Commentary for Bava Kamma 4:13
ומלתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דמועד לאדם הוי מועד לבהמה ומועד לבהמה לא הוי מועד לאדם
But is that a [matter of] deduction? Is it not rather merely an elucidation of the term 'goring'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which might surely he obtained even from post- Pentateuchal texts. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
And the Torah teaches us, in passing, a concept. By using different verbs to describe the goring of a person as opposed to the goring of another animal, the Torah is teaching us that there is an inherent difference between killing a person and killing an animal. A greater effort and viciousness is required to kill a person. Therefore if an animal is muad to kill people, it is automatically muad to kill animals, but if the animal is muad to kill other animals it is not muad to kill people.
Tosafot points out that there seems to be a Gemara later that contradicts our conclusion. On (37a) Rav Papa clearly says that an animal that is muad to kill people is not muad to kill animals. Tosafot will attempt to reconcile this apparent contradiction.
And even according to Rav Papa who says later in Shor Shenogach Daled V’hay (37a) that a muad to kill people ordinarily is not muad to kill animals,which seems to contradict our Gemara and the lesson taught by the Braita,that is only when he killed only three people, by doing that he does not become muad to kill animals, but if he gored a person, an ox and a donkey which are three species he becomes muad for all including people.
However, if he gores an ox, a donkey and a camel, he does not become muad for people, even though he is muad for all animals, even according to Rav Papa as the Gemara says there (37a). That according to Rav Papa an ox who killed three different animals is a muad for all animals. The lesson of the Braita is still in effect, animals are more readily killed than humans. Tosafot offers a second solution to this contradiction:
And R’ M’nachem explained that the Gemara means to say as follows: An animal that is muad for people, who was a muad for everything including animals, and he retracted from animals, he saw an animal three times and did not attack it, but he remained a muad for people, there was no evidence that he retracted from killing people, remains a muad for animals, for the retraction from killing animals is inconclusive, as long as he remains a muad for people.
However, a muad for everything, people and animals, who retracted from killing people, is no longer muad to kill people, for his retraction from killing people is a retraction. According to this answer as well, we see that an animal is more likely to kill animals than humans, therefore his retraction from killing animals is inconclusive as long as he remains muad for people, but his retraction from killing people is a retraction even though he remains a muad for killing animals.
Tosafot points out that there seems to be a Gemara later that contradicts our conclusion. On (37a) Rav Papa clearly says that an animal that is muad to kill people is not muad to kill animals. Tosafot will attempt to reconcile this apparent contradiction.
And even according to Rav Papa who says later in Shor Shenogach Daled V’hay (37a) that a muad to kill people ordinarily is not muad to kill animals,which seems to contradict our Gemara and the lesson taught by the Braita,that is only when he killed only three people, by doing that he does not become muad to kill animals, but if he gored a person, an ox and a donkey which are three species he becomes muad for all including people.
However, if he gores an ox, a donkey and a camel, he does not become muad for people, even though he is muad for all animals, even according to Rav Papa as the Gemara says there (37a). That according to Rav Papa an ox who killed three different animals is a muad for all animals. The lesson of the Braita is still in effect, animals are more readily killed than humans. Tosafot offers a second solution to this contradiction:
And R’ M’nachem explained that the Gemara means to say as follows: An animal that is muad for people, who was a muad for everything including animals, and he retracted from animals, he saw an animal three times and did not attack it, but he remained a muad for people, there was no evidence that he retracted from killing people, remains a muad for animals, for the retraction from killing animals is inconclusive, as long as he remains a muad for people.
However, a muad for everything, people and animals, who retracted from killing people, is no longer muad to kill people, for his retraction from killing people is a retraction. According to this answer as well, we see that an animal is more likely to kill animals than humans, therefore his retraction from killing animals is inconclusive as long as he remains muad for people, but his retraction from killing people is a retraction even though he remains a muad for killing animals.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy