that says: ואיש אשר יתן שכבתו בבהמה מות יומת ואת הבהמה תהרגו. If a person will lay with a בהמה, he should get killed and you should kill the בהמה. So here too the תורה compares the בהמה to the man. So we say that just like the man needs a בית דין of 23, so does the בהמה need a בית דין of 23. So that wouldn't be a question, how do we know that the בהמה also needs a בית דין of 23? The main question is in the case where the man is not the שוכב, but the נשכב, the man brings the בהמה upon him. And that is not included in this פסוק, because this פסוק just said ואיש אשר יתן שכבתו בבהמה, he is the שוכב, he is doing the act with the בהמה. So there we know that he needs כ"ג for the בהמה, but how do we know that even in the case where the person brings the בהמה upon him, you also need כ"ג for the בהמה? And that's what the גמרא says: דכתיב, because there's another פסוק in פרשת משפטים, it says: כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת, that anybody who lays with a בהמה should die. Now the question is, this פסוק is extra. To say that a person has to die, we know from this פסוק as we just brought, where it says ואיש אשר יתן שכבתו בבהמה מות יומת, so we know that if a person does an עבירה with a בהמה, he has to die. So why does the פסוק in פרשת משפטים have to say this פסוק, כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת? And we have a כלל, that whenever we have a פסוק that is extra, so we use the כלל of אם אינו ענין, which means that if it cannot be used for the דין that it seems to be saying, we use it for another דין. אם אינו ענין to this, תנהו ענין, give it to something else, and that's what we do here. And we answer: אם אינו ענין לשוכב, if we don't need this פסוק to tell us that if a person is the active participant in the עבירה that he gets killed, so if you don't need the פסוק for that, פנהו ענין לנשכב. So let's use this פסוק for a נשכב, in the case where he is not actively participating, but he is bringing the בהמה upon himself, that's what the פסוק means. But the question is, if that's what the פסוק means, why did the פסוק use the לשון ואיש אשר--he is not doing the act, but bringing the upon him, so why did the תורה write it in such a לשון, which seems to be saying that he is the שוכב? And therefore we say, ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון שוכב, the תורה used, concerning the נשכב, the לשון of the שוכב, לאקושי נשכב לשוכב, to compare the נשכב to the שוכב, to say, מה שוכב, just like in the case where he is a שוכב, where he is the active participant, the דין is that הוא ובהמתו בעשרים ושלשה, that he and the בהמה have to have a בית דין of 23, אף נשכב, so too, in the case where he is a נשכב, where he doesn't do the act, he brings the בהמה upon himself, also הוא ובהמתו בעשרים ושלשה, he and his בהמה need 23. So therefore, we have both here. The תורה means the case of the נשכב, but refers to it in the expression of a שוכב to tell us that the דין of the נשכב is exactly like the דין of the שוכב. And just like by the שוכב, we are sure that you have to have 23 because the תורה says בפירוש as the בהמה תהרוגו together with the person, as we said before, from there we know that the בהמה also needs 23, so the case of the נשכב, we also learn that you have to have 23. Then the גמרא continues and quotes from the משנה: שור הנסקל בעשרים ושלשה. It said in the משנה that when you stone an ox, you have to have a בית דין of 23. This refers to an ox that killed a person. So the דין is that this ox has to be killed, has to be stoned. So you have to have a בית דין of 23 to judge the ox and then to stone him. The גמרא says, שנאמר, how do we know that? Because the פסוק says, השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת. It says you should stone the ox and also his master should die. So we say, what does the תורה mean? כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור, that just like if you would have to kill the owner, if the owner would have done such an עבירה that he should have been killed for, then you would have to have 23, so too, when you stone the ox, when you kill the ox, you also have to have 23. In other words, the פסוק doesn't really mean that if an ox kills a person, the master of the ox has to get killed also. What it means to say is that you kill the ox in the same fashion as you would kill his owner if the owner would have deserved מיתה. That means that just like the owner would need a בית דין of 23, so does the ox need a בית דין of 23. אמר ליה אביי לרבא, אביי said to רבא, ממאי, how do you know דהאי וגם בעליו יומת כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור הוא דאתא, that this פסוק where it says וגם בעליו יומת, that also his owner should die, comes to teach us this דין that just like when you kill a