(a)The Mishnah discusses a Shor Tam that gores four or five oxen that belong to four or five different people, one after the other. What is its status when it gores the fourth and fifth ox?
(b)Why, according to Rebbi Meir, is the last owner the first to claim?
(c)Assuming that the Shor ha'Mazik is worth two hundred Zuz, and where the first Nizak is worth one hundred Zuz, how much do the owner and the first Nizak respectively, take from the Shor ha'Mazik?
(d)In which case is Rebbi Meir now speaking when he says 'Im Yesh bo Mosar, Yachzir le'she'Lefanav'? What is the value of the second Nizak?
(e)How much of the Shor ha'Mazik goes to ...
1. ... the owner of the second Nizak?
2. ... the owner of the first Nizak?
3. ... the owner of the Mazik?
1)
(a)The Mishnah discusses a Shor Tam that gores four or five oxen that belong to four or five different people, one after the other. When it gores the fourth and fifth ox - it is still a Tam (See Tos. Yom-Tov)
(b)According to Rebbi Meir, the last owner is the first to claim - because the Mishnah speaks where each Nizak in turn seizes the Shor ha'Mazik to claim from it before it goes and damages again (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)Assuming that the Shor ha'Mazik is worth two hundred Zuz, and the first Nizak is worth one hundred Zuz - they share the Shor ha'Mazik.
(d)When Rebbi Meir now says 'Im Yesh bo Mosar, Yachzir le'she'Lefanav' - he is speaking where the value of the second Nizak is - only fifty Zuz, and he rules that ...
(e)... the owner of ...
1. ... the second Nizak - takes fifty Zuz from the Mazik's ox ...
2. ... as does the first Nizak.
3. ... the Mazik - takes his initial hundred Zuz.
2)
(a)Rebbi Shimon discusses a case where the Shor ha'Mazik is worth two hundred Zuz and each Shor ha'Nizak, nothing, and where the Mazik and the first Nizak initially share the Shor ha'Mazik. What does he say in a case where the ox then gores ...
1. ... a second time?
2. ... a third time?
(b)On which principle is Rebbi Shimon's ruling based?
2)
(a)Rebbi Shimon discusses a case where the Shor ha'Mazik is worth two hundred Zuz and each Shor ha'Nizak, nothing, and where the Mazik and the first Nizak initially share the Shor ha'Mazik. If the ox then gores ...
1. ... a second time - the second Nizak takes a Manah and the second Nizak and the Mazik each take fifty Zuz.
2. ... a third time - the last Nizak takes a Manah, the second one, fifth Zuz and the first Nizak and the Mazik one golden Dinar (which is equivalent to twenty-five Zuz).
(b)Rebbi Shimon's ruling is based on - the fact that each Nizak becomes a partner in Mazik's ox (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 2
3)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about an ox that is Mu'ad ...
1. ... for oxen but not for other animals?
2. ... for people but not for animals?
3. ... for children but not for grownups?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah's Talmidim asked him what the Din will be regarding an ox that is Mu'ad for Shabbasos but not for weekdays (See Tos. Yom-Tov). How else might an ox discern the difference between Shabbos and weekdays, besides via the fact that it does not work on Shabbasos?
(c)What did Rebbi Yehudah reply?
(d)In the latter case, when does the ox revert to its former status of Tam?
3)
(a)The Mishnah rules that an ox that is Mu'ad ...
1. ... for oxen but not for other animals ...
2. ... for people but not for animals ...
3. ... for calves (See Tos. Yom-Tov) but not for fully-grown oxen - is Mu'ad for that particular species only, but remains a Tam for everything else.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah's Talmidim asked him what the Din will be regarding an ox which is Mu'ad for Shabbasos (See Tos. Yom-Tov) either because it does not work on Shabbasos - or on account of the special clothes that the owner wears then.
(c)Rebbi Yehudah replied that - it is a Mu'ad for Shabbasos exclusively.
