ואם שור נגח הוא מתמל שלשם והועד בבעליו ולא ישמרנו והמית איש או אשה השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת אם כפר יושת עליו ונתן פדין נפשו. Rashi explains that the יומת is מיתה בידי שמים (which is then atoned for by paying kofer.) Rashi in Ketubot (37b) says the same thing as well. However, Rashi Bava Kammah (2b) says that יומת means to pay money as it does not literally mean the owner gets killed. Why does Rashi there deviate from his interpretation in the other places?
Why does the Torah use the terminology of אם כופר if it is an obligation? Rashi says that this one example (of a few) where the word אם means an obligation. The Ramban says that this tells us something about the nature of kofer. בעבור היות הכופר כפרה כענין הקרבנות, ואם הוא אינו חפץ בה אין מכריחין אותו לבא לבית דין לחייבו בכך, ואפילו אם חייבוהו אין ממשכנין אותו, בעבור זה אמר: אם. It is not an obligation that will be forced upon the offender, if he wishes the atonement he will pay, if not, he will not be forced. The Ramban brings support from the Gemorah Bava Kammah (4oa) that says Beis Din will not seize the estate to pay kofer. We see that it is not a monetary obligation on the individual but rather an atonement which is upon him to decide if he wants or not. This seems to be in line with what the Ramban writes in Maakot (2b) that adim zommimin on the obligation of kofer are not obligated in any punishment because they are not making any money obligation on the accused party. They are merely coming to inform the accused that he should pay kofer but are not in actuality levying any obligation up on him. The Achronim ask that if we are ממשכנין for kofer is a question of the Gemorah and is not resolved so how can the Ramban explain the possuk according to one opinion?
No comments:
Post a Comment