Gittin - Daf 49
- Payment when one’s ox gores an ox of hekdesh
The Gemara quoted a Baraisa where Rebbe Akiva said that the Torah requires payment for damages from his עידית and concluded: וקל וחומר להקדש – and this is certainly true for a payment to hekdesh. The Gemara wonders where this applies, because if someone’s ox gores an ox belonging to hekdesh, he is entirely exempt from paying, because "שור רעהו" אמר רחמנא – the Torah says one pays for damages for his friend’s ox, ולא שור של הקדש – but not at all for an ox of hekdesh!? Ultimately, the Gemara answers that Rebbe Akiva holds like Rebbe Shimon ben Menasya, who said: שור של הקדש שנגח לשור של הדיוט פטור – If hekdesh’s ox gores a commoner’s ox, [hekdesh] is exempt from paying. ושל הדיוט שנגח לשור של הקדש – But if a commoner’s ox gores hekdesh’s ox, בין תם ובין מועד – whether his ox was a תם or מועד (i.e., whether or not the owner would ordinarily have to pay for half or full damages), משלם נזק שלם – he pays full damages to hekdesh. He interprets the above derashah as teaching that the distinction to pay half-damages for a תם only applies for damages to a “friend’s ox,” but damages to hekdesh’s ox are always paid in full
- Ravina: The Mishnah means that a ניזק receives עידית mid’Oraysa for “societal benefit”
On the previous Daf, the Gemara asked how the Mishna could describe damage payments from עידית as being for תיקון העולם, if it is really based on a Biblical law. Abaye had answered that it follows Rebbe Yishmael. Ravina offers another explanation that the Mishna can follow Rebbe Akiva who holds: מדאורייתא בדמזיק שיימינן – Biblically speaking, we assess עידית based on the responsible party’s properties. Although the payment from עידית is actually d’Oraysa, ור' שמעון היא דדריש טעמא דקרא – it is the opinion of Rebbe Shimon, who usually darshens the reasoning of the passuk. Thus, he is saying that the Torah required paying damages from עידית for a societal benefit. In a Baraisa, he explains the benefit: מפני הגזלנים ומפני החמסנין – Because of robbers and extortioners, כדי שיאמר אדם – so a man will say, למה אני גוזל ולמה אני חומס – “Why should I steal?” Or, “Why should I extort?” למחר ב"ד יורדין לנכסי – Tomorrow, Beis Din will come seize my property, ונוטלין שדה נאה שלי – and take away my best field. He explains that a creditor collects from בינונית and not עידית to discourage people from lending money as a means of obtaining a borrower’s high-grade field. Still, they do not collect זיבורית, because if they would, אתה נועל דלת בפני לווין – you are thereby closing the door in the face of borrowers, i.e., potential lenders will refrain from lending money, knowing they will have to collect inferior property.
- Collecting Kesubah from זיבורית: from orphans, or from the husband?
The Mishnah taught that a kesubah is collected from זיבורית. Mar Zutra brei d’Rav Nachman, said: לא אמרן אלא מיתמי – We said this only for a widow collecting her kesubah from orphans. אבל מיניה דידיה בבינונית – But a divorcee, who is collecting from [the husband] himself, she collects בינונית. The Gemara objects that the restriction to collect זיבורית from orphans applies to all debts, and not only kesubah!? It answers that there is an additional novelty in teaching that a kesubah is collected from orphans’ זיבורית: ס"ד אמינא משום חינא – I might think that because of “favor” (as Rashi explains, better collections rights as an incentive for women to marry), אקילו רבנן גבה – the Rabbis were lenient towards her and allowed her to collect from בינונית. The Mishnah teaches this is not so, and that even kesubah is collected from orphans’ זיבורית. Similarly, the Gemara explains that Rebbe Meir, who holds a kesubah is collected from בינונית, can hold it is collected even from orphans’ בינונית, to encourage women to marry. On the next Daf, the Gemara refutes Mar Zutra’s opinion, and concludes that a kesubah is always collected from זיבורית, even from the husband’s.
