1)

TOSFOS DH SHMUEL LE'TA'AMEIH DE'AMAR LEHAVLO VE'KOL SHE'KEIN LECHAVTO

úåñ' ã"ä ùîåàì ìèòîéä ãàîø ìäáìå åë"ù ìçáèå

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the meaning of 'le'Ta'ameih'.)

åà"ú, ãìîà ëé îçééá áçáèå äééðå ëùðú÷ì ááåø, àáì äëà äëøééä âøí ìå ìéôåì åâí ðçáè á÷ø÷ò òåìí, áäà äåä ôèåø?

(a)

Question: Perhaps Shmuel only declares Chayav by Chavatah when it trips on the pit itself, whereas here, where it was the digging that caused the ox to fall, on top of which it banged itself on public ground, he will declare the owner Patur?

åé"ì, ãùôéø äåé 'ìèòîéä', ãàùëçï ãîçééá áçáèä ëùðçáè òì éãé îòùéå.

(b)

Answer: It is nevertheless considered 'le'Ta'ameih', seeing as he declares Chavatah Chayav, albeit when it bangs itself via the digging of the pit.

2)

TOSFOS DH BA'AL HA'SHOR CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä áòì äùåø çééá

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

ôé' îçöä, åáòì äáåø ôèåø ìâîøé.

(a)

Clarification: He is Chayav half, whereas the owner of the pit is completely Patur.

âæéøú äëúåá î"åðôì ùîä ùåø àå çîåø" - îòöîå, åìà ùéôéìåäå àçøéí, ëãôøéùéú ôø÷ ÷îà (ãó éâ. åùí).

(b)

Source: This is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv which we learn from "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" - 'by itself, and not that it is pushed into the pit by others', as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (Daf 13a, DH 'I').

3)

TOSFOS DH U'BA'AL HA'BOR MESHALEM MECHTZAH

úåñ' ã"ä åáòì äáåø îùìí îçöä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

áùåèä àå îäìê áìéìä ÷àîø ...

(a)

Clarification: It is referring to an ox that is a Shoteh or at night-time

ãàé áô÷ç áéåí, äà úðéðà ìòéì ãôèåø.

1.

Reason: ... because as far as a sane ox in the daytime is concerned, we learned in the Beraisa earlier (52b) that he is Patur.

åëé úéîà ä"î ëùðåôì îòöîå, àáì äôéìåäå àçøéí, çééá ...

(b)

Refuted Retraction: And if you will ask that that is only if it fell by itself, but if others pushed it in, he will be Chayav ...

à"ë, ëùðåôì ðîé îòöîå ìéçééá, ã'úçéìúå áôùéòä' - ôï éôåì ò"é ùååøéí, 'åñåôå áàåðñ, çééá'.

(c)

Refutation: ... if that was the case, then even if it fell in by itself, he would be Chayav, since it is 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah' - regarding being pushd in by other oxen, 've'Sofo be'Oneis', which is Chayav.

àìà òì ëøçéê ùåø ô÷ç ðùîø éôä, åîúøç÷ ëì ëê îï äáåø ùàéï ùååøéí àçøéí éëåìéï ìäôéìå áúåëå.

(d)

Conclusion: We must therefore say that a sane ox protects itself carefully, distancing itself from the pit to the extent that other oxen cannot push it into it.

4)

TOSFOS DH LE'OLAM KA'SAVAR HAI PALGA NIZKA ETC. ANA TURA'I BE'BIRACH ASHKACHTEIH

úåñ' ã"ä ìòåìí ÷ñáø äàé ôìâà ðæ÷à ëå' àðà úåøàé ááéøê àùëçéúéä

(Summary: Tosfos discusses why this should be.)

åà"ú, ëéåï ãôìâà ðæ÷à òáã, îä ñáøà äéà æå ãîùåí ãàùëçéä ááåø îùìí éåúø îîä ùäæé÷?

(a)

Question: Since it did (only) half the damage, what is the logic in saying that, because it was found in the pit the owner should pay more than the damage that it caused?

åäéä øåöä ø"é ìôøù ãä"÷ 'äàé ôìâà äæé÷à òáéã - áòìîà ëâåï áùðé ùååøéí ùäæé÷å, àáì äëà áùåø ùãçó çáéøå ìáåø, äáåø ëåìéä äæé÷à òáã ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: Initially the Ri wanted to interpret the Gemara to mean that generally speaking, it does half the damage, such as in a case where two oxen damage jointly, but not here, where one ox pushed the other into a pit; since then, the pit did the entire damage ...