person, you have to have 23, so when you kill the שור you also have to have 23, אימא, maybe what it means to say, לקטלא הוא דאתא, it actually means to tell us that you have to kill the owner, and if an ox kills a person, so you'll have to kill the owner, too? Why do we have to change the פשוט פשט of the פסוק? The פשוט, the words of the פסוק mean very simple, וגם בעליו יומת, that also his owner should die, which means that you have to kill the owner. So why do we say that that's not what the פסוק means and he doesn't have to be killed? And what the פסוק means, it comes to teach us that you have to have a בית דין of 23 to kill the ox. The גמרא says, אם כן, if it would be so, that the פסוק would actually mean that you kill the owner, ליכתוב, let the פסוק say וגם בעליו, and also his master, ולישתוק, and be quiet, and not say the word יומת, to die. If the פסוק

would say השור יסקל, stone the ox, וגם בעליו, and also his master, so we understand that his master also dies. Why does the תורה have to add the word יומת? Obviously, the תורה comes to teach us a דין in the דין of מיתה of the שור. But the גמרא says, אי כתב רחמנא הכי, if the תורה would write like that, without the word יומת, just write וגם בעליו, הוה אמינא בסקילה, I would think that the owner also has to get סקילה. If the תורה would just say that you stone the ox and also the master, we would say that the master has to get סקילה. But now that the תורה says the word יומת, it means not סקילה, because the כלל is wherever the תורה says a person should die and doesn't specify what kind of death, it is חנק, it is choking. So maybe really what the פסוק means that the person should die, and the reason the תורה writes the word יומת to teach us that the way the owner dies is through choking, but if the תורה would not have written the word יומת, we would say that the owner has to be stoned. So could be that really the פסוק means that the person should die. But the גמרא says, בסקילה סלקא דעתך? What are you telling me? That if the תורה wouldn't write the word יומת, we would think that the owner gets סקילה? How could you even think so? How could you have such an הוה אמינא? קטל איהו, if he himself would have killed a person, בסיף, he would get killed through a sword, ממונו, if his money, his property killed somebody, בסקילה? He should get סקילה? Since סקילה is worse, stricter than סייף, so it makes no sense that if an ox killed a person, his owner should get סקילה. If the person himself would have killed a person, he wouldn't have got סקילה, he would have got סייף. So certainly, if his ox only killed somebody, even if he does deserve to die, it shouldn't be סקילה. So therefore, even if the תורה would not have written the word יומת, we would have known that he doesn't get סקילה. So we can't say that the reason the תורה writes the word יומת is in order to tell us that he doesn't get סקילה, because we would never think so. So we're back to the question, why does the תורה Torah write the word יומת? Obviously the Torah wants to teach us that he doesn't really die, we just have to compare the death of the person and the death of the ox. But then the גמרא says, no, ודילמא, maybe האי דכתב רחמנא יומת, the reason the Torah wrote יומת, לאקולי עליה, to make it easier on him, לאפוקי מסייף לחנק, to take him out from סייף to חנק. Which means that באמת he does deserve to die. But the question is if so, why does the Torah write יומת? To take him out from סייף to חנק. One thing we know for sure, that סקילה he doesn't get. Because if he himself would kill, he wouldn't get סקילה, certainly if his animal killed he doesn't get סקילה. But what would we think he would get? We would think he gets סייף, just like when he kills somebody he gets סייף, so too when his animal killed somebody he gets סייף. That's why the Torah writes יומת, and as we said before, wherever the Torah writes that he gets killed and doesn't specify, it means חנק, so the Torah tells us that here he gets חנק. Not as like when he himself would have killed somebody he would get סייף, the Torah says no, here we make it easier on him and he only gets חנק. So still we remain that possible that he should get killed, and still the Torah has to write the word יומת to teach us that he doesn't get סייף, but he gets חנק. And the גמרא explains: הניחא, is no question, is understood למאן דאמר חנק חמור, according to the one that holds that חנק is worse, so there is no question, because we can't say the Torah is trying to tell us that he doesn't get סייף, but he gets חנק. If he kills himself, he gets סייף, if his animal killed he gets חנק, can't be, because חנק is worse. So then it's understood that we cannot say that the Torah writes the word יומת to teach us he gets חנק, because חנק is worse, so