Our Shiur's Take on TOD"H Milsa (B"K 2b), by our talmid Moshe Shulman

בס"ד
מועד לאדם הוי מועד לבהמה, ומועד לבהמה לא הוי מועד לאדם

The גמרא states that we learn in passing from the use of both " כי יגח " and “ ”כי יגוף
that an animal that is מועד to attack people is also automatically מועד to attack animals but
an animal that is מועד to attack animals is not automatically מועד to attack people. This is
because killing a human is harder than killing an animal and is therefore more severe.

תוספות ד"ה "ומילתא אגב אורחיה" tries to explain how even רב פפא , who holds that an
ox that is מועד to gore people is not automatically מועד to gore animals, can be in
accordance with our רב פפא .גמרא seems to contradict the גמרא because he seems to say
that killing a human is not more severe than killing an animal

The גליון says simply that this statement in the גמרא does not go like .רב פפא
תוספות רבינו פרץ says that according to מועד לאדם הוי מועד לבהמה" ,רב פפא " means
that if an ox gores 2 animals of different types and 1 man, it is מועד for all בהמות . The
reason that this is true is that even though רב פפא holds that – מועד למין זה אינו מועד למין אחר
that if an ox is מועד to gore one type of animal it is not מועד to gore another type of animal
– he agrees that if an ox gored 3 different types of animals than it is מועד for all animals.
If we take away one מין from the animals that are gored and then put in an אדם , then for
sure it is מועד for all animals because אדם has מזל . (Note: it is not מועד לאדם in that case.)

However, if an ox gores 2 men and 1 animal, then it is not .מועד לאדם

תוספות explains רב פפא ’s opinion in a way that it agrees with the :גמרא
רב פפא holds (a) an ox that gored three people is not automatically מועד to gore animals
(b) however an ox that gored a human, an ox, and a donkey he becomes מועד
for both animals and humans
(c) but an ox that gores an ox, a donkey, and a camel he is only מועד for animals
This shows that רב פפא agrees with the גמרא that killing humans is more severe
than animals.

Part (b) and (c) explain how רב פפא learns our .גמרא

Why do תוספות and תוספות רבינו פרץ disagree over whether an ox is מועד לאדם if it
gored an אדם and two different types of בהמות ? What is the ?נקודת המחלקת
It could depend on what מזל means. רש"י ד"ה אדם אית ליה מזלא and in ד"ה כתיב כי יגח
says two explanations of how an אדם has מזל . The first explanation he gives is that an אדם
knows to protect himself. The second explanation he gives is that a מלאך protects an אדם
from dying.

We know that תוספות רבינו פרץ holds like the second explanation of רש"י . We
know this because there is a גמרא in סנהדרין that asks why we need a very high wall in a
בית סקילה – isn't a ten טפח pit enough to kill someone? תוספות רבינו פרץ here (in our (גמרא
asks why this question is a good question. Doesn't an אדם have מזל ? He answers that
maybe his מזל is bad as he is about to die. From his question, we see that he does not
hold that מזל is simply .דעת לשמור את גופו

Because of this, we can understand why תוספות רבינו פרץ holds that if an ox gores
an אדם and two בהמות then it is not מועד לאדם . Everyone's מלאך is different, so we need an
ox to gore 3 people to determine that it can overcome the מזל of the .אדם

On the other hand, תוספות may hold like the first explanation. If an ox gores one
אדם , we see that the ox has the strength to overcome the fact that an אדם has דעת to protect
himself. Thus, an ox is מועד לאדם if it gored one אדם and two בהמות because we see that it
is strong enough to gore an אדם even though an אדם has .מזל

This is all good according to the opinion that if an ox gores 3 מינים , it is מועד for
all בהמות . However, according to the רמב"ם , who says that if an ox gores 3 מינים it is מועד
only for those 3 מינים , how do you answer the question of ?תוספות

The רמב"ם could say like the גליון , but the מנחת שלמה suggests another answer.
The רמב"ם can hold like the נמוקי יוסף , who says that if an ox gores 2 different types of
animals and an אדם , then the ox is not מועד לאדם . When the גמרא says מועד לאדם הוי מועד
לבהמה , it means that if one gores one man and 2 animals, it is מועד for those 2 animals.
When the גמרא says מועד לבהמה לא הוי מועד לאדם , it means that if an ox gores 2 animals and
1 man, it is not מועד לאדם . [The רמב"ם could also say like ר' מנחם (see below)].