(d)In the latter case, the ox reverts to its former status of Tam - if it refrains from goring the oxen that the owner passes in front of it for three consecutive Shabbasos (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 3
4)
(a)What does the Mishnah learn from the words "Shor Re'eihu" (in the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Chi Yigach Shor Ish es Shor Re'eihu")?
(b)Regarding the Pasuk in Chavakuk "Amad Vayemoded Eretz, Ra'ah Viter Goyim", what did Hash-m see?
(c)What does "Ra'ah Viter Goyim" then mean?
(d)What are the ramifications of this statement?
(e)And what do we then learn from the Pasuk (in ve'Zos ha'Berachah) "Hofi'a me'Har Paran"?
4)
(a)The Mishnah learns from the words "Shor Re'eihu" (in the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Chi Yigach Shor Ish es Shor Re'eihu") that - if a Shor belonging to a Yisrael gores a Shor belonging to Hekdesh (See Tos. Yom-Tov) or vice-versa, the owner is Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)Regarding the Pasuk in Chavakuk "Amad Vayemoded Eretz, Ra'ah Viter Goyim", Hash-m saw that - the b'nei No'ach failed to keep their seven Mitzvos.
(c)Consequently, "Amad Vayemoded Eretz" - He permitted Yisrael to take possession of their property ...
(d)... inasmuch as if an ox belonging to a Nochri damages that of a Yisrael irrespective of whether it is a Tamor a Mu'ad, he must pays Nezek Shalem.
(e)And we learn from the Pasuk (in ve'Zos ha'Berachah) "Hofi'a me'Har Paran" that - the above (Hash-m availing their money to Yisrael, was because they declined to accept the Torah when it was offered to them on Har Paran.
Mishnah 4
5)
(a)What does the Tana say about ...
1. ... Reuven's Shor Tam that gores an ox belonging to a Chashu (Cheresh [See Tos. Yom-Tov)], Shoteh ve'Katan)?
2. ... the Shor Tam of a Chashu gores an ox belonging to Reuven?
(b)What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(c)How do we reconcile this with the Mishnah, which then states that if the same ox of the Chashu gores, Beis-Din appoint an Apotropus (an agent)? What is the initial task of the Apotropus with regard to the current ox?
(d)What happens in the event that it becomes a Mu'ad?
5)
(a)The Tana rules that if ...
1. ... Reuven's Shor Tam gores an ox belonging to a Chashu (Cheresh [See Tos. Yom-Tov)], Shoteh ve'Katan) - he is Chayav to pay.
2. ... the Shor Tam of a Chashu gores an ox belonging to Reuven - they are Patur from paying ...
(b)... because Beis-Din do not appoint an Apotropus (an agent) to claim from them the body of a Shor Tam (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)To reconcile this with the Mishnah, which then states that if the same ox of the Chashu gores, Beis-Din appoint an Apotropus - by confining the latter to accepting the testimony of witnesses that their Shor Tam gored (in order to turn it into a Mu'ad ...
(d)... at which point the Nizak will be able to claim from the Karka'os of the Chashu (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
6)
(a)According to Rebbi Meir, should the Cheresh be healed, the Shoteh regain his sanity or the child grow-up, the ox will regain its status as a Shor Tam. What is his reason?
(b)What does Rebbi Yossi say?
(c)What is a 'Shor ha'Itztadin'?
(d)What do we learn from the words "ve'Chi Yigach" (from the Pasuk in Mishpatim that we discussed in the previous Mishnah "ve'Chi Yigach Ish es Shor Re'eihu)?
6)
(a)According to Rebbi Meir, should the Cheresh be healed, the Shoteh regain his sanity or the child grow-up, the ox will regain its status as a Shor Tam - because once a Mu'ad changes hands, it reverts to its former status of Tamus (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)According to Rebbi Yossi - it retains its Chazakah of Mu'ad.
(c)A 'Shor ha'Itztadin' - is an ox that has been trained to gore (for bull-fighting purposes).
(d)We learn from the words "ve'Chi Yigach" (from the Pasuk in Mishpatim that we discussed in the previous Mishnah "ve'Chi Yigach Ish es Shor Re'eihu) that - the Chiyuv Misah of a Shor Mu'ad that gores somebody and kills him is confined to an ox that gores of its own accord, but does not extend to one that has been trained to gore.
