More Discussions for this daf
1. Male or female? 2. Amar Rabbi Abba...

Avrahom asks:

I hope all in the kollel are well Achinu Kol Beis Yisrael Hanesunim Btzarah Uvashivyah.

I am having difficulty comprehending the bikius of the situation.

After two attempts to establish our Mishnah as not the Shitah of Reb Yossi HaGalili, the Gemara takes two breathers and says "Kasha"

Mu understanding is that according to Reb Yossi HaGalili, that as long as the Kadshei Kalim have not undergone shechitah or Zerikas HaDam, they are the full property of the owner.

I Rab Abbas asking a Kasha based on a shitah that's not Rav Yossi Hagalili?

To clarify:

A. The Nizak Shor Tam was nagach the Mazik's Shor which was designated as a shelamim.

Q1. Why is the discussion of Chatzi Nezek discussing the exclusion of the Maamurin? This is clearly before shechitah and Zerikas haDam, it's Kadshei Kalim.

Q2. Did the Negicha of the Maize's OX kill the Shelamim OX before it fell into the pit? Or did it push int into the pit and the pit was ten tefachim and the fall killed it.

If the negicha killed the shot before it fell into the pit then Tam & Mad apply.

If it was not Negicha but let's say Regel. Then there is no Inyan of Tam at all!

Again if the pit killed it. what Is a Bor sheen darcho leilech ulehazik, aval Muad Metechilaso.

1. It hasn't been shechted and there was no zerikas hadam- this particular Shor is dead so there never will be. Why is the removal of a future safeik that this Shor making it to the Beis Hamikdash that the Maurim are being discussed? To build on that assuming that it would have made it at this juncture the existence of Maamurin is a Davar Solo Haya Beolam.

2. If the Bor killed it the ball Habor should be chayav the entire Nezek. And Tam killed it- then the calculation of the Amuriim should also be irrelevant and the Baal Hamazik should be chyav half?

What am I missing?

Avrahom, USA

The Kollel replies:

Dear Avrahom,

First of all, our Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi. The Gemara questions whether a different Mishnah (Kidushin 52b) might not be Rebbi Yosi. The Kashya is only on the second way (Ravina) concerning Ben Azai. See the D.A.F.'s Outline of the Daf for a good summary.

Concerning your questions, Rebbi Yosi of Kodshim Kalim never meant the Emurim part; it is Hekdesh property (Rabeinu Chananel) or used by Hekdesh (Ramban).

Rebbi Aba's case is a Mazik which is a Shelamim (which has two parts, private and Hekdesh, even according to Rebbi Yosi) that gored alone a regular ox. The Gemara compares it to a regular ox pushing another ox into a pit. Here, too, there is a two-part Mazik. It died hitting the pit because of both the ox and the pit. There is no Regel here, since the ox intended to be Mazik, which is Keren.

In our case, the ox is already now part Hekdesh. The ox did half the job and therefore pays half of its half.

All the best,

Reuven Weiner

Avraham asks:

So this Gemara shifted from the evaluation of Nizikim by Tam from evaluating the Mazik's worth.

Prior to that the Gemara appeared to be discussing the compensation based on the valuation of the Nizak (as it discussed deducting the value of the Nizak's Neveilah).

Where in the masechtah do they discuss that Nezek of a Tam is evaluated based on the mazik or nizak?

The Kollel replies:

Dear Avrahom,

Everything is discussed here. There are two different evaluations.

One subject is the decrease in value of the Nizak's animal because of the attack (without any connection to the Mazik's worth) -- how much does the Nizak deserve (and, by Tam, only if possible based on what is available from the Mazik's animal).

The second subject is who/what is obligated to pay especially when there are two parts to the Mazik's side, like animal-pit or half-Kodshim, etc. The Gemara explains from whom, from where, and how much can be collected.

All the best,

Reuven Weiner