Bava Kamma 41

כמאן דקטלה דמי קא משמע לן

that the ox should be considered like one that killed her, as it was the reason for her execution, and therefore its owner should be liable to pay a ransom, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

רבא אמר לעולם דרבעה וקטלה ודקא קשיא לך מה לי קטלה בקרנים מה לי קטלה ברביעה קרן כוונתו להזיק האי כוונתו להנאת עצמו הוא

Rava said: Actually, it is a case where the animal engaged in bestiality with her and killed her in the process. And as for the difficulty you pose: What is the difference to me whether it killed her with its horns, and what is the difference to me whether it killed her through bestiality, the answer is that in that case of an animal killing with its horn, its intention is to cause injury, whereas in this case of killing through bestiality its intention is to achieve its own pleasure.

במאי פליגי ברגל שדרסה על גבי תינוק בחצר הניזק לאביי משלם כופר לרבא לא משלם כופר

The Gemara asks: With regard to what other case would Abaye and Rava disagree? They disagree with regard to a case where an ox trampled a child with its foot, killing it, in the courtyard of the injured party. According to Abaye, the owner pays the ransom, as he holds that ransom is paid even if the animal’s objective was not to cause injury or death. According to Rava, he does not pay the ransom.

תניא כוותיה דרב שור האיצטדין אינו חייב מיתה וכשר לגבי מזבח מפני שהוא כמעושה

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: A stadium ox that killed a person is not liable to be put to death and is fit to be sacrificed as an offering on the altar, because it is as though it was compelled to behave in this manner.

מתני׳ שור שנגח את האדם ומת מועד משלם כופר ותם פטור מן הכופר וזה וזה חייבין מיתה וכן בבן וכן בבת נגח עבד או אמה נותן שלשים סלעים בין שהוא יפה מאה מנה ובין שאינו יפה אלא דינר אחד

MISHNA: With regard to an ox that gored a person and the person died, if the ox was forewarned its owner pays ransom, but if it was innocuous he is exempt from paying the ransom. And both this forewarned ox and that innocuous ox are liable to be put to death for killing a person. And the same halakha applies in a case where the animal killed a boy and the same applies in a case where it killed a girl. If the ox gored and killed a Canaanite slave or a Canaanite maidservant, its owner gives the victim’s master thirty sela, whether he was a slave worth one hundred maneh, i.e., one hundred silver dinars, or worth only one dinar.

גמ׳ וכי מאחר דמתם קטלינן ליה מועד היכי משכחת לה

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But since we kill the ox for killing a person when it is still considered innocuous, how can you find a case of a forewarned ox killing a person?

אמר רבה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאמדוהו לשלשה בני אדם

Rabba said: Here we are dealing with a case where in three instances of attacking people, the court assessed that had the people not escaped, the ox would certainly have killed them. Therefore, despite the fact that the ox did not kill anyone, it now has the status of a forewarned ox.

רב אשי אמר אומדנא לאו כלום הוא אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שסיכן לשלשה בני אדם

Rav Ashi said: Such an assessment is not worth anything. Since the ox did not actually kill them, it is not rendered forewarned even if it intended to kill. Rather, here we are dealing with a case where it endangered the lives of three people by goring them, and they all died only after the third goring. Therefore, the ox had not been put to death.

רב זביד אמר כגון שהרג שלשה בהמות

Rav Zevid said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed three animals, which is sufficient to render the ox forewarned but for which it is not put to death.

ומועד לבהמה הוי מועד לאדם אלא אמר רב שימי כגון שהרג שלשה גוים

The Gemara asks: But is an animal that is forewarned with regard to animals considered forewarned with regard to people as well? Certainly it is not. Rather, Rav Shimi said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed three gentiles, for which the animal is not put to death.

ומועד לגוים הוי מועד לישראל אלא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש כגון שהרג שלשה בני אדם טרפה

The Gemara asks: But is an animal that is forewarned with regard to gentiles considered forewarned with regard to Jews as well? Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed three people who had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifa]. Since they were on the verge of dying anyway, the ox is not put to death for killing them. Nevertheless, it is rendered forewarned with regard to its future goring and killing of people.