Mishnah 5
7)
(a)What happens to an ox that gores a person to death?
(b)How is the ox killed?
(c)What additional Halachah applies if it is a Shor Mu'ad?
(d)What is the Din regarding a Shor Tam paying Chatzi Kofer?
(e)To whom does the owner pay Kofer?
7)
(a)An ox that gores a person to death - is put to death ...
(b)... by stoning.
(c)If it is a Shor Mu'ad - the owner must also pay Kofer (full damages) ...
(d)... but not if it is a Shor Tam that gores a person to death - as there is no Din of Chatzi Kofer.
(e)The owner pays Kofer - to the victim's heirs (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
8)
(a)Seeing as a Shor Tam that kills a Yisrael must die, how can one find a case of a Shor Mu'ad that pays Kofer and is put to death?
(b)How is it possible even if it killed three Yisre'eilim?
8)
(a)Despite the fact that a Shor Tam that kills a Yisrael must die, one can find a case of a Shor Mu'ad that pays Kofer and is put to death - where the ox killed three Nochrim, or ...
(b)... even if it killed three Yisre'eilim - where it escaped after each time it gored, and after the owner was warned, it gored again.
9)
(a)What is the above Din in a case where the victim is ...
1. ... a child?
2. ... an Eved or a Shifchah (Note that S'tam Eved and Shifchah always refers to an Eved and Shifchah Cana'ani/s)?
(b)What if the Eved ... is worth a Manah (twenty-five Sela'aim) or only one Dinar?
9)
(a)If the victim is ...
1. ... a child - the same Dinim apply (as the Torah explicitly writes "O Ben Yigach O bas Yigach" [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
2. ... an Eved or a Shifchah (Note that S'tam Eved and Shifchah always refers to an Eved and Shifchah Cana'ani/s) - the owner is obligated to pay thirty Shekalim (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(b)... even if the Eved ... is worth a Manah (twenty-five Sela'aim) or only one Dinar.
Mishnah 6
10)
(a)In connection with the current rulings, what do we learn from the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas"?
(b)One example of this is where the ox scratches itself against a wall for its pleasure, causing it to topple over and kill someone in the process. Is the owner also Patur from Kofer?
(c)And what is the Din with regard to an ox that intends to kill an animal and inadvertently kills a grown-up, or a Nochri and it inadvertently kills a Yisrael?
(d)What is the last case in the Tana's list?
10)
(a)In connection with the current rulings, we learn from the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas" that - just as a person who kills someone unintentionally is exempt from the death penalty, so too, is an animal.
(b)One example of this is where the ox scratches itself against a wall for its pleasure, causing it to topple over and kill someone in the process (See Tos. Yom-Tov). Nevertheles - the owner is Chayav to pay Kofer.
(c)And the same applies to - where an ox intends to kill an animal and inadvertently kills a grown-up, or a Nochri and it inadvertently kills a Yisrael and ...
(d)... where it intends to kill a Nefel and inadvertently kills a live person.
Mishnah 7
11)
(a)In connection with the current rulings, the Mishnah discusses an ox belonging to a woman, to Yesomim or to an Apotropus. What is the difference between an ox of Yesomim and an ox of an Apotropus?
(b)What does the Tana say about all the cases in the current list?
(c)The Tana adds to the list Shor ha'Midbar, Shor Hekdesh and Shor ha'Ger she'Meis ve'Ein lo Yorshim. What is the source for these six rulings?
11)
(a)In connection with the current rulings, the Mishnah discusses an ox belonging to a woman, to Yesomim - (who do not have an Apotropus looking after their affairs) or to an Apotropus - (who is looking after the affairs of Yesomim).
(b)The Tana rules that - all the cases in the current list are subject to Misah in the event that they kill a person (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Tana adds to the list Shor ha'Midbar, Shor Hekdesh and Shor ha'Ger she'Meis ve'Ein lo Yorshim. The source for these six rulings - is the seven times "Shor" that are written in the Parshah of an ox that gores a person, one for itself, the other six, to include these six cases.