ëãàîø 'àú ÷èìúéä, ãááéøê àùëçéúé', åìëê îàé ãìéú ìé ìàùúìåîé îéðéä, îùúìîðà îéðê'.

1.

Refuted Answer (cont.): ... just as he (the Nizak) claimed 'You killed it, since I found it in your pit. Hence, whatever I cannot claim from him, I will claim from you!'

åçæø áå ø"é îôéøåù æä, ãà"ë îåòã ìø' ðúï àîàé îùìí îçöä? ëé äéëé ãîäðé ùåúôåú ìáåø ùàéï äáåø îùìí àìà çöé îîä ùäæé÷, ëîå ëï éåòéì ùåúôåú äáåø ìùåø åìà éùìí äùåø îçöä?

(c)

Refutation #1: The Ri retracted from this explanation however, because, if that was so, why should a Mu'ad pay half, according to Rebbi Nasan? Why do we not say that, just as the partnership (of the Shor) helps to reduce the payment of the Bor to half of what it damaged, so too, should the partnership (of the Bor) help to reduce the payment of the Shor to less than half?

åáúí ðîé àéëà ìä÷ùåú - àîàé îùìí øáéò?

(d)

Refutation #2: And by the same token, one can ask why a Tam pays a quarter?

ò"ë ðøàä ãáåø ðîé ôìâà ðæ÷à òáã, åîùåí ùâîø ääéæ÷ åãåîä ëîé ùòùàå ëåìå, àîøéðï 'ëé ìéëà ìàùúìåîé îáòì äùåø, îùúìí îáòì äáåø'.

(e)

Authentic Answer: It therefore seems that the pit also caused half the damage, and it is because it completed it, making it appear as if it did the entire damage, that we say 'When one cannot exact payment from the owner of the ox, one claims from the owner of the pit'.

53b----------------------------------------53b

5)

TOSFOS DH SHOR VE'SHOR PESULEI HA'MUKDASHIN SHE'NAGCHU

úåñ' ã"ä ùåø åùåø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéí ùðâçå

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the case and clarifies the difference between Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that have been redeemed and those that haven't.)

ôéøù øá éäåãàé âàåï ãäééðå ùåø áëåø ãìà ôøé÷ ìéä.

(a)

Explanation: Ra Yehuda'i Ga'on explains that this refers to a firstborn ox, that cannot be redeemed ...

åìôé ùàéï ìå ôãéåï

(b)

Reason: ... and since it cannot be redeemed ...

àòô"é ùãéðå ìäéåú ðùçè áîãéðä åðàëì ìëäðéí áîåîå ëöáé åëàéì ...

1.

Reservation: ... even though its Din is to be Shechted (even) outside Yerushalayim, and eaten by Kohanim after it is blemished, like a deer and a gazelle ...

ãàôéìå ìäàëéìå ìðëøéí îúéø ø' ò÷éáà ááëåøåú (ãó ìá:) îèòí ãàéú÷ù ìöáé åàéì ...

2.

Reservation (cont.): ... and what's more, since it is compared to a deer and a gazelle, Rebbi Akiva in Bechoros (Daf 32b) permits it to be eaten even by Nochrim ...

àôé' äëé, ìà çùéá áçééå îîåï äãéåè åùåø øòäå.

(c)

Reason (cont.): ... nevertheless, during its lifetime. It is not considered Mamon Hedyot or "Shor Re'eihu".

åëï ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéí ùìà ðôãå.

(d)

Precedent: And the same will apply to all Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that have not been redeemed.

àáì áîå÷ãùéï ùðôãå ìéëà ìàå÷îé ...

(e)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot however, establish it by Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that have been redeemed ...

ã'ùåø øòäå' î÷øå.

(f)

Refutation: ... seeing as they fall under the category of "Shor Re'eihu" ...

àò"ô ùàñåøéí áâéæä åòáåãä.

(g)

Implied Question: ... even though one is forbidden to shear them or to work with them.

ãäà ì÷îï áùîòúéï, îçééáéðï ùåø äãéåè ùäîéú ùåø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï.

(h)

Proof #1: ... because later in the Sugya, the Gemara will declare Chayav the Shor of a Hedyot that killed a Shor of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.

åáåø ðîé äåä îçééáéðï, àé ìàå îùåí ãëúéá "åäîú éäéä ìå".

(i)

Proof #2: And if not for the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo" (See Mesores ha'Shas) it would have declared a Bor Chayav, too.

