1)

(a)Rabah holds that if the creditor's heirs claim Karka, the Bechor receives a double portion, but not if they claim money. Why is that?

(b)What does Rav Nachman say?

(c)Bearing this in mind, what is the problem with Rabah and Rav Nachman who just established the case in the Beraisa (where it is the woman's heirs who inherit her Nezek and Tza'ar and not her husband) by a divorcee?

1)

(a)Rabah holds that if the creditor's heirs claim Karka, the Bechor receives a double portion because this is the Karka that was Meshubad to their father (rendering them Muchzak), but not if they claimed money since that money was not Meshubad to them (in which case, it is Ra'uy).

(b)Rav Nachman says that if they claim money, he receives double, because that is what was owed to their father (rendering them Muchzak), but not if they claimed Karka, since that is not the Karka that their father left behind, nor is it what he lent (in which case, it is Ra'uy).

(c)Bearing this in mind why did Rabah and Rav Nachman establish the case in the Beraisa (where it is the woman's heirs who inherit her Nezek and Tza'ar and not her husband) by a divorcee? Why did they not establish it (even by a woman who was married) according to their respective opinions in Bava Basra: when Beis-Din claimed money (which is considered Ra'uy), according to Rabah, and when they claimed Karka, according to Rav Nachman?

2)

(a)To answer the Kashya, we establish Rabah and Rav Nachman like the Bnei Ma'arava according to the Rabanan. What do they say about a Bechor taking double portion in the Ribis that is included in a Shtar Chov of their father's?

(b)What is the reason of this ruling?

(c)In our Sugya however, Rabah and Rav Nachman are explaining the Beraisa like Rebbi. What does Rebbi say?

(d)What does this come to explain?

2)

(a)To answer the Kashya, we establish Rabah and Rav Nachman like the Bnei Ma'arava according to the Rabanan, who say that a Bechor does not take a double portion in the Ribis that is included in their father's Shtar Chov ...

(b)... because they consider all Sh'vach (automatic appreciation of a field ... ) that came into being after the father's death to be Ra'uy.

(c)In our Sugya however, Rabah and Rav Nachman are explaining the Beraisa like Rebbi, in whose opinion the Bechor receives a double portion in all appreciation, including Ribis, and from documented loans that are claimed after their father's death, irrespective of whether they claim money or Karka ...

(d)... which explains why we needed to establish the Beraisa ('Ein ha'Ishah, Nosen l'Yorshehah') by a Gerushah.

3)

(a)What will Rebbi say regarding our case of Kofer?

(b)Why is that?

3)

(a)Rebbi will concede however that a Bechor or a husband will not receive a double portion in the Kofer left to them on the death of the father or the wife respectively ...

(b)... because seeing as it does not fall due until after the animal dies (as we explained earlier), even he will agree that it is called Ra'uy, and that the husband's heirs have no claim on it.

4)

(a)What does Reish Lakish learn from the Pasuk (in connection with an ox that gored and killed an Eved )"Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Adonav, v'ha'Shor Yisakel"?

(b)What is the case? Why is the ox not stoned?

(c)From where do we learn this ruling?

4)

(a)Reish Lakish learns from the Pasuk "Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Adonav, v'ha'Shor Yisakel" that the owner only pays thirty Shekalim (if his ox gored and killed an Eved) if the ox is stoned, otherwise not.

(b)The ox is not stoned if it killed the person unintentionally.

(c)And we learn this from the Torah's Hekesh to the owner 'ke'Miysas ha'Be'alim Miysas ha'Shor' (as we shall learn later).

5)

(a)What does Rabah learn from the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel, v'Gam Be'alav Yumas. Im Kofer Yushas Alav"?

(b)Why is an ox that kills someone not stoned on the admission of the owner?

(c)What can we extrapolate from Rebbi Eliezer, who said earlier (in connection with Naki me'Chatzi Kofer) 'Ein Diyni Ela b'Miskaven La'harog Es ha'Beheimah ... ', that clashes with Rabah?

(d)How can Rabah argue with Rebbi Eliezer?

5)

(a)Rabah learns from the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel, v'Gam Be'alav Yumas. Im Kofer Yushas Alav" that if an ox killed someone unintentionally, the owner does not pay Kofer (in similar vein to Reish Lakish by Eved, as we just explained).

