POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 44
1) LIABILITY FOR MINORS
(a) (Mishnah): And similarly for a boy or girl.
2) KILLING UNINTENTIONALLY
(b) (Beraisa): "Or if it will gore a boy or girl" - (we kill
the ox) for minors as for adults.
1. Suggestion: We should be able to learn from man, who
is liable for minors as adults!
(c) Question: This was said by a Mu'ad - how do we know
regarding a Tam?
i. A person that kills a minor is (killed) as one
who kills an adult - also, an ox that kills a
minor should be (killed) as an ox that kills an
2. Rejection: No - a man that kills is more stringent,
he pays 4 (additional) damages - we cannot learn to
an ox that only pays Nezek - we need "A boy or a
ii. Moreover, there is a Kal va'Chomer: a child
that kills is not (killed) as an adult that
kills, yet people are killed for killing
children - a young ox that kills a person is
(killed) as a mature ox, all the more so, an ox
that kills a minor is as one that kills an
(d) Answer #1: The Torah said that we kill the ox for goring
a man or woman, and for a boy or girl. Just as regarding
a man or woman, Tam is as Mu'ad, also regarding a boy or
1. Moreover, it is a Kal va'Chomer: men and women have
less privileges regarding damages (when they damage,
they are liable), Tam is liable for them as Mu'ad -
minors, who are privileged regarding damages (they
are exempt for damage), all the more so Tam is
liable for them as Mu'ad!
(e) Answer #2: "If it will gore a boy, if it will gore a
girl" - it says "gore" twice, the verse speaks of a Mu'ad
and a Tam that gore, regarding death and damages.
2. Question: Can we make such a Kal va'Chomer, to be
i. We are stringent for killing adults, for they
are commanded to keep Mitzvos - perhaps we are
lenient for killing minors,who are exempt from
(a) (Mishnah): In the following cases, an ox is exempt:
1. It was scratching on the wall, and it fell on a man;
(b) (Gemara - Shmuel): The animal is not killed, but it pays
2. It intended to kill an animal, a Nochri, or a
non-viable baby, and killed a (healthy) Yisrael.
(c) (Rav): It is exempt from both.
(d) Question: Why does Shmuel say it pays Kofer - it is Tam!
(e) Answer: Just as Rav said (elsewhere), the case is, the ox
is Mu'ad to fall on people in pits - the ox is Mu'ad to
kill people when scratching on walls.
(f) Question: If so, we kill the ox!
1. By the pit, we can say it saw food, and therefore
fell in - but here, it intended to kill!
(g) Answer: No, it was scratching for its own benefit.
(h) Question: How do we know this?
(i) Answer: After it fell, it resumed scratching.
(j) Question: This is only pebbles (the ox made the wall
fall, the wall killed)!
3) KILLING AN UNINTENDED VICTIM
(k) Answer (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): The ox was weighing
down on the wall the entire time it was falling.
(l) A Beraisa supports Shmuel, and refutes Rav.
1. (Beraisa): Sometimes the ox is killed and pays
Kofer; sometimes the ox is not killed but it pays
Kofer; sometimes the ox is killed but it is exempt
from Kofer; sometimes it is exempt from both.
(m) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
i. A Mu'ad that intended to kill - the ox is
killed and pays Kofer;
2. Damages without intent - R. Yehudah obligates, R.
ii. A Mu'ad that did not intend - the ox is not
killed but it pays Kofer;
iii. A Tam that intended - the ox is killed but it
is exempt from Kofer;
iv. A Tam that did not intend - the ox is exempt
(n) Answer: He learns from Kofer - just as one pays Kofer
even without intent, also damages.
(o) R. Shimon learns from stoning - just as we only kill the
ox when it intended, also payment of damages.
1. Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn as R. Shimon?
2. Answer: He prefers to learn payments from payments,
not from death.
3. Question: Why doesn't R. Shimon learn as R. Yehudah?
4. Answer: He prefers to learn damages from stoning,
which are both liabilities of the ox, not from
Kofer, which is an atonement for the owner.
(a) (Mishnah): It intended to kill an animal, and killed a
Yisrael...it is exempt.
4) WHICH KILLER-OXEN ARE KILLED?
(b) (Inference): Had it intended to kill Reuven and killed
Shimon, it would be liable!
(c) Our Mishnah is not as R. Shimon.
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Even if it intended to kill
Reuven and killed Shimon, it is exempt.
(d) Question: What is his reason?
(e) Answer: "The ox will be stoned, and also its owner will
die" - death of the ox is as of the owner;
1. Just as a man is only killed for killing his
intended victim, also an ox.
(f) Question: How does he know that a man is only killed for
killing his intended victim?
(g) Answer: "He waited in ambush for him, and rose upon him"
- he must intend for his victim.
(h) Question: What do Chachamim learn from that verse?
(i) Answer (d'vei R. Yanai): It excludes one who throws a
rock into a group and kills someone.
(j) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: If there are 9 Nochrim and 1 Yisrael
there - obviously he is exempt, the majority are
Nochrim (he did not expect to kill a Yisrael).
(k) The case is, there are 9 Yisraelim and 1 Nochri there -
even though the majority are Yisraelim, the minority is
considered 'fixed', it is as an even doubt, we do not
kill when in doubt.
i. Even if half were Nochrim, for an even doubt we
do not kill!
(a) (Mishnah): The following oxen are killed (for killing):
the ox of a woman, of orphans (without an Apotropus), of
(orphans with) an Apotropus, an ox of the wilderness, a
Hekdesh ox, and the ox of a convert that died without
1. R. Yehudah says, we do not kill an ox of the
wilderness, of Hekdesh, or of a convert that died
without heirs, because it has no owner.
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa): It says 'ox' 7 times in the Parsha -
6 are extra, to teach about 6 special oxen we kill: the
ox of a woman, of orphans, of an Apotropus, an ox of the
wilderness, a Hekdesh ox, and the ox of a convert that
died without heirs;
1. R. Yehudah says, we do not kill the last 3, because
they have no owners.
(c) (Rav Huna): R. Yehudah exempts even if it had an owner,
and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored.
(d) Question: How do we know that?
(e) Answer: Since the Mishnah teaches an ox of the wilderness
and the ox of a convert that died without heirs as
1. Question: Both are Hefker!
(f) Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Even if it had an owner,
and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored, it is
exempt - "The owner heard testimony on it, and it killed
(again...the ox will be stoned)" - the trial of the ox
must be as the goring, (i.e. when it has an owner).
2. Answer: Both are taught to teach that even if it had
an owner, and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it
gored, R. Yehudah exempts.
(g) Question: Don't we also need an owner at the time of the
verdict? "The ox will be stoned" is the verdict!
(h) Correction: Yes, it should say 'the goring, the trial,
and the verdict must be the same' (when it has an owner).