then it couldn't be, so the word יומת is extra, and therefore you must say that he doesn't die, he just, the Torah writes יומת to compare the מיתה of the שור to the מיתה of the owner. אלא למאן דאמר חנק קל, according to the one that holds that חנק is easier than סייף, מאי איכא למימר, what can we say? So the question remains: maybe the Torah writes יומת to tell us that he gets חנק instead of סייף? The Torah makes it easier on him, since after all, he himself didn't kill the person, just his ox killed. וממילא it could remain that the person does get killed, and the reason the Torah writes יומת is to teach us that he gets חנק, not סייף. But the גמרא says לא סלקא דעתך. There is no סברא to say that the person himself, the owner, should get killed. דכתיב, because it says further in the פסוק: אם כופר יושת עליו, if you will put a redeeming amount of money on the person, which means if the person will pay a certain amount of money, then he will not get killed. Now, ואי סלקא דעתך בר קטלא הוא, if you're going to say really he deserves to get killed, but if he pays money, that saves him from his death, והכתיב doesn't the פסוק say someplace else: לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, that you shouldn't take any money to redeem the life of a murderer? So here, if he deserves to die, which means he is considered a murderer, how can the Torah say that if he pays money, then he doesn't get killed? But the גמרא says, אדרבה, on the contrary, משום הוא גופיה, for that reason itself the Torah writes it. Actually, because of what we just said now, the Torah writes this דין: because קטל איהו, if he himself killed, he is a murderer, לא תפרוק ליה בממונא, then it is not enough if he pays money. If he gives כופר, it doesn't help him. אלא בקטלא, the only thing that we can do to him is kill him. But קטל שוריה, but if his ox killed, לפרוק נפשיה בממונא, then he could redeem himself with money. But if he doesn't pay money, he would get killed. So could be this is actually what the Torah is telling us, that לכתחילה, since his ox killed somebody, גם בעליו יומת, he has to die. But since after all it's only his ox that killed, if he pays money, he could save himself. Not like if he would have killed himself, then the דין would be that he cannot save himself with money, but in this case he could. So we're back to the question: maybe when the Torah says גם בעליו יומת,

that his master, his owner should die, it actually means that his owner is חייב מיתה? אלא אמר חזקיה, וכן תנא דבי חזקיה, so חזקיה answered, and that's how also the students in the ישיבה of חזקיה said, אמר קרא, the פסוק says concerning a רוצח, concerning a murderer, the Torah says מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא, that the one that hit, the one that killed should die, because he is a רוצח. So we דרש'ן from the word רוצח הוא, על רציחתו אתה הורגו, for his own רציחה, for his own murder you kill him, ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו, but you can't kill a person for the murder of his ox. Then the גמרא continues: איבעיא להו, there was an איבעיא, a question asked: שור סיני בכמה? The ox by סיני, how many people did you have to judge him to kill him? This refers to the פסוק where it says, אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה. It says that השם said before מתן תורה to surround the mountain and make sure that nobody goes on top of the mountain, and He said that if a בהמה or a man will go up, should not live, should get killed. The question of the גמרא is: how many people in the בית דין did you need to judge the ox if he would go up on הר סיני in order to kill him? And the question

is: מי גמרינן שעה מדורות או לא? Do we learn out a temporary דין from a permanent דין? In a case where you kill an ox in the דין לדורות, the דין that is permanent, as we said before by שור הנסקל, you have to have a בית דין of 23. The דין of killing the ox that went up on הר סיני was a temporary דין, it only applied at that time. So, do we learn out the דין of a temporary case from the דין of a permanent case and to say that just like in the permanent case you have to have 23 to judge the ox, so too in the temporary case? And the גמרא says תא שמע, come hear, I'll answer you this. תני רמי בר יחזקאל, רמי בר יחזקאל learned, the פסוק says אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה, if it's a בהמה or a man he should not live if he goes on top of the mountain. So we compare the two and say מה איש בכ״ג, just like if a person would have gone up and would have to get killed, you would have to have a בית דין of כ״ג, אף בהמה בכ״ג, so too in the case of a בהמה you would have to have כ״ג. Now, how do we know by a man himself that he would have to have כ״ג? The reason that we have to have כ״ג when you have to kill a person, the גמרא said earlier, is because we learn it out from the פסוק ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה, that you have to have an עדה which is 10 to judge, and you have to have an עדה which is 10 to save. Together it's 20, and then the גמרא learns out three more, so altogether we have 23. But those are all דינים that are said after מתן תורה. We're talking here about the דינים before מתן תורה. So how do we know that even before מתן תורה the דין was that if a person had to get killed, then he would have to have כ״ג? So רש״י