6)

TOSFOS DH HA KE'RABANAN HA KE'REBBI NASAN

úåñ' ã"ä äà ëøáðï äà ëø' ðúï

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Chidush according to both Rebbi Nasan and the Rabanan.)

å÷î"ì ãàôé' áùðé ùååøéí éäéä äãéï ëîå áùåø åáåø ...

(a)

The Chidush according to Rebbi Nasan: And it teaches us that even two oxen that damaged will have the same Din as an ox and a pit ...

àò"â ãáùåø åáåø ìø' ðúï ùééê èôé ìîéîø 'ëé ìéëà ìàùúìåîé îùåø îùúìí îáåø' ...

1.

The Chidush according to Rebbi Nasan (cont.): Even though, according to Rebbi Nasan, by the ox and the pit it is more applicable to say that 'When one cannot exact payment from the former, one claims from the latter ...

îèòí ãàîø 'àðà úåøàé ááéøê àùëçéúéä, àú ÷èìúéä', åáùåø åùåø ìéëà ìîéîø äëé.

2.

The Chidush according to Rebbi Nasan (concl.): ... since he can say 'I found my ox in your pit; You killed it!', which he cannot say in the case of two oxen.

åìøáðï äà ÷î"ì - ãìà úéîà ãå÷à áùåø åáåø àîøéðï äëé, ã'ëé ìéëà ìàùúìåîé îáåø, ìà îùúìí îùåø' ...

(b)

The Chidush according to the Rabanan: Whereas according to the Rabanan, it teaches us that it is not only by an ox and a pit that 'If one cannot exact payment from the pit, one cannot claim from the ox' ...

ãäééðå îùåí ãáåø òåùä òé÷ø äîòùä åàéäå ÷èì áäáìéä, ìëê ìà ðèéì çéåáå òì äùåø, àò"â ãìéëà ìàùúìåîé îéðéä ...

1.

Reason: ... since the main damage was performed by the pit, which killed the Nizak via the foul air, and that is why one cannot claim from the ox, even if one cannot claim from the pit ...

àáì áùåø åùåø, ùàéï áæä òé÷ø ääéæ÷ éåúø îáæä, äåä àîéðà ãàôéìå ìøáðï 'ëé ìéëà ìàùúìåîé îäàé îùúìí îäàé'.

2.

The Chidush according to the Rabanan (cont.): ... whereas in the case of two oxen, where one of the oxen does not cause more damage than the other, we may have thought that even the Rabanan will hold that 'If one cannot exact payment from the one, one can claim from the other.

åðøàä ìø"é ãàáéé åøáéðà ñ"ì 'äàé ëåìéä äæé÷à òáã åäàé ëåìéä äæé÷à òáã' ...

(c)

Clarification: It seems to the Ri that Abaye and Ravina both hold that each one is considered as having performed the entire damage' ...

ãàé ñ"ì 'ôìâà ðæ÷à òáã', ìîä éàîø øáé ðúï ã'ëé ìéëà ìàùúìåîé îäàé îùúìí îäàé', äà ìà ùééê äëà èòîà ã'àðà úåøàé ááéøê àùëçéúéä, àú ÷èìúéä'.

1.

Reason: Because if they held that 'it performs half the damage', on what grounds does Rebbi Nasan say that when one cannot exact payment from the one, one can claim from the other', seeing as the argument 'I found my ox in your pit; you killed it!' does not apply in this case?

åìà ÷àîø 'äà åäà ëøáé ðúï, äà ëî"ã "ôìâà ðæ÷à òáã" åäà ëîàï ãàîø "ëåìä ðæ÷à òáã" '?

(d)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara does not establish both of them like Rebbi Nasan, and the one holds like the opinion that 'Palga Nizka Avad', and the other, like the opinion that 'Kula Nizka Avad' is ...

îùåí ãðøàä ìå ìâîøà èòí øàùåï ùàîø øáà òé÷ø - ã'äà ëåìä ðæ÷à òáã', åìäëé îå÷é ëåìäå ëååúéä.

(e)

Answer: ... because the Gemara considers the first reason of Rava - where he holds 'Kula Nizka Avad' to be the main one. Consequently, it establishes all the opinions like him.

7)

TOSFOS DH SHOR VE'ADAM SHEDACHFU LE'BOR

úåñ' ã"ä ùåø åàãí ùãçôå ìáåø

(Summary: Tosfos proves that this must be speaking where Adam acted unintentionally, and goes on to explain why he is Chayav Boshes.)

