What are the connotations of "ve'Chi Yigof"?
Rashi: "Yigof", which means to push, but with connotations of striking, incorporates goring with the horns, pushing with its body, kicking with its feet and biting with its teeth.
Why does the Torah write "ve'Chi Yigof", amd in Pasuk 36m refer to the ox as a Shor Nagach"?
Bava Kama: To teach us that "Yigof" means with the horns. 1
Why does the Torah write "Shor Ish"?
What are the implications of "Shor Re'eihu"?
Bava Kama, 37b: To preclude an ox belonging to Hekdesh or to a Nochri
See Torah Temimah, note 277, who explains the difference.
Which case is the Torah referring to, where the Mazik and the Nizak each take half the live ox and half the dead one?
Rashi: It speaks where both animals are worth the same - an ox worth two hundred Zuz gored an ox worth two hundred Zuz, 1 irrespective of the value of the carcass.
Because if you will say that it applies in all cases, sometimes the value of the Neveilah exceeds that of the Mazik, so if they divide the two animals, the owner of the Mazik will benefit; and sometimes half the value of the Mazik exceeds that of the Nizak, and the Nizak will receive more than the value of the full damage - in which case the Din of a Tam would be more stringent than that of a Mu'ad.
What is the underlying principle on which this ruling is based?
Rashi: This ruling is based on the principle that 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Nezek'.
To whom does "u'Machru" refer?
Bava Kama, 33a: It refers, not to Beis-Din, but to the Mazik and the Nizak
See Torah Temimah, note 278.
Why does the Torah then not simply say that the Mazik must pay half the damage?
Rashi: The Torah needs to present the case the way it does to teach us that the owner pays exclusively from the body of the ox. 1
Rashi: So that, in the event that the Mazik dies, the victim may only claim the Neveilah, and if the Mazik is worth a hundred and the Nizak five hundred, the owner can only claim the Mazik (in addition to the Neveilah of his ox) and loses the difference.
Why does the Torah insert the word "es ha'Shor ha'Chai"?
Bava Kama, 33b: To teach us that the same will apply even if one of them Shechted the ox. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 279.
What are the implications of "ve'Chatz'u es Kaspo"?
Bava Kama, 26a: It implies "Kaspo" 'shel Zeh, 1 ve'Lo Kaspo shel Shein ve'Regel'
What does "ve'Gam es ha'Meis Yechetzun" mean in a case where the two animals are of equal value?
Bava Kama, 34b (according to R. Yehudah): It means that, in the event that the value of the Neveilha either rises or decreases, they share the difference. 1
Whereas according to R. Meir, the entire Neveilah belongs to the Mazik. See Torah Temimah, note 282.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Yechetzun"?
Bava Kama, 26a: To teach us that the Din of Chatzi Nezek also applies in the R'shus ha'Yachid. 1
What does "ve'Gam es ha'Meis Yechetzun" mean in a case where the two animals are not of equal value?
Rashi: It means that the Nizak takes the Neveilah, and the balance (between the Neveilah and half the damage caused by the Mazik) from the body of the Mazik.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that a Shor Tam pays for half the damage. What is the reason?
Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua (Bava Kama 15a): Stam oxen are considered guarded. Really, he should be exempt. The Torah fined him, to encourage him to guard his ox.
Rav Papa (Bava Kama 15a): Stam oxen are not considered guarded. Really, the owner should pay full damage. The Torah was lenient 1 , because he was not yet warned to guard it.
Hadar Zekenim (28, citing R. Baruch): How does this opinion explain why one pays full damage for Shen and Regel? There, the Torah was lenient to exempt in Reshus ha'Rabim; he pays only in the victim's Reshus. (Perhaps since Shen and Regel are so common, it is as if he was warned! - PF.)