and תוספות say because יתרו yet, which was before מתן תורה, had established the concept of a סנהדרין, so he established it with all the דינים, also concerning דיני נפשות. So we assume that he established it with the proper דינים of דיני נפשות as we have it after מתן תורה, and therefore a man definitely would get כ״ג. The only question was concerning a בהמה. And the גמרא's answer is that we compare a בהמה to a man, and a בהמה also needs כ״ג. But תוספות asks a קשיא, what is בכלל the meaning of the גמרא's question, how many people you would need in the בית דין to kill the שור of סיני? What difference does it make? A lot of times we find an expression in the גמרא, מאי דהוה הוה, what was, was. It is not a דין that could happen again. Now, this was a temporary thing, it happened only at that time, a הוראת שעה concerning מתן תורה. So what difference does it make now for us to know whether they needed כ״ג then or they didn't need כ״ג? תוספות says that maybe it is just to understand the פסוקים. A lot of times we find that in the גמרא, that we ask questions concerning things that happened before, not because they are נפקא מינה להלכה, but they're just נוגע to learn the פסוקים. If we want to learn the פסוק where it says that the ox should have got killed if he would go up on הר סיני, to understand פשט what the פסוק means, that's why the גמרא asks how many people in the בית דין did they need to kill that ox. Then the גמרא continues, it said

in the משנה הארי והזאב וכולי. It said there that if a wolf, or a lion, or a bear, or a leopard, or a hyena, or a snake, if they are judged and sentenced to die, מיתתן בעשרים ושלשה, when you kill them you have to have a בית דין of 23. But then the משנה continues that רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר said, כל הקודם להורגן זכה, that anybody who is first to kill them, he is זוכה. In other words, you don't have to have a בית דין of 23, but anybody who wants could kill them. The גמרא says אמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש said, והוא שהמיתו, what רבי אלעזר said, that anybody could kill them, that's only if these animals killed somebody, אבל לא המיתו לא, but if they didn't kill anybody you can't. רבי אלעזר did not mean, ריש לקיש says, that anybody, whenever you see a lion or a wolf, etc., you're able to kill them just like that. It is only if they killed a person, then you don't have to wait for a בית דין of 23 to sentence them to death, but anybody who wants could kill them. אלמא, so the גמרא says we see from here, קסבר, that he holds, יש להם תרבות ויש להם בעלים, that it's possible to tame these animals and they have owners. Since ריש לקיש said that רבי אלעזר holds that you can't just walk over to a lion and kill them, the reason must be because he holds that they can be tamed and they can be owned by somebody. And therefore, if they didn't kill anybody, they don't deserve to die, you're not allowed to kill them, because if you kill them, then you would be killing and damaging property that belongs to somebody. But רבי

יוחנן אמר, רבי יוחנן says, אף על פי שלא המיתו, that רבי אלעזר, when he said that anybody is able to kill these animals, doesn't, is even if they did not kill anybody. When you see a lion, a wolf, etc., you're able to kill them just like that. אלמא, so we see קסבר he holds, אין להם תרבות ואין להם בעלים, that they cannot be tamed and they do not don't have owners. And therefore he says when you see a lion, you don't have to find out whether the lion has an owner or not in order to kill him. As soon as you see him you're allowed to kill him. Because even if he does have an owner, even if he is tamed, they are not considered tamed and they are not considered owned by anybody, and therefore you could kill them just like that. The גמרא asks, תנן, didn't we learn in the משנה, רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says, כל הקודם להורגן זכה, anybody who's first to kill them is זוכה, מאי, what it means, he gained something. Now בשלמא לרבי יוחנן, according to רבי יוחנן who says that you're able to kill them even if they didn't kill anybody, then well מאי זכה, what is his זוכה, what does he gain? זכה