(b)An ox that kills someone is not stoned on the admission of the owner because the owner himself would not be sentenced to death by admitting that he killed someone (and, as we just learned, 'ke'Misas ha'Be'alim Kach Misas ha'Shor').

(c)We can extrapolate from Rebbi Eliezer, who said earlier (in connection with Naki me'Chatzi Kofer) 'Ein Diyni Ela b'Miskaven La'harog Es ha'Beheimah ... ' that (a Tam is Patur from Chatzi Kofer, but that) a Mu'ad would be Chayav to pay Kofer, even though the ox is not put to death.

(d)Rabah can argue with Rebbi Eliezer because a. he relies on the Pasuk, and b. he has the support of a Mishnah, as we shall see later.

6)

(a)What Kashya can we ask on Rabah from the Beraisa which obligates the owner to pay on his own admission?

(b)We answer that we are talking here about paying Damim, not Kofer. What does this mean?

(c)If one is Chayav to pay Damim anyway, then what is the point in telling us that he is Patur from Kofer?

6)

(a)According to Rabah, whenever the ox is not stoned, the owner is Patur from paying. In that case, we can ask why the Beraisa obligates the owner to pay on his own admission (when we just learned that the ox is not stoned in the same case).

(b)We answer that we are talking here about paying Damim, not Kofer, which means that even though Kofer may supersede Damim (regular damages), it does not however, negate it. Consequently, whenever Kofer is not applicable, the obligation to pay Damim remains.

(c)The point in telling us that one is Patur from Kofer is that should the Mazik have no money with which to pay then, if his basic Chiyuv is Kofer (which means 'atonement' [for having committed a sin]), then, lacking atonement, he remains subject to punishment (at the Hand of Hash-m), which is not the case if his basic Chiyuv is Damim (see also Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz).

7)

(a)The Beraisa continues 'Heimis Shori Es Avdo shel Ploni, Eino Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo'. Why does this appear to clash with our current interpretation of the Reisha?

(b)Why did Rabah not want to answer that the Reisha speaks about Damim, and the Seifa, about the basic Chiyuv of Kenas?

(c)In fact, Rabah establishes the Seifa by Damim, too, and to resolve the discrepancy, he cites a basic difference between Kofer in the Reisha and Kenas in the Seifa. In which case will the owner pay Kofer by his own admission (in addition, to causing the ox to be stoned), whereas in the identical case of Kenas, he will be Patur from paying (even though the ox is stoned)?

(d)How does Rabah now use this distinction to explain the Beraisa?

7)

(a)The Beraisa continues 'Heimis Shori Es Avdo shel Ploni, Eino Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo'. This appear to clash with our current interpretation of the Reisha because, assuming that the Seifa too, is talking about Damim (and assuming that Kenas, like Kofer, incorporates Damim), why should he be exempt from having to pay?

(b)Rabah did not want to answer that the Reisha speaks about Damim, and the Seifa, about the basic Chiyuv of Kenas because to make such distinctions between the Reisha and the Seifa of a Mishnah or Beraisa, is a 'Dochek' (a forced answer).

(c)In fact, Rabah establishes the Seifa by Damim, too, and to resolve the discrepancy, he cites a basic difference between Kofer in the Reisha and Kenas in the Seifa, in that the owner pays Kofer by his own admission (in addition to causing the ox to be stoned) in a case where there are two witnesses who testify that the ox killed someone, only they do not know whether it is a Tam or a Mu'ad (both of which are subject to stoning); whereas in the identical case of Kenas, he will be Patur from paying (even though the ox is stoned), because of the principle 'Modeh bi'Kenas Patur'.

(d)Using this distinction Rabah explains that in the Reisha, where it is possible to pay by his own admission (when there are two witnesses, as we just explained), there is an underlying Chiyuv of Damim that obligates him to pay by his own admission (even when there are not); whereas in the Seifa, where, even if there are witnesses (as in the previous case), one does not pay by one's own admission, there is no Chiyuv Damim at all.

43b----------------------------------------43b

8)

(a)The Beraisa says 'Kol she'Chayav b'Ben Chorin, Chayav b'Eved, bein b'Kofer bein b'Misah'. What is the problem with the term 'Bein b'Kofer'?

