אידי ואידי אשן, והא דמכליא קרנא, הא דלא מכליא קרנא
The גמרא says that we learn that you are חייב for שן and רגל from the פסוק of "ושלח
את הבעירה ובער בשדה אחר" . We know that ובער refers to שן because of the פסוק in נביא that
says " כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו ". We know that ושלח refers to רגל because of another פסוק in
נביא that says " ."משלחי רגל השור והחמור
The גמרא then asks why we need the פסוק of משלחי רגל השור והחמור , as we could
have deduced that ושלח refers to רגל by using the process of elimination. קרן was already
written ( כי יגח ), and שן was also already written ( ובער בשדה אחר ), so the only thing that
ושלח could refer to is רגל , so why do we need ?משלחי רגל השור והחמור
The גמרא then goes on to answer that we would have thought that both ושלח and
ובער teach us that you are חייב for שן , and the reason you need both phrases is that one
ובער) ) would teach us that you are חייב for מכליא קרנא (completely destroyed), and the
other phrase ( ושלח ) teaches that you are even חייב for לא מכליא קרנא (when it didn't eat the
קרן ). Thus, we need משלחי רגל השור והחמור to teach us that ושלח teaches us about .רגל
If we learn רגל from ושלח , from where do we learn that one is חייב for שן דמכליא
קרנא ? The גמרא answers that we learn it from רגל . Just like by רגל it makes no difference
whether it was מכליא קרנא , so too by שן it makes no difference if it was .מכליא קרנא
What qualifies ?מכליא קרנא
רש"י defines מכליא קרנא as when the animal eats from a vegetable patch and it will
not grow back, and לא מכליא קרנא is when it will grow back, but not as well as before.
ר' משה פינקל explains that the reason רש"י says that the animal ate from a patch is
that when one eats from an entire patch, the way one evaluates how much he must pay is
by taking the difference between what the a בית סאה of the patch used to be valued and
what its value is now. If the plant will grow back, then the value of the patch is not really
going down – it did not harm the intrinsic value of the land. However, since it did not
grow back quite as well as it did before, and that is the reason that you are חייב to pay
even by לא מכליא קרנא – the plants did not grow back as well so the land lost some value.
According to this explanation, רש"י holds that the קרן is the intrinsic value of the
land and that the פירות are simply the added value to the land because of the produce.
תוס' ask on רש"י that even if the plant grows back, the farmer lost his chance to
harvest that piece of produce, so there is a loss and thus what רש"י defines as לא מכליא
קרנא should really be defined as .מכליא קרנא
תוס' thus define מכליא קרנא differently than רש"י . They say that מכליא קרנא is when
the animal did real damage to a לא מכליא קרנא .פרי is when the animal just made the fruit
dirty, and it is now an inconvenience to clean it up.
We explained in שיעור that ' תוס says that there is a difference between the קרן of
מטלטלין and the פירות of מטלטלין . The קרן of the מטלטלין is the object itself, and to damage
the פירות of מטלטלין you couldn't do damage to the גוף of the פרי but rather must do
something external to the פרי such as making it dirty.
The רשב"א asks a question on תוספות . The גמרא later on says that טינפה פירות is a
תולדה of שן . If so, why do we need to learn לא מכליא קרנא from רגל (see above); shouldn't
we learn it from ?שן
One possible answer hinted to by ' תוס is that we need רגל to teach us that it is even
a תולדה of .שן
However, the רשב"א rejects this answer as later on in the גמרא we learn out a case
of רגל (where he actively sent the animal to do damage) from שן , and that case in רגל is
considered an אב in רגל . If so, shouldn't שן דמכליא קרנא also be an ?אב
תוס' ר' ישעיה says a פשט slightly different from ' תוס that avoids the רשב"א 's
question. He says that מכליא קרנא is when the animal ate it and swallowed it – destroyed
it completely. לא מכליא קרנא is when the animal chewed it up and spit it out. Since
chewing up food and spitting it out is not a תולדה of שן (it is an אב ), it avoids the רשב"א 's
question. The הוה אמינא of the גמרא was that שן must be אכילה ממש to be .חייב
The רשב"א says a פשט that is similar to that of רש"י . He says that when an animal
eats שחת it will grow back even better than before.
The גרסא that is at the end of our version of the רשב"א is: " מ"מ אם בא בעל השחת
להשתלם לפי נזקו ולא כל מה שבהמה מגרעת מן הפירות קרי מכליא קרנא"
The גליון אלפס says that there is a גירסא mistake in the .רשב"א
ר' אליהו לייכטינשטיין (the editor of the מוסד רב קוק edition of the רשב"א ) says that the
correct גירסא in the רשב"א would be: "...ולא כל מה שבהמה מגרעת מן הפירות, והיכא דמשלם כל מה
שבהמה מגרעת מן הפירות קרי מכליא קרנא"
According to this גירסא , if the שחת grew back better, then the מזיק must pay the
difference between what he damaged and it is considered to be לא מכליא קרנא . If the שחת
grew back just as it was before (or worse), then the מזיק pays the amount that he damaged
(and if it didn't grow back as well, the difference between what was there before and what
is there now), and it is considered to be .מכליא קרנא
However, this גירסא is difficult to work with because it says that whether the
damage is מכליא קרנא is determined by the amount you pay, not by the damage you did. It
would make more sense to base מכליא קרנא on the extent of the damage.
It is possible that the correct גירסא is: "...וכל מה שבהמה מגרעת מן הפירות קרי לא מכליא
קרנא ". If so, then it means that whenever the only damage is the loss of the פרי (and not
the loss of intrinsic value of the land), then it is considered to be .לא מכליא קרנא
Whenever there is also a loss in value of the land (i.e. it will not grow back as well), it is
considered to be .מכליא קרנא