REVACH L'DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
|
|
SUMMARY
According to Rebbi Yehudah a second-rate Shemirah is sufficient for a Mu'ad but not for a Tam.
Rebbi Eliezer Ben Yakov holds that a second-rate Shemirah is sufficient for both a Tam and a Mu'ad.
Ravina says that according to Rebbi Yehudah if a Shor of a Katan becomes a Mu'ad under the watch of a custodian and he subsequently becomes a Gadol the Shor remains a Mu'ad.
Rebbi Yosi holds that when he becomes a Gadol the Shor goes back to being a Tam.
A custodian of a Shor of orphans that gored pays Nezek Shalem from Aliyah but he does not pay Kofer if it kills a person. (1)
The Tana Kama holds that the Kofer that is paid when a Shor kills a person is the value of the Nizak.
Rebbi Yishmael Ben Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah says that Kofer is the value of the Mazik.
It is a question to Rebbi Nachman if two partners own a Shor that kills a person if each partner pays Chatzi Kofer or Kofer Shalem.
The treasurer of Hekdesh takes a Mashkon in order to force a person to pay money that he owes for Erchin, but a Mashkon is not taken from a person in order to force him to bring a Chatas or Asham. (2)
It is a question to Rebbi Nachman if a Mashkon is taken from a person in order to force him to pay Kofer if his Shor killed a person. (3)
If someone borrows a Shor with the understanding that it is a Tam and it turns out to be a Mu'ad, if it gores and causes damage the borrower pays half and the owner pays half. (4)
It is a Machlokes if the payment of Chatzi Nezek is a Knas or Mamon.
Rebbi Nasan says that if one person owes money to a second person and the second person owes money to a third person the third person may collect directly from the first person.
If a Shor is trained to gore it is not put to death if it kills a person.
If a Shor that is trained to gore kills a person, according to Rav it may be brought as a Korban since it is Anus while Shmuel argues.
An animal that is a Rove'a or a Nirva, or was worshipped as an Avodah Zarah, or was set aside to be a Korban for an Avodah Zarah, or it killed a person, it is Pasul to be brought on the Mizbe'ach. (5)
An animal that was Rove'a b'Ones is put to death, but if an animal kills a person b'Ones it is not put to death.
An animal that is Rove'a does not pay Kofer if a person is killed. (6)
A BIT MORE
1. The Tana of this Beraisa holds that Kofer is a Kaparah and orphans do not pay Kaparah.
2. It is not necessary to force someone to bring a Chatas or Asham because a person does not delay bringing his Korban since it atones for his sin.
3. Maybe since it is a Chiyuv money to his friend, not a Chiyuv to Hekdesh, it is not important to him and he will not pay without being forced. Moreover, maybe since it is his property that caused the damage and he didn't cause the damage himself it is not important to him and he needs to be forced to pay even though the payment is a Kaparah.
4. However, the borrower only pays Chatzi Nezek if he was aware that the Shor had the tendency to gore because otherwise he can say, "I borrowed a Shor, not a lion."
5. Even though an animal that is a Rove'a or a Nirva, or kills a person is put to death, however even if it does one of these things with only one witness and it is not put to death it may not be brought as a Korban.
6. According to Abaye if a person is killed from the actual Rove'a the owner does have to pay Kofer because Abaye holds that Regel and Shen pay Kofer, however if a person is put to death for being Rove'a the Shor the owner does not pay Kofer, while Rava holds that if a person is killed from the actual Rove'a the owner does not have to pay Kofer because Rava holds that Regel and Shen do not pay Kofer.
|
BRIEF INSIGHT
HIDING IN A SWAMP
If someone borrows a Shor with the understanding that it is a Tam and it turns out to be a Mu'ad, if it gores and causes damage the borrower pays half and the owner pays half. The Gemara asks why the borrower must pay Chatzi Nezek. Why cannot he claim that if it had been a Tam I would have hid the Shor in a swamp? The Tosfos ha'Rosh asks why it is permitted to hide the Shor in a swamp. According to Rebbi Yishmael the Shor is Meshu'abad to the Nizak and it is forbidden to damage the Shibud of a friend, and according to Rebbi Akiva the Nizak is a partner in the Hezek and it is outright Gezeilah to hide it from him. Tosfos answers that he could claim that he could have hid the Shor as a tactic so that the Nizak would have compromised with him and would have agreed to take only a small percentage of what was owed to him.
QUICK HALACHAH
SHIBUD D'RAV NASAN
If Reuven lent money to Shimon and Shimon lent money to Levi we take the money from Levi and give it to Reuven, whether the loan to Shimon was first or the loan to Levi was first whether the loan was with a Shtar or without. Since they both admit that they owe the money Levi must pay Reuven whether he owes the money from a loan or a purchase or a rental. (Shulchan Aruch CM 86:1)
|
Next Daf
Index to Revach for Maseches Bava Kama
|