לעורן, he gains the עור. You kill the animal, there's nothing you can do with the animal itself, but you can at least take off the skin and keep it. אלא לריש לקיש, but according to ריש לקיש who says that רבי אלעזר only meant that if they killed somebody, that's when anybody is allowed to kill them, למאי זכה, to what is he זוכה? What does he gain by killing them? What does he have from it? כיוון דשחטיה, so since we're talking in a case that these animals killed, שווינהו רבנן כמאן דגמר דיניהו, so it's as if the חכמים established that they were already sentenced. What is the פשט according to ריש לקיש? That if any of these animals killed, so normally, if it would be an ox, you would have to have the בית דין to judge the ox, and then sentence him to death, then he would be killed. If it's a lion or a wolf, etc., then you don't have to have בית דין to sentence it to death, but anybody could kill it. In other words, as soon as it kills, it's already sentenced to death for anybody to kill him. Now, if it's sentenced to death, so it has a דין of a שור הנסקל. והאיסורי הנאה, and it's אסור בהנאה, because the דין is that when an ox is sentenced to death, it is אסור בהנאה. And when it's stoned, you can't do anything with it. You can't have any use of any part of it, even of the skin. So, it would come out as if a lion or a wolf killed and we establish that the judgment was done already automatically, and you don't have to wait for a בית דין, but they are as if they were sentenced, so they are also אסור בהנאה. So anybody who kills them is not allowed to use any part of it. So what did he mean when he said כל הקודם זכה, anybody who comes first to kill them is זוכה first, what is he זוכה in? And the גמרא answers מאי זכה, you know what it means זוכה? זכה לשמים, he's זוכה to שמים, which means he did a good deed. It doesn't mean he is זוכה, he gets something from it. It just merely he did a good deed. And the גמרא says, תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש, we learned in a ברייתא like ריש לקיש. It says in the ברייתא, אחד שור שהמית, whether it's an ox that killed, ואחד בהמה וחיה שהמיתו, or whether it's a בהמה or a חיה that killed, בעשרים ושלשה, you must have a בית דין of twenty-three to judge them. רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says, שור שהמית, if an ox killed, בעשרים ושלשה, you have to have twenty-three, ושאר בהמה וחיה שהמיתו, but any other בהמה, חיה that killed, כל הקודם להורגן זכה בהן לשמים, anybody who comes first to kill them is זוכה to שמים. So here we see clearly that the only time you're allowed to kill them according to רבי אלעזר is if they killed. And what are you זוכה in? You are זוכה לשמים. You טאקע can't have any use from any part of it, but you did a good deed לשמים, you did a מצוה. Concerning what we learned before, that we learn out from the פסוק where it says וגם בעליו יומת, that we compare the מיתה of the שור to the מיתה of the בעלים. That just like if a person gets killed he needs a בית דין of כ״ג, so, too, when the שור הנסקל gets killed he needs a בית דין of כ״ג. And the גמרא asks the question, how do you know that the words וגם בעליו יומת comes to teach us that? Maybe what it means really is that the owner has to get killed himself. Which means to say that if we use the פסוק to teach us that כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור, then the פסוק does not mean that the owner gets killed. And that's the גמרא's question, how do you know that, maybe the פסוק refers to the פשוטע פשט that the owner gets killed. So, תוספות פרעגט a קשיא, that סוף כל סוף, even after we דרשן the פסוק for כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור, the word וגם בעליו יומת still remains to mean that he gets מיתה. Because the דין is that the בעלים gets מיתה בידי שמים, as we learn it out from this פסוק of וגם בעליו יומת. As the גמרא says in כתובות, that we find that a person who gets מיתה בידי שמים is able to redeem his life through giving money. And the גמרא quotes this פסוק. It says וגם בעליו יומת, and then it says אם כופר יושת עליו. So we see that even though he's supposed to die בידי שמים, nevertheless he is able to redeem his life through money. So it seems as if the word יומת actually does mean that he should die, and this גמרא is משמע that if we דרשן the פסוק for כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור, then the word יומת is not simple פשט, it doesn't mean he should die. But לפועל it does mean he should die. And תוספות answered, the גמרא טאקע knows that when it says וגם בעליו יומת, means that he dies בידי שמים, he gets מיתה בידי שמים. And we still were able to learn out כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור from the word where it says יומת. If it were just to mean that he