ìà ùãçó àãí áëååðä, ãà"ë áòì äáåø àîàé îçééá, ãàèå àí éùéí àãí èìéúå ùì çáéøå áàù ùì çáéøå, åëé éúçééá áòì äàù?

(a)

Clarification: It is not speaking where the man pushed his friend intentionally, because if it were, why would the owner of the pit be Chayav? Will the owner of the fire be Chayav if Reuven throws Shimon's Talis into it?

åàí úàîø, àé ùìà áëååðä, àîàé éúçééá ááåùú?

(b)

Question: If it speaks without intention, then why is the man Chayav Boshes?

åéù ìåîø, ëâåï ùéãò äàãí áùòú ðôéìú çáéøå.

(c)

Answer: Because it speaks where he became aware of the situation as his friend fell (See Mesores ha'Shas).

åçùéá áëååðä ...

(d)

Reason: ... and that is considered intentional ...

îéãé ãäåä à'ðúäôê ãñåó ô"á (ìòéì ã' ëæ.).

1.

Precedent: ... just like the case where the man turned round (in mid-fall)', cited at the end of the second Perek (Daf 27a).

8)

TOSFOS DH LE'INYZAN KOFER U'SHELOSHIM SHEL EVED SHOR CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä ìòðéï ëåôø åùìùéí ùì òáã ùåø çééá

(Summary: Assuming that Shor and Adam performed the act simultaneously, Tosfos queries as to why Rava declares the ox Chayav Kofer),

åà"ú, åäà ùåø ôèåø îîéúä, ëéåï ùäåà åàãí ãçôå ...

(a)

Question: The ox ought to be Patur from Misah, seeing as it pushed the victim together with the man ...

ãäåé ëîå (ìòéì é:) 'äëåäå òùøä áðé àãí áòùø î÷ìåú, ãááú àçú ãáøé äëì, ôèåø.

1.

Precedent: .. since it is similar to ten men who beat someone to death simultaneously with ten sticks, where it is unanimously agreed that they are all Patur ...

åëéåï ãìà îéçééá îéúä, ìà îéçééá ëåôø ...

2.

Question (concl.): ... and if it is not Chayav Misah, it is also Patur from Kofer?

ãìòéì áô' ã' åä' (ã' îâ. åùí) îùîò ãøáà ñ"ì ëøáä ãàîø ã'àé àéï äùåø áñ÷éìä, àéï äáòìéí îùìîéï ëåôø' ...

(b)

Source: ... because above in Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Daf 43a 43b) it implies that Rava concurs with Rabah, who says (there on Amud Alef) that 'Whenever the ox is not Chayav Sekilah, the owner does not pay Kofer ...

ãàîø áäãéà ãùìà áëååðä, îùìí ãîéí.

1.

Source (cont.): ... since he explicitly says that where it acts without Kavanah, he pays Damim (but not Kofer).

åðøàä ãìà àééøé ëùãçôåäå ùðéäí ááú àçú, àìà ëì àçã áôðé òöîå.

(c)

Answer: It must therefore be speaking where they did not push the victim simultaneously, but one after the other (See Maharsha).

9)

TOSFOS DH LE'INYAN KEILIM VE'SHOR PESULEI HA'MUKDASHIN

úåñ' ã"ä ìòðéï ëìéí åùåø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the case where the ox was redeemed, and queries as to why Bor is then Patur.)

ëùðôãå îééøé ...

(a)

Clarification: It speaks where the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin were redeemed ...

ãàé ìà ðôãå, àãí åùåø ðîé ôèåøéï, îãëúéá "øòäå".

1.

Proof: ... because if they were not, then 'Adam' and 'Shor' would be Patur, too, since the Torah writes "(Shor) Re'eihu".

úéîä, ãááåø àîàé ôèåø, ëéåï ùðôãå, åäà äåé äîéúä ùìå, ìî"ã 'ôåãéï ä÷ãùéí ìäàëéìï ìëìáéí'?

(b)

Question: In that case, why is 'Bor' Patur, seeing as they were redeemed, since the carcass belongs to him, according to the opinion that holds that that one may redeem Kodshim to feed one's dogs?

åàé äåä îééøé áùìà ðôãå, ðéçà, ùìà éëåìéí ìôãåúå ìàçø îéúä, ãáòéðï äòîãä åäòøëä'.

(c)

Theoretical Answer: If however, the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin were not redeemed, there would be no problem, seeing as they cannot be redeemed after death, due to the fact that they require 'Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah' (standing and being assessed).

åàôéìå ìî"ã 'àéï ôåãéï', ÷ùä, ãîåëç áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëè:) ãäééðå ãåå÷à ìäàëéìï ìëìáéí, àáì ìäñé÷ï úçú úáùéìå, ôåãéï ìë"ò ...

(d)

Question on Theoretical Answer: As a matter of fact, there would be a Kashya even according to the opinion that holds 'Ein Podin ... ', since it is evident in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 29b) that the prohibition is confined to feeding them to one's dogs, but to burn them under one's pot is unanimously permitted ...

áùîòúúà ã'àåëì çîõ ùì ä÷ãù áîåòã, îòì'. åîñé÷ øá àùé 'ìë"ò àéï ôåãéï ... ', åãë"ò 'ãáø äâåøí ìîîåï ìàå ëîîåï ãîé', åáôìåâúà ãø' éåñé äâìéìé åøáðï ÷îôìâé.

1.

Source: In the Sugya of 'Someone who eats Chametz of Hekdesh is Mo'el', where Rav Ashi concludes that 'Everybody holds of the principle 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon is not like Mamon', and that 'They are arguing over the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and the Rabanan'.

àìîà îãîòì, ôåãéï ìäñé÷å úçú úáùéìå àå ìöåøê äðàä àçøú.

2.

Source (cont.): ... from which we see that, seeing as one is Mo'el, one may redeem the Kodshim to burn under one's pot or for some other beneficial purpose.

åëï ôé' ùí ä÷åðè'.

3.

Support: And this conforms to Rashi's explanation there.

åàéï ìúîåä, î"ù àëéìú ëìá îùàø äðàåú?

(e)

Question: Nor can one ask in what way is feeding one's dog different than other forms of benefit ...

ããìîà ëéåï ãîéòèéä î"åàëìú", 'åìà ìëìáéê', ìéú ìï ìîòåèé àìà ëéåöà áä àëéìä.

(f)

Answer: ... because one can say that, since the Torah precludes it from "ve'Achalta", 've'Lo li'Kelavecha', one can only preclude eating, like the word from which we preclude it.

åîéäå àìéáà ãøá éåñó, ãîôøù äúí 'ìòåìí á"ôåãéï ä÷ãùéí ìäàëéìï ìëìáéí" ÷îôìâé' ...

(g)

Answer to Earlier Question: According to Rav Yosef however, who explains there that they are in fact, arguing as to whether one may redeem Kodshim to feed one's dogs or not ...

ö"ì åãàé ãàéï çéìå÷ áéï àëéìú ëìá ìùàø äðàåú.

1.

Answer to Earlier Question: ... it transpires that there is no difference between feeding one's dog and other forms of benefit ...

åùîà øáà ëøá éåñó ñ"ì.

2.

Answer to Earlier Question (cont.): ... in which case it is possible that Rava holds like Rav Yosef.

10)

TOSFOS DH NAFKA LEIH MI'VE'HA'MEIS YIH'YEH LO DE'SHOR

úåñ' ã"ä ðô÷à ìéä îåäîú éäéä ìå ãùåø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why, although we do not learn Shor from Bor under the current circumstances, we nevertheless learn Bor from Shor.)

åàò"â ãìà éìôéðï ùåø îáåø ìôèåø äéëà ùàéï äîéúä ùìå ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though we do not learn Shor from Bor to declare Patur there where the carcass does not belong to him ...

î"î, éìôéðï áåø îùåø ì'áòìéí îèôìéí áðáéìä' ...

(b)

Answer: We nevertheless learn Bor from Shor with regard to 'The owner must look after the carcass' ...

ãâ' ÷øàé ëúéáé, ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ (ãó é:).

1.

Reason: ... since the Torah writes three Pesukim, as the Gemara explained in the first Perek (Daf 10b,

11)

TOSFOS DH EIPUCH ANA

úåñ' ã"ä àéôåê àðà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Torah needs to write "Re'eihu" and queries it.)

åà"ú, àí ëï "øòäå" ãëúá øçîðà ìîä ìé ìàôå÷é ä÷ãù?

(a)

Question: In that case, why does the Torah see fit to write "Re'eihu" to preclude Hekdesh?

åé"ì, ãàöèøéê ìä÷ãù ùðâç äãéåè.

(b)

Answer: It needs to write "Re'eihu" to preclude a Hekdesh animal that gores one belonging to a Hedyot.

àê ÷ùä ã"îùåø àéù" ðô÷à?

(c)

Question: But that we already know from the Pasuk "Shor Ish"?