Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

בבא קמא ד׳:ח׳ - ד׳:ט׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, August 22, 2024 is בבא קמא ד׳:ח׳ - ד׳:ט׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 4 Mishnah 8

בבא קמא פרק ד׳ משנה ח׳

8
With regard to an ox that is leaving court to be stoned for killing a person and its owner then consecrated it, it is not considered consecrated, i.e., the consecration does not take effect, since deriving benefit from the ox is prohibited and the ox is therefore worthless. If one slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden to be eaten and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. But if its owner consecrated it before its verdict the ox is considered consecrated, and if he slaughtered it its flesh is permitted.
שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לְהִסָּקֵל וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְעָלָיו, אֵינוֹ מֻקְדָּשׁ. שְׁחָטוֹ, בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְעָלָיו, מֻקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ, בְּשָׂרוֹ מֻתָּר:
ח׳
ברטנורא

ואם שחטו אסור – [if he slaughtered it, he is prohibited from] eating it, as it is written (Exodus 21:28): “The ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, [but the owner of the ox is not to be punished].”From the plain meaning of the verse, it implies, as it is stated, “the ox shall be stoned” – don’t I know that it is considered as carrion and carrion is forbidden to be eaten? What then is to be learned here for the verse to say “and its flesh shall not be eaten”- but rather to say to you, that if he advanced to kill it after judgement had been passed upon it, it is forbidden.

הקדישו בעליו מוקדש – and we learn from this that if he derived benefit from it, he has committed religious sacrilege.

ואם שחטו אסור. באכילה. דכתיב (שמות כ״א:כ״ח) סקול יסקל השור ולא יאכל את בשרו, ממשמע שנאמר סקול יסקל השור איני יודע שהיא נבלה ונבילה אסורה באכילה, ומה תלמוד לומר ולא יאכל את בשרו, אלא לומר לך שאם קדם ושחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו אסור:

הקדישו בעליו מוקדש. ונפקא מינה דאי מתהני מיניה מעל:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 4 Mishnah 9

בבא קמא פרק ד׳ משנה ט׳

9
If the owner of an ox conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, or to a paid bailee, or to a renter, and it caused damage while in their custody, they enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner. Therefore, if it was forewarned the bailee pays the full cost of the damage, and if it was innocuous he pays half the cost of the damage. If the ox’s owner tied it with reins to a fence or locked the gate before it in an appropriate manner, but nevertheless the ox emerged and caused damage, whether the ox is innocuous or forewarned the owner is liable, since this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that if the ox is innocuous the owner is liable even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous ox. But if the ox is forewarned, the owner is exempt from paying compensation for damage, as it is stated in the verse describing damage by a forewarned ox: “And the owner has not secured it” (Exodus 21:36), and this ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate was secured. Rabbi Eliezer says: An ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife; there is no degree of safeguarding that exempts the ox’s owner from liability.
מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וּלְשׁוֹאֵל, לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וּלְשׂוֹכֵר, נִכְנְסוּ תַחַת הַבְּעָלִים, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. קְשָׁרוֹ בְעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵרָה, וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק, אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, תָּם חַיָּב וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו, וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין:
ט׳
ברטנורא

ונעל בפניו כראוי – [locked it up before him] with a door that can withstand an ordinary wind, and that is identical with a lesser guarding.

ומועד פטור – from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him, but the side of that it should die stands in his place, and he (i.e., the owner) pays half-damages like an innocuous ox, as it is written (Exodus 21:29): “[and its owner, though warned,] has failed to guard it,” regarding a forewarned ox. But if he had guarded it/watched it a little bit, he is exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning to him.

רבי אליעזר אומר – there is no guarding for a forewarned ox other than a knife,

עד שישחטנו – until he slaughters it. But there three disputes in this matter. For Rabbi Meir, with lesser guarding, he is liable and with more prominent [guarding], he is exempt. For Rabbi Yehuda, with lesser guarding, he is also exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him. But he is liable on the side of “it shall die” that is in it, until he guards him with a more prominent level of guarding. And to Rabbi Eliezer, even with a more prominent guarding, he is also liable. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. But however, it is ab initio, a Mitzvah to slaughter the forewarned ox in order to remove the damages.

ונעל בפניו כראוי. בדלת שיכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה. והיינו שמירה פחותה:

ומועד פטור. מצד העדאה שבו. אבל צד תמות במקומה עומדת. ומשלם חצי נזק כתם. דכתיב ולא ישמרנו גבי מועד. הא שמרו כל דהו פטור מצד העדאה:

רבי אליעזר אומר, אין לו שמירה למועד אלא סכין. עד שישחטנו. ושלש מחלוקות בדבר. לר״מ בשמירה פחותה חייב ובמעולה פטור. ולרבי יהודה בשמירה פחותה נמי פטור מצד העדאה שבו. אבל חייב על צד תמות שבו. עד שישמרנו שמירה מעולה. ולר״א במעולה נמי חייב. והלכה כרבי יהודה. ומיהו לכתחלה מצוה, לשחוט שור המועד כדי לסלק ההיזק:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר