הא מני ר' יוסי הגלילי היא דאמר תם משלם חצי כופר As it can be explained: According to whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: The owner of an innocuous ox pays half the ransom. According to his opinion, the only differences between innocuous and forewarned oxen are those specified in the mishna.
ת"ש המית שורי את פלוני או שורו של פלוני הרי זה משלם על פי עצמו מאי לאו בתם לא במועד The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. One who said: My ox killed so-and-so, or: My ox killed an ox belonging to so-and-so, this owner pays based on his own admission. What, is this not referring to an innocuous ox, for which he pays half the damage, proving that it is a payment of money and not a fine? The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the tanna is referring to a forewarned animal.
אבל בתם מאי אינו משלם על פי עצמו אדתני סיפא עבדו של פלוני אינו משלם ע"פ עצמו ניפלוג וניתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים במועד אבל תם אינו משלם על פי עצמו כולה במועד קמיירי The Gemara asks: However, in the case of an innocuous ox, what is the halakha? If it is that he does not pay based on his own admission, then, rather than teaching the latter clause of the mishna: One whose ox killed a slave belonging to so-and-so does not pay based on his own admission, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to a forewarned ox; however, the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara rejects this proof: The entire mishna is speaking of a forewarned ox, and does not address the halakha of an innocuous ox at all. Therefore, no proof can be cited with regard to the nature of half the payment.
ת"ש זה הכלל כל המשלם יתר על מה שהזיק אינו משלם ע"פ עצמו הא פחות ממה שהזיק משלם ע"פ עצמו לא תימא הא פחות ממה שהזיק אלא אימא הא כמה שהזיק משלם ע"פ עצמו The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than what he damaged, the payments are fines, and therefore he does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara infers: If he pays less than what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. Apparently, payment of half the damage is a payment of money, not a fine. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not infer and say: If he pays less than what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. Infer and say: If he pays precisely what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission.
אבל פחות מאי אינו משלם ע"פ עצמו ליתני זה הכלל כל שאינו משלם כמה שהזיק אינו משלם על פי עצמו דמשמע פחות ומשמע יתר תיובתא The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, if he pays less than the damage he caused, what is the halakha? If it is that he does not pay based on his own admission, let the tanna teach a more general principle: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged does not pay based on his own admission, as that formulation both indicates one who pays less and indicates one who pays more than the damage he inflicted. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that payment of half the damage is a fine.
והלכתא פלגא ניזקא קנסא תיובתא והלכתא אין טעמא מאי איתותב משום דלא קתני כמה שהזיק לא פסיקא ליה כיון דאיכא חצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירי לה דממונא הוא משום הכי לא קתני The Gemara further concludes: And the halakha is that payment of half the damage is a fine. The Gemara asks: Is there a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and the halakha is in accordance with that opinion? The Gemara responds: Yes, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, as, what is the reason that his opinion was conclusively refuted? It is because the tanna does not teach: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged. However, the reason the tanna did not employ that formulation is not clear-cut for him, since there is the payment of half the damage caused by pebbles dispersed by an animal proceeding in its usual manner. As it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the payment for pebbles is a monetary payment, not a fine; it is due to that fact that the tanna did not teach the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. In the case of pebbles, although he does not pay the amount that he damaged, he pays based on his own admission.
והשתא דאמרת פלגא ניזקא קנסא האי כלבא דאכל אימרי ושונרא דאכיל תרנגולי רברבי משונה הוא ולא מגבינן בבבל אבל זוטרי אורחיה הוא ומגבינן Based on that ruling, the Gemara concludes: And now that you said that payment of half the damage is a fine, this dog that ate lambs, and a cat that ate large roosters, is unusual damage, for which the owner is liable to pay only half the damage if the animal was innocuous, and therefore, we do not collect it in Babylonia. The payment for unusual damage is a fine, and fines cannot be collected in Babylonia, as there are no ordained judges authorized to adjudicate cases involving fines. However, if the cat ate small roosters, that is its usual manner, and we collect the damages in Babylonia, as it is a payment of money.
ואי תפס לא מפקינן מיניה ואי אמר אקבעו לי זימנא לארץ ישראל מקבעינן ליה ואי לא אזיל משמתינן ליה The Gemara comments: And in cases of fines, if the injured party seized property from the offender in the amount of the fine, even in Babylonia we do not repossess it from him, as according to the letter of the law he is entitled to that payment, and the party from whom he seized the property cannot claim that he does not owe that payment. And if the injured party said: Set me a time to go to a court in Eretz Yisrael, where cases of fines are adjudicated, we set a time for him, and if the other disputant does not go to Israel as demanded, we excommunicate him.
בין כך ובין כך משמתינן ליה דאמרינן ליה סליק הזיקך מדרבי נתן דתניא ר' נתן אומר מנין שלא יגדל אדם כלב רע בתוך ביתו ולא יעמיד סולם רעוע בתוך ביתו שנאמר (דברים כב, ח) ולא תשים דמים בביתך: The Gemara adds: Either way, whether or not he agrees to go to Eretz Yisrael, if he keeps the cause of the damage, we in Babylonia excommunicate him, as we say to him: Remove your cause of damage, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and may not place an unsteady ladder in his house? It is as it is stated: “And you shall make a parapet for your roof that you shall not place blood in your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8). It is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in one’s house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated.
הדרן עלך אלו נערות
May we return to you chapter “These are the young girls.”
מתני׳ נערה שנתפתתה בושתה ופגמה וקנסה של אביה והצער בתפוסה עמדה בדין עד שלא מת האב הרי הן של אב מת האב הרי הן של אחין MISHNA: In the case of a young woman who was seduced, the compensation for her humiliation and her degradation and her fine belong to her father. And the same applies to the compensation for pain in the case of a woman who was raped. If the young woman stood trial against the seducer or rapist before the father died, these payments belong to her father, as stated above. If the father died before he collected the money from the offender, the payments belong to her brothers. As the father’s heirs, they inherit the money to which he was entitled before he passed away.
לא הספיקה לעמוד בדין עד שמת האב הרי הן של עצמה עמדה בדין עד שלא בגרה הרי הן של אב מת האב הרי הן של אחין לא הספיקה לעמוד בדין עד שבגרה הרי הן של עצמה רבי שמעון אומר אם לא הספיקה לגבות עד שמת האב הרי הן של עצמה However, if she did not manage to stand in judgment before the father died, and she was subsequently awarded the money, the compensation belongs to her, as she is now under her own jurisdiction due to the fact that she no longer has a father. If she stood trial before she reached majority, the payments belong to her father, and if the father died, they belong to her brothers, who inherit the money notwithstanding the fact that she has become a grown woman since the trial. If she did not manage to stand in judgment before she reached majority, the money belongs to her. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if she stood trial in her father’s lifetime but did not manage to collect the payments before the father died, the brothers do not inherit this money, as it belongs to her.