(b)We answer that Kofer in this case means 'Damim'. What Kashya does this pose on the Beraisa that we learned earlier (distinguishing between a ben Chorin and an Eved)?

(c)According to some, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who asked the Kashya, gave the answer; according to others, it was Rabah who established it by Kenas. What is the basic difference whether the Tana is speaking about Damim or Kenas?

(d)What Halachah is the Tana now teaching us? In which case is one Patur from paying both Kofer and Kenas, but Chayav Damim?

8)

(a)The Beraisa says 'Kol she'Chayav b'Ben Chorin, Chayav b'Eved, bein b'Kofer bein b'Misah'. The problem with the term 'Bein b'Kofer' is that there is no Kofer by an Eved.

(b)We answer that Kofer in this case means Damim, posing a Kashya on the Beraisa that we learned earlier (distinguishing between a ben Chorin and an Eved) exempting the latter from paying through his own admission. According to what we just learned he should be liable, because wherever the one is Chayav, the other is Chayav, too.

(c)According to some, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who asked the Kashya, gave the answer; according to others, it was Rabah who established it by Kenas. The basic difference whether the Tana is speaking about Damim or Kenas is whether he is Chayav by his own admission (Damim) or through two witnesses (Kenas).

(d)the Tana is now teaching us that if Reuven's ox inadvertently gored Shimon in the presence of two witnesses, he is liable to pay Damim, just as he would be if it had gored a free person.

9)

(a)What did Rava ask on Rabah from 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah'?

(b)Rava takes for granted that 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah' is Patur. We try to prove it from the Mishnah in ha'Kon'Es, regarding someone who sets fire to a haystack. What does the Tana there rule in a case where a kid-goat got burned ...

1. ... whilst it was tied to the burning haystack, as did an Eved who was loose?

2. ... that was loose, but the Eved was tied to the haystack?

(c)Assuming that Patur in the Seifa refers to both the Eved and the kid-goat, why is he Patur ...

1. ... on the Eved?

2. ... on the kid-goat?

(d)Why does Rava decline to learn that he is Patur only on the kid, because of Kam Leih b'de'Rabah Mineih?

9)

(a)Rava asks on Rabah why, if Kofer she'Lo b'Kavanah is Chayav to pay Damim, 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah' should be Patur.

(b)Rava takes for granted that 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah' is Patur. We try to prove this from the Mishnah in ha'Kon'Es, regarding someone who sets fire to a haystack. The Tana there rules in a case where a kid goat got burned ...

1. ... whilst it was tied to the burning haystack, as did an Eved who was loose that he is liable to pay for the kid.

2. ... that was loose but the Eved was tied to the haystack that he is Patur.

(c)Assuming that Patur in the Seifa refers to both the Eved and the kid-goat, he is Patur ...

1. ... on the Eved because one is only Chayav on an Eved when it is a Din in Kenas (but not by Esh).

2. ... on the kid because it should have run away.

(d)Rava decline to learn that he is Patur only on the kid, because of Kam Leih b'de'Rabah Mineih since he holds 'Isho Mishum Mamono'.

10)

(a)We reject the proof however (that this Mishnah is a source for the P'tur of 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah'), by citing Reish Lakish. How does he interpret 'Patur' in the Seifa of the Mishnah under discussion?

(b)We refute the proof that 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah is Patur' from the Beraisa 'Chomer ba'Esh mi'be'Bor ... ', which omits the distinction that Esh pays Damim she'Lo b'Kavanah, whilst Bor does not. Why not?

(c)How do we refute the proof from there?

(d)Why is there no Damim by Esh b'Kavanah?

10)

(a)We reject the proof however (that this Mishnah is a source for the P'tur of 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah'), by citing Reish Lakish who confines 'Patur' in the Seifa of the Mishnah under discussion to the kid. According to him, the Tan speaks when he actually set fire to the Eved, and he is Patur with regard to the kid because of 'Kam Leih b'de'Rabah Mineih'.

(b)We refute the proof that 'Isho she'Lo b'Kavanah is Patur', from the Beraisa 'Chomer ba'Esh mi'be'Bor ... ', which omits the distinction that Esh pays Damim she'Lo b'Kavanah, which Bor does not because the Torah exempts Miysas Adam b'Bor.

