1)

D'MEI V'LADOS AND D'MEI EVED (Yerushalmi Perek 4 Halachah 5 Daf 21b)

.

(a)

Objection: Everywhere, you are more stringent about a Mu'ad than a Tam. Here, you are more stringent about a Tam than a Mu'ad! (Without this Drashah, you would obligate a Tam, even though a Mu'ad is exempt! We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

.

(b)

Retraction: [Rather, we need "u'Va'al ha'Shor Naki'' to exempt from Demei Vlados, for one might have thought that] people who do not intend [to kill the woman] are obligated [Demei Vlados], and oxen that do not intend are exempt;

'' .

1.

One might have thought that if [oxen] intended, they are liable! "U'Va'al ha'Shor Naki'' exempts from Demei Vlados.

() ['' - '']

(c)

Another Beraisa teaches "u'Va'al ha'Shor Naki'' - from Demei Eved.

[ ] .

1.

(We do not need it for Demei Vlados.) Is it not written "v'Chi Yinatzu Anashim'' - people and not oxen?!

'' .

2.

(R. Chagai): The Beraisa means as follows. [One might have thought that] people who do not intend [to kill the woman] are obligated [Demei Vlados], and oxen that do not intend are exempt;

'' () ['' - '']

3.

One might have thought that if [oxen] intended, they are liable! "U'Va'al ha'Shor Naki'' exempts from Demei Eved. (The Gemara will explain why we do not expound it to teach about Demei Vlados.)

. .

4.

Question: Is it not written "Chi Yinatzu'' and "Ki Yerivun'' (Shmos 21:18) - Matzos and Merivah are the same (both mean fighting). Just like there he intended (if the victim died, the one who struck him is killed), also here [one who aborted a fetus] intended!

.

5.

[And] just like there he did not intend [for the one he struck], also there he did not intend (i.e. he intended to kill someone else, even so, he is killed for this. We explained this based on RIDVAZ.)

[ ]

(d)

Question: What was the conclusion?

1.

Note: All opinions exempt from Demei Vlados and Demei Eved. However, the Beraisa learns that "Chi Yinatzu'' and "Ki Yerivun'' both apply with or without intent for the victim. Presumably, R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak disagrees. (PF)

'.

(e)

Answer: It is like R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said. Initially, [the Parshah] discussed only a Tam...

[ ( )]

(f)

Question: What is the source [to obligate] for damage to a slave?

. '

(g)

Answer: "Oh Ben Yigach Oh Bas Yigach... V'Im Eved...'' (The Vov equates the Parshiyos. Just like one is liable for damage to Bnei Chorin, also for damage to slaves.)

:

(h)

R. Chiya bar Va and R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak argued about this. One said that the addition (payment for damage) cannot be greater than the Ikar (payment for killing him, i.e. 30 Shekalim). The other said that he pays all the damage [even if exceeds 30. We explained this like MAHARA FULDA.]

1.

Note: He did not distinguish a Tam from a Mu'ad. Why is damage called Tosefes? Perhaps it is because it is not explicit in the Torah. (PF)