gets מיתה בידי שמים, it would say ימות, he would die. יומת means he should get killed. Now, what does the פסוק mean he should get killed, when really he doesn't get killed בידי אדם? It comes to teach us כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור. Just like when a person gets killed by בית דין he needs twenty-three, so, too, when you kill the שור he needs twenty-three. And that's the גמרא's question, how do you know that this word יומת, the extra expression יומת instead of ימות, comes to teach us כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור? Maybe what the פסוק means when it says יומת, actually he טאקע gets killed by בית דין. And that's what the גמרא answers, that we can't say that because of the כלל that we have that על רציחתו אתה הורגו, for his own murder you could kill him, but אי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו, you do not kill him for the murder of his שור. But the question that one can ask here is that לכאורה, סוף כל סוף, we have to understand the meaning of this דין, כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור. That just like when you kill a person you have to have twenty-three, so, too, when you kill a שור, the שור הנסקל, you have to have a בית דין of twenty-three. לכאורה, how can you compare the two? After all, killing a person is in the category of דיני נפשות, and killing an ox is in the category of דיני ממונות, because after all, all an ox is is property of a person. So when you kill the ox, you're just ruining the property, you're damaging the person, it has a דין of דיני ממונות. So how can you compare דיני ממונות to דיני נפשות? Now if we would assume that this is a גזירת הכתוב, that the תורה makes a דין and it has no explanation, okay, so we'll say even though this is דיני ממונות and this is דיני נפשות, nevertheless we say that just like by מיתת הבעלים you need 23, מיתת השור also needs 23 without But usually we don't like to do that. Only when we have no choice, that's when we say that a certain דין would be a גזירת הכתוב. But for instance in this case, we don't find not in רש"י and not in תוספות that this should be a גזירת הכתוב. So we should try to find an explanation to this דין of כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור, and not to leave it just as being a גזירת הכתוב. So the ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט"א in his ספר לקוטי שיחות explains it as follows: He explains it based on the חקירה that we have in the אחרונים concerning the general דין of נזקי ממון. We know that if somebody's property damages something, then the owner of that property, for instance the owner of the ox, he is obligated to pay to the one that got the damage. And there are two explanations given in the אחרונים for that דין. Why is it that the owner is obligated to pay? Because on one hand, it would seem that he should be פטור, because he didn't do any damage, and the fact that his ox did damage, it's only a גורם. So why is he obligated to pay? So one explanation is because he did not watch the ox. Since he didn't watch the ox, he is responsible. Since it's his obligation to watch the ox and he didn't, so therefore he is responsible to pay for the damage that was done by the ox. And that would apply to damage done that you have to pay money, that would also apply to the case when his ox killed somebody, he is also responsible because he didn't watch the ox, so therefore he is responsible for it. Another explanation is because ממונו הזיק or ממונו המית. Since that object belongs to him, the ox belongs to him, so that is like an extension of him. Since it is his property that caused the damage, he is responsible to pay for that damage as if he did it himself. Because anything that belongs to him is an extension of him, because this is his, or using the example: how come people feel that if one's child causes damage, I'm not talking about הלכה now, but even in the feeling of people, that if a child causes damage, the father would feel responsible to pay because it's his child. The same here concerning הלכה, that since the שור is his שור, it's his ממון, so therefore he is responsible for anything the שור did. Because when the שור does it, it's his money, it's as if he did it because the שור is his and it's an extension of him. One of the differences between these two סברות would be at what which point does the בעל, the owner of the ox, do his עבירה? According to the first way, that the reason he is responsible is because he did not watch the ox, so his עבירה is done before, when he did not watch the ox. But when the ox actually damaged or killed, we cannot say that the owner has part in that עבירה. All the owner did was he was a cause that later the ox should go out and damage