1)

Why does the Torah see fit to mention "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach"?

1.

Rashi and Ramban #1: Because, since in Pasuk 29, the Torah wrote "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah", 1 we might otherwise have thought that if the ox kills a Katan, the owner is Patur. 2

2.

Ramban #2: Because when an ox kills a grown-up, it is wicked (like a wild bear). Consequently, if the owner has been warned three times and allows it to happen a fourth time, he deserves the death-penalty with an option of paying Kofer. Not so children, who tend not to be afraid of them and for the ox to kill a child is more of a natural occurrence; we might have therefore thought that the owner is Patur. 3

3.

Mechilta: From "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach" we include a. a Tumtum and an Androginus; 4 b. Even one's own son and daughter. 5 c. Geirim. 6

4.

Oznayim la'Torah: According to R. Akiva, 7 the Torah needs to insert this, to explain that, despite the discrepancy between the 'value' of a Katan and a Ketanah a grown-up 8 , the owner is obligated to pay his 'value to atone for his soul...


1

Refer to 21:29:5:1.

2

As Rashi explains (regarding a case of murder) in Vayikra 24:17 (Ramban).

3

Seeing as oxen do not generally attack people.

4

A Safek Ben or Bas (Torah Temimah).

5

Even though he will ultimately inherit them. See Torah Temimah, note 233.

6

The ox is stoned even if there are no heirs to whom to pay (Torah Temimah).

7

Refer to 21:10:2:1.

8

Five Shekalim against fifty Shekalim.

2)

Why does the Torah begin the Pasuk with the word "O"?

1.

Ramban #1: It means literally "if it (the ox) gores a man, or a woman, or a son (a Katan) or a daughter (a Ketanah) ... ".

2.

Ramban #2 (citing the R'dak) and Targum Yonasan 1 : It is synonymous with "Im" (If). 2


1

See also Rashi in Vayikra, 4:23. Rashi in Iyov, 42:8, translates "O" as 'Asher'.

2

As we find in later in Pasuk 36, and in Vayikra, 5:2. The Ramban however, rejects this interpretation together with the references. See Rav Chavel's footnotes.

3)

Why does the Torah repeat the word "O Bas Yigach"?

1.

Bava Kama, 44a: Since the initial Pasuk is discussing a MU'ad, and where the victim died, it incorporates a Katan (who has been gored) a. by a Tam and b. by Nizakin (where he is wounded but does not die). 1

2.

Mechilta: It incorporates where the victim is a. ... a Tumtum or an Androginos; 2 b. ... one's own son or daughter; 3 c. ... a Ger. 4


1

See Torah Temimah, note 231.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 232.

3

See Torah Temimah, note 233.

4

See Torah Temimah, note 234.

4)

What are the implications of "ka'Mishpat ha'Zeh"?

1.

Bava Kama, 33a: "ka'Mishpat" comes to include the distinction between Tam and Mu'ad to an ox that killed a person; and "ha'Zeh", 1 to preclude him from the Din of 'four things'. 2


1

See Torah Temimah, note 236.

2

To exempt him from Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes.

QUESTIONS ON RASHI

5)

Rashi writes that the current Pasuk renders the owner Chayav even if it killed a Katan. Why do we thhen need a Pasuk to render him Chayav for killing an adult?

1.

Riva citing R"A: We might have thought that he is liable only for Ketanim, since they do not know to protect themselves, but not for adults. 1


1

WE cannot answer that Pasuk 29 is needed to include biting, pushing and kicking, since that would not explain why it inserts "Ish O Ishah".

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & DonationsReaders' FeedbackMailing ListsTalmud ArchivesAsk the KollelDafyomi WeblinksDafyomi CalendarOther Yomi calendars