(c)We refute the proof from there on the grounds that 'Tana v'Shiyer' (the Tana omitted other cases too).

(d)There is no Damim by Esh b'Kavanah a. because there is no Kofer by Esh, and b. because of 'Kam Leih b'de'Rabah Mineih'.

11)

(a)We therefore conclude that, based on Rabah's Chidush (that Shor she'Lo b'Kavanah pays Damim) Rava meant to ask whether Esh too pays Damim, or not. What are the two sides to Rava's She'eilah? Why, on the one hand ...

1. ... might he not have to pay?

2. ... might he have to pay?

(b)What is the outcome of Rava's She'eilah?

11)

(a)We therefore conclude that, based on Rabah's Chidush (that Shor she'Lo b'Kavanah pays Damim) Rava meant to ask whether Esh too pays Damim, or not. On the one hand ...

1. ... he might not have to pay because, unlike Shor, Esh b'Kavanah does not pay Kofer.

2. ... he might have to pay like Shor, who pays Damim she'Lo b'Kavanah (even though there is no Kofer by Esh b'Kavanah).

(b)The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is Teiku.

12)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, what did he learn in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, from the Pasuk "Im Kofer ... "?

(b)Abaye asked him that, in that case, why should we not Darshen the same from the Pasuk "Im Eved Yigach ha'Shor". How do we refute the objection to this on the grounds that Reish Lakish has already exempted Eved she'Lo b'Kavanah?

(c)What did Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan teach when he arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael?

(d)Even Reish Lakish, who does not Darshen "Eved", "Im Eved", might Darshen "Kofer", "Im Kofer", because it is written where the Torah speaks about payment. Where is "Im Eved" then written? What reason is that, not to Darshen "Eved", "Im Eved"?

12)

(a)When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he learned in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, from the Pasuk "Im Kofer ... " 'Le'rabos Kofer she'Lo b'Kavanah'.

(b)Abaye asked him that, in that case, why should we not Darshen the same from the Pasuk "Im Eved Yigach ha'Shor". We refute the objection to this (on the grounds that Reish Lakish has already exempted Eved she'Lo b'Kavanah) with the principle 'Gavra a'Gavra Ka'ramis' (one cannot ask a Kashya from one Amora on another).

(c)When Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, he taught that "Im Eved Yigach ha'Shor" indeed comes to include Eved she'Lo b'Kavanah.

(d)Even Reish Lakish, who does not Darshen "Eved", "Im Eved", might Darshen "Kofer", "Im Kofer", because it is written where the Torah discusses the payment whereas "Im Eved" is written where the Torah discusses the damage, where "Im Eved" is needed to distinguish between an Eved and a ben Chorin.

13)

(a)The Torah writes in Emor "v'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam". What do we learn from ...

1. ... "Kol Nefesh Adam"?

2. ... "v'Ish"?

(b)Based on these Derashos, why does the Tana initially think that it should not be necessary to write "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach" to include an ox that gored a child in the Din of Misah ...

1. ... due to a 'Mah Matzinu' from Adam b'Adam?

2. ... due to a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Adam b'Adam?

(c)On what grounds do we refute both the 'Mah Matzinu' and the 'Kal va'Chomer'? What Chumra does Adam b'Adam have over Shor b'Adam?

13)

(a)The Torah writes in Emor "v'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam". We learn from ...

1. ... "Kol Nefesh Adam" that a man who kills a person is Chayav even if the latter is a Katan.

2. ... "v'Ish" that it is only a grown-up who is Chayav for killing a person, but not a Katan.

(b)Based on these Derashos, the Tana initially thinks that it should not be necessary to write "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach" to include an ox that gored a child in the Din of Misah because, if ...

1. ... 'Adam b'Adam' is Chayav even for killing a Katan, then so too should an ox.

2. ... Adam b'Adam, where only a grown-up is Chayav Misah, is Chayav even for killing a Katan, then an ox, where even a Katan is Chayav, should certainly be Chayav for killing a Katan.

(c)We refute both the 'Mah Matzinu' and the 'Kal va'Chomer' on the basis of the fact that Adam b'Adam has a stringency over Shor b'Adam, inasmuch as he is Chayav the four additional things, whereas Shor b'Adam is only Chayav Nezek. Consequently, we are unable to learn any Chumras pertaining to Shor b'Adam from it.