QUESTION: The Mishnah (37b) states that when a Nochri's ox gores a Jew's ox, the Nochri must pay the full amount, whether his ox is a Tam or a Mu'ad. If a Jew's ox gores a Nochri's ox, the Jew does not have to pay.

The Gemara initially assumes that this exemption is based on the verse, "Shor Re'ehu" -- "If one man's ox harms his fellow man's ox..." (Shemos 21:35), which implies that one is obligated to pay only when his ox gores "his fellow man's ox," but not when it gores a Nochri's ox. The Gemara asks that if a Nochri is not included in the Torah's laws of payment for damages done by one's ox, then why must a Nochri pay when his ox gores a Jew's ox? Rebbi Avahu answers by quoting a verse which teaches that Hash-m allowed us to keep the money of Nochrim when they stopped observing the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach.

Does this mean that the money of Nochrim is considered ownerless? If the money of Nochrim indeed is considered ownerless, why does the Gemara mention it only in the context of damage caused by oxen?

(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES quotes RABEINU YEHONASAN who explains that since a Nochri is suspected of intentionally inciting his animals to damage the animals of Jews, he is penalized any time his animal damages a Jew's animal and he must pay full damages. This penalty serves as an incentive for the Nochri to refrain from inciting his animals to damage the animals (or other property) of Jews.

In contrast, when a Jew's an ox damages a Nochri's ox, the opposite logic applies. Since a Jew generally is very careful to prevent his animals from doing damage, Hash-m instructed (in this verse) that a Jew is exempt from paying for damages which his animal does to a Nochri. (In both cases, the law is established according to original intent and not according to the actual outcome.) The verse expresses this contrast, and thus the Chachamim understood that it should be applied in this manner.

(b) The MAHARSHA understands that the reason why a Nochri must pay the full value of the damage which his ox causes to a Jew, whether the ox is a Tam or Mu'ad, is that this is the law in the courts of Nochrim. Since Nochri law states that the full value of the damage must be paid by the owner of the damaging ox, a Jew is permitted to collect the money from a Nochri in accordance with his law. However, a Jew is exempt from paying when his ox damages a Nochri's ox because a Jew is generally permitted not to pay back a loan to a Nochri when the Nochri does not expect repayment of the loan. This is known as "Hafka'as Halva'aso" (the cancellation of his debt). When one's ox damages another's, the owner of the damaging ox becomes indebted to pay for the damage. When a Jew's ox damages a Nochri's, the Jew does not have to pay this debt because of his right of "Hafka'as Halva'aso." (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTIONS: The Gemara (37b-38a) relates that when Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's daughter died, the Rabanan asked Ula to accompany them to console the mourners. Ula declined to go, criticizing the way the people in Bavel console mourners. They would say, "What could we have done?" Ula understood this as blasphemy for it implies that they would have done something had they been able.

The YAM SHEL SHLOMO (#10) explains that Ula criticized the way the people in Bavel comfort mourners because their comments implied that they were complaining about the way Hash-m runs the world. While such comments may be appropriate when consoling the relatives of a person who was put to death by an earthly king, they are not appropriate when consoling the relatives of a person who died at the hands of Hash-m.

The Gemara continues and relates that Ula went alone to console Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah. Ula said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah that Hash-m told Moshe that the reason why He did not permit the Jewish people to destroy the nations of Amon and Moav was because of the two daughters that would come from those nations: Rus and Na'amah. Accordingly, Ula told Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, "If Hash-m spared those nations because of these two women who would come from them, He certainly would have spared my master's daughter (the daughter of Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah) had she been fitting and good would have come from her."

(a) Ula's words of consolation seem perplexing. Does a person "console" a mourner by telling him that the deceased had nothing good to contribute to the world?

(b) The Yam Shel Shlomo asks further that the fact that neither the RIF nor the ROSH record Ula's words as an appropriate form of consolation implies that Ula's criticism of the words of the people of Bavel were not appropriate. How are their words, "What could we have done," to be understood?

(a) The NACHALAS MOSHE answers that great Tzadikim sometimes die at an early age because they have already completed their mission in life. A person is given life in order to complete and rectify his soul. If one achieves completion early, Hash-m takes him away. This was the consolation which Ula offered. Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's daughter was so righteous that she had already rectified her soul, and there must have been no further good that she needed could do for herself or for the world, and therefore Hash-m took her away.

(b) The Yam Shel Shlomo explains that the consolation of, "What could we have done," was not an expression of complaint at all, and was more appropriate than Ula's form of consolation.

The Yam Shel Shlomo explains that the consolation, "What could we have done," meant that all of our crying and pain would not have helped bring her back. David Ha'Melech made a similar comment when his child died. He said, "Can I bring him back again?" (Shmuel II 12:23). These words are said to a mourner so that he not become overwhelmed in his sorrow. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)