or kill. It would be similar to a סיבה ומסובב. The owner would be the סיבה, he is the cause, and the ox is the מסובב, the damage of the ox or the murder of the ox is the מסובב, that is the reaction from the cause. But the owner did not take part in the actual damage or in the actual killing. While according to the second way when we say that the reason he is responsible is because the actions of the ox are really an extension of his actions because ממונו הזיק or ממונו המית, so then it comes out that when did the בעל, the owner, do his עבירה? When the ox damaged or killed, we say that at that moment it is an extension of the owner that's doing it, it's as if the owner himself did it. So according to the second way that we're saying now, we can explain the reason for כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור. The question we asked was: how can we compare the two? When we kill the ox really all we're doing is דיני ממונות, it's not דיני נפשות? The answer is: this is דיני נפשות. Because the ox, what he did was, he was doing it in the place of the owner, which means when he killed, we consider it as if a person killed, and therefore the whole דין that applies to this שור הנסקל is not דיני ממונות, but it is דיני נפשות. Especially according to the סברא that we say that the owner really is חייב מיתה בידי שמים, certainly it seems to be showing that he has part in the murder itself. If we would learn according to the first way, then he has no part in the murder, all he is is a סיבה, then it is hard to say that killing the ox would be דיני נפשות, because when the ox kills, it has nothing to do to a human being, there is no דיני נפשות involved. The owner's part in the עבירה is only that he didn't watch it, he is a סיבה. So therefore, it's even hard to understand why he should get מיתה בידי שמים. But if we're going to say that when the ox kills, the owner actually, as if, participated in the killing because ממונו הזיק, so then we understand why he gets מיתה בידי שמים, and we also understand why this whole thing is considered דיני נפשות. And therefore, the דין would be that when you kill the ox, you also need a בית דין of כ״ג, just like when you kill the person. The truth is that even according to the first way, we could explain it, because whatever explanation we're going to give according to the first way why the owner gets מיתה בידי שמים, but if we do assume that he gets מיתה בידי שמים, that itself shows that there is some kind of דיני נפשות here. And therefore we understand why כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור. But according to the second way, it is more understood, because here we actually have an explanation how the owner participated in the killing and therefore this is all called דיני נפשות. And the רבי continues to explain that according to both ways, we could understand the פשט in the גמרא when the גמרא דרשנ'ס: על רציחתו אתה הורגו, ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו. Now, according to the first way that the reason the owner is punished is because he did not watch the שור, so what does the גמרא mean: על רציחתו אתה הורגו, ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו? פשוט! Only if he himself killed, that's when he could get killed. But if his שור killed, then you cannot kill the owner, because the owner did not participate in the killing. The question would be only why does he get מיתה בידי שמים, and that would need an explanation in itself. But as far as why he doesn't get killed בידי אדם, it's very understood, because he did not participate in the murder. According to the second way, we could explain just the opposite: that after all, the owner is not responsible at all. According to the second way, from one angle, it is less connection to the owner than according to the first way, because according to the second way, we do not say that the owner is responsible for the fact that he killed because he didn't watch him. According to the second way, the owner is not responsible at all, the owner didn't do anything wrong! Even though the דין is that if he did watch, he is פטור, but that's like a תנאי. But the reason for the חיוב is not because he didn't watch, it is because ממונו הזיק. So that is, on one hand, it puts him more closer to the time when the ox kills, but on the other hand, actually, he didn't do anything wrong, but it's only that his ox killed, and since his ox belongs to him, it's an extension of him. And that's what the גמרא means: על רציחתו אתה הורגו. We learn out from here if he himself does something, he gets killed. But if he doesn't do anything, it's only his ox that did it, so even though his ox is an extension of him, but after all it's only his ox, and therefore he is פטור.