A second answer in תוספות is given by .ר' מנחם

The גמרא is talking about “ חזרה ” from מועד
a) An animal that is מועד for both humans and animals and retracts from goring
animals but remains מועד for people (there is no proof that it retracted from goring
humans) it remains מועד for animals because that is not considered a valid חזרה
b) however if the animal was מועד for both humans and animals and retracts from
goring humans it is not considered מועד for humans anymore because it is a valid חזרה
This answer also shows that killing a human is more severe because it is only a
חזרה if it retracts from goring humans (even if it continues to gore animals), but in the
lesser case of retracting from goring animals (and it doesn’t retract from humans) it is
not a good חזרה and רב פפא is not arguing with the גמרא

A similar example to explain this case is the case of the man that continues to jwalk
but stops holding up banks (a much more severe crime) said by Avigdor in class

The נחלת דוד asks on ר' מנחם : the גמרא on . דף ל"ז says that there is such thing as
חזרה from בהמה . How can ר' מנחם say that there is no such thing as חזרה לבהמה ? The נחלת
דוד answers that in the case on דף ל"ז is when an animal gored a man 3 times and is now
מועד לבהמה (according to רב זביד ). In that case there is חזרה for .בהמה

The מנחת שלמה explains the נחלת דוד in the following way: the reason רב פפא says
that if an ox is מועד to gore one מין it is not necessarily מועד to gore another מין is because
this ox might only gore one מין . On the other hand, רב זביד says that we assume that if this
ox gores one מין , it can gore a different one. However, רב זביד agrees that if we have
reason to believe that this ox will only gore a certain מין , then it is not מועד for another .מין
The fact that this ox is not goring בהמות in the case on דף ל"ז is reason to believe that this
ox was never מועד for בהמות , but only for אדם . However, in our case in תוספות this ox had
gored בהמות , as we are going like רב פפא who says מועד למין זה אינו מועד למין אחר , so there is
no חזרה for .בהמות

In contrast to ר' מנחם stands the ריב"א . The ריב"א says that if you are חוזר from
being מועד לבהמה then you are for sure חוזר from being מועד לאדם as an אדם has מזל and is
harder to gore. However, if you are חוזר from being מועד לאדם , you are not necessarily
חוזר from being מועד לבהמה , as it is easier to gore a .בהמה

The רמב"ם says in הלכות איסורי ביאה, פרק ד' הל' י"ב that a man cannot have relations
with his wife when it is time to be a נדה according to an established pattern. The מגיד
משנה says that this is only a ר' חיים .דרבנן , however, says that it appears from other places
that קביעות וסת – the establishment of a pattern, is an important part of נדה וזבה and should
be דאורייתא . He explains that קביעות וסת is דאורייתא when an event goes according to
pattern, but predictions based on this pattern are not part of וסת . This is why it is only an
איסור דרבנן to have relations with one's wife at the time of her וסת . This applies by a שור
מועד also. If this שור is מועד in certain situations, there is no דין saying that it will gore
again when it is in that situation again, but once it gores it is considered a goring of
.העדאה

The חזון איש , however, asks a question on ר' חיים . If we do not make a projection
that this שור מועד will gore in the situation in which it is מועד , how can you ever have
חזרה ?חזרה is based on the fact that the שור goes against the projection 3 times!
What then does ר' חיים hold that the סברה behind חזרה is? The answer may be in
בבא בתרא דף כח. , where the גמרא tries to learn out חזקת ג' שנים from העדאה (a שור becoming
תוספות .(מועד there calls חזקת ג' שנים a מילתא בלא טעמא . Three years changes the status of
the property. So too three gorings (or not-gorings) can change the status of the .שור
The חזון איש can not hold like the first explanation in רש"י as to what מזל is.
According to the חזון איש , since we guess what the animal will do, there has to be a
difference between how an animal sees an אדם and a בהמה in order to guess that this
animal will not gore an אדם . Thus, the חזון איש must hold like the second explanation in
רש"י , which is that a מלאך is guarding a person. Thus, the first explanation of רש"י (which
is that an אדם can guard himself) must hold like .ר' חיים

Now we can relate the מחלקת between ר' חיים and the חזון איש to the מחלקת between
ר' מנחם and the ריב"א . According to the חזון איש , if the שור was חוזר for בהמה , which had
no מלאך protecting it, then we can project that this שור was also חוזר for אדם , which it is
afraid of א. This is like the .ריב"א

On the other hand, according to ר' חיים , if an animal was חוזר for בהמה there is no
reason to believe that it is also חוזר for אדם . Thus, the animal is still .מועד לאדם
Ordinarily, רב פפא would say that if a שור is מועד לאדם it is not necessarily .מועד לבהמה
However, here we have reason to believe that this שור is capable of goring an animal (see
the נחלת דוד and the מנחת שלמה which were discussed above). Thus, the animal becomes
מועד לבהמה because it is מועד לאדם here.

א There is precedent for an animal being afraid of a מלאך . See במדבר כ"ב:כ"ג and רש"י ד"ה ותרא האתון there.