12)
(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about the last three cases in the above list?
(b)What if the owner declared the ox Hekdesh or if the Ger died after his animal gored?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
12)
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, in the last three cases in the above list - the ox is not put to death ...
(b)... even if the owner declared the ox Hekdesh or if the Ger died after his animal gored (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.
Mishnah 8
13)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a case where, whilst the ox is being taken out to be stoned (See Tos. Yom-Tov), the owner ...
1. ... declares it Hekdesh?
2. ... Shechts it?
(b)How do we learn the latter Halachah from the words "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" (in the Pasuk "Sakol Yisakel ha'Shor ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro")?
(c)What if he declares the ox Hekdesh or Shechts it before the final ruling (declaring it a Shor ha'Niskal) has been issued?
13)
(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where, whilst the ox is being taken out to be stoned (See Tos. Yom-Tov), the owner ...
1. ... declares it Hekdesh - his declaration is invalid.
2. ... Shechts it - it remains Asur be'Hana'ah.
(b)We learn the latter ruling from the words "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" (in the Pasuk "Sakol Yisakel ha'Shor ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro") - which is otherwise obvious, seeing as a stoned ox can never be eaten (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)If however, he declares the ox Hekdesh or Shechts it, before the final ruling (declaring it a Shor ha'Niskal) has been issued - then his declaration takes effect and the Shechitah is valid.
Mishnah 9
14)
(a)The Tana now discusses where the owner hands his ox to one of the four Shomrim. What are the four Shomrim?
(b)He explains that they take the place of the owner (See Tos. Yom-Tov). What happens if the ox damages whilst under their jurisdiction, assuming it is ...
1. ... a Mu'ad?
2. ... a Tam?
(c)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah agree that if the owner ties the ox with reins or locks the gate 'properly', and it manages to escape and damages, he is Chayav to pay. What does 'properly' mean?
(d)Then why is the owner Chayav?
14)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses where the owner hands his ox to one of the four Shomrim - a Shomer Chinam (who guards free of charge), a Shomer Sachar (who guards for payment), a Socher (a hirer) and a Sho'el (a borrower).
(b)The Tana explains that they take the place of the owner (See Tos. Yom-Tov). If the ox damages whilst under their jurisdiction, assuming it is ...
1. ... a Mu'ad - they are Chayav Nezek Shalem.
2. ... a Tam - they are Chayav Chatzi Nezek.
(c)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah agree that if the owner ties the ox with reins or locks the gate 'properly', and it manages to escape and damages, he is Chayav to pay. 'Properly' means - that it will not blow open in a regular wind.
(d)The owner is nevertheless Chayav - because the Torah requires a Tam to be well-guarded (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and this is considered a poor Shemirah.
15)
(a)And their Machlokes concerns a Mu'ad. What do Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah respectively, hold if the Mu'ad escapes and damages?
(b)How does Rebbi Yehudah learn that he is Patur from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Mu'ad) "ve'Lo Yishmerenu Be'alav"?
(c)And what does he mean when he says that 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomo Omedes'?
15)
(a)Their Machlokes concerns a Mu'ad - whose Din (in the above case) Rebbi Meir equates with that of a Tam, whereas Rebbi Yehudah declares the owner Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)And he learns this from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Mu'ad) "ve'Lo Yishmerenu Be'alav" - which implies that as long as one guards it (no matter how) one is Patur.
(c)And when he says that 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomo Omedes', he means that - the Chiyuv of Tamus remains, in which case he is nevertheless Chayav to pay Chatzi Nezek (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
16)
(a)Rebbi Eliezer is not so lenient with a Mu'ad. What does he say about guarding it?
(b)Like whom is the Halachah?
(c)What should one do with a Shor Mu'ad Lechatchilah?
16)
(a)Rebbi Eliezer holds that - the only way to guard a Mu'ad is by Shechting it (See Tos.Yom-Tov).
(b)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yehudah.
(c)Lechatchilah however - one should Shecht a Shor Mu'ad, in order to avoid the potential damage.