ומועד לטרפה הוי מועד לשלם אלא אמר רב פפא דקטל וערק לאגמא דקטל וערק לאגמא

The Gemara asks: But is an animal that is forewarned with regard to a tereifa considered forewarned with regard to an intact person, i.e., one who is not a tereifa? Rather, Rav Pappa said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed a person and fled to the marsh, then killed again and fled to the marsh, and then killed again and fled to the marsh, so the court was not able kill it before it had killed three times, rendering it forewarned.

רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כגון שהוזמו זוממי זוממין

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: The mishna is discussing a case where the witnesses who had rendered the witnesses who testified to the three incidents of goring as conspiring witnesses, result-ing in the animal not being put to death, were themselves subsequently proven to be conspiring witnesses by other witnesses. Consequently, the testimonies of the witnesses who testified about the incidents of goring were reinstated, rendering the ox forewarned.

הניחא אי לייעודי תורא בעינן שפיר אלא אי לייעודי גברא בעינן מימר אמר ליה לא הוה ידענא כגון דאמרי כל אימת דקטיל תוריה גביה הוה קאי

The Gemara asks: This explanation works out well if it is assumed that the purpose of testifying to the ox’s goring is because we wish to establish the ox as forewarned; once the testimony concerning the incidents of goring is reinstated, it is established that the ox gored three times. But if we wish to warn the man who owns the ox by testifying that the animal gored, he could say to the judge, after it is established that his ox was forewarned: I did not know that my ox was forewarned, since the witnesses had previously been rendered conspiring witnesses. The Gemara answers: This is a case where the witnesses say: Each time his ox killed a person he was standing by it, so that he cannot claim ignorance.

רבינא אמר במכירין את בעל השור ואין מכירין את השור

Ravina said: The mishna is discussing a case where the witnesses recognized the owner of the ox but did not recognize the ox itself. Therefore, with regard to the first incidents of goring, they testified that it was his ox that gored, but they did not testify with regard to the ox itself. That is why the ox was not put to death. Only afterward did they realize that this was the ox that had gored three times previously.

מאי הוה ליה למעבד משום דאמרי ליה תורא נגחנא אית לך בבקרך איבעי לך נטורי כולי בקרך

The Gemara asks: If so, why is the ox rendered forewarned? What could the owner have done to prevent it from goring again, as he did not know which of his oxen had gored? The Gemara answers that it is rendered forewarned because the court effectively said to him: You have a habitually goring ox in your herd, so you must safeguard your entire herd.

וזה וזה חייבין מיתה כו׳ תנו רבנן ממשמע שנאמר סקל יסקל השור איני יודע שנבילה היא ונבילה אסורה באכילה מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל את בשרו מגיד לך הכתוב שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו אסור באכילה

§ The mishna teaches: And both this forewarned ox and that innocuous ox are liable to be put to death. The Sages taught: We learn by inference from that which is stated with regard to an ox that killed a person: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear” (Exodus 21:28). Don’t I know from this verse that the stoning makes it an unslaughtered animal carcass, and it is prohibited to eat an unslaughtered animal carcass? What is the meaning when the verse states: “Its flesh shall not be eaten”? The verse is telling you that even if one slaughtered the ox after its verdict had been reached but before it was stoned, it is still prohibited to eat it.

אין לי אלא באכילה בהנאה מנין תלמוד לומר ובעל השור נקי

I have derived only that one is prohibited to eat it; from where is it derived that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the ox as well? The verse states: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear.”

מאי משמע שמעון בן זומא אומר כאדם שאומר לחבירו יצא איש פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום

The Gemara asks: What is the inference? How is this halakha derived from the statement that the owner shall be clear? Shimon ben Zoma says: This is like a person who says to his friend: So-and-so was left clear of his property, and has no benefit from it at all. Similarly, “but the owner of the ox shall be clear” means that he may not derive benefit from the ox.

וממאי דלא יאכל את בשרו להיכא דשחטו אחר שנגמר דינו שאסור באכילה אימא דהיכא דשחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו שרי באכילה הוא והאי לא יאכל את בשרו להיכא דסקליה מסקל דאסור בהנאה הוא כדרבי אבהו

The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that this phrase: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” serves to teach a halakha with regard to a case where he slaughtered the ox after its verdict was reached, but before it was stoned, and is teaching that one is prohibited to eat it? Why not say that it is permitted to eat the ox if he slaughtered it after its verdict had been reached. And this phrase: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” serves to teach a halakha with regard to a case where they had already stoned it, but not to teach a prohibition against eating it, as that is already known due to the fact that it was stoned. Rather, it serves to prohibit deriving benefit from the ox, and that would be in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu.

דאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע

As Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Elazar says that wherever it is stated: “It shall not be eaten”; or “you,” singular, “shall not eat”; or “you,” plural, “shall not eat”; both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit are indicated. This is so unless the verse specifies for you that one may derive benefit, in the manner that it specified for you with regard to an animal carcass, from which the verse explicitly permits one to derive benefit.

עד שיפרט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבילה לגר בנתינה ולנכרי במכירה

The Gemara continues: This is so unless the verse specifies for you that one may derive benefit, in the manner that it specified for you with regard to an animal carcass, from which the verse explicitly permits one to derive benefit, as it states: “You may sell it to a foreigner” (Deuteronomy 14:21). Accordingly, it is permitted to transfer an unslaughtered animal carcass to a ger toshav, i.e., a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot, through giving it to him as a gift, and to any other gentile through selling it to him. Apparently, without this explicit permission, it would be prohibited to derive any benefit from a carcass, due to the prohibition: “You shall not eat.” Here, too, with regard to the ox that is stoned, the phrase: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” may serve to teach that one may not derive benefit from the stoned ox.

אמרי הני מילי היכא דנפיק ליה איסור אכילה ואיסור הנאה מקרא מלא יאכל אבל הכא דאיסור אכילה מסקל יסקל נפקא אי סלקא דעתך האי לא יאכל את בשרו איסור הנאה הוא נכתוב רחמנא לא יהנה אי נמי לא יאכל את בשרו למה לי דאף על גב דעבדיה כעין בשר דשחטיה אסור

The Sages said in response: That statement applies where both the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of deriving benefit are derived from a verse using an expression such as: “It shall not be eaten.” But here, where the prohibition of eating is derived from the statement: “The ox shall be stoned,” if it enters your mind that this expression: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” is stated only in reference to the prohibition of deriving benefit, let the Merciful One write explicitly: Benefit shall not be derived from it. Alternatively, let the verse simply state: “It shall not be eaten”; why do I require the specific term: “Its flesh”? Clearly, the intention of the verse is to teach that even if he has rendered it like kosher flesh by properly slaughtering it after the verdict, one is still prohibited to eat it.

מתקיף לה מר זוטרא אימא הני מילי

Mar Zutra objects to this: Say that this statement applies

היכא דבדק צור ושחט בו דעבדיה כעין סקילה אבל היכא דשחטיה בסכין לא

only in a case where he checked a sharp piece of flint, and, seeing that it did not have any defects, slaughtered the ox with it. In that case, one could say that by slaughtering it with a stone, he performed the equivalent to stoning. Therefore, it is prohibited to eat it. But in a case where he slaughtered it with a knife made of metal, one is not prohibited from eating it.

אמרי אטו סכין כתיבא באורייתא והתנן השוחט במגל יד בצור ובקנה שחיטתו כשירה

The Sages said in response: Is that to say that it is written in the Torah that slaughter must performed specifically with a knife, which would justify a distinction between slaughtering with a stone and a knife? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Ḥullin 15b): With regard to one who slaughters with a hand-sickle, with a piece of flint, or with a reed, if these implements were suitable to be used for slaughter, his slaughter is valid?

והשתא דנפקא ליה איסור אכילה ואיסור הנאה מלא יאכל את בשרו בעל השור נקי למה לי להנאת עורו דסלקא דעתך אמינא בשרו הוא דאסור בהנאה עורו נשתרי בהנאה קמשמע לן בעל השור נקי

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Abbahu, now that he derives the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of deriving benefit from the verse “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” why do I require the statement: “The owner of the ox shall be clear”? The Gemara answers: This is stated to prohibit deriving benefit from its hide after it has been killed; as it could enter your mind to say that it is specifically its flesh from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, as the verse states: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” but deriving benefit from its hide will be permitted. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that the owner of the ox shall be clear, to indicate it is prohibited to derive benefit from any part of the ox.

ולהנך תנאי דמפקי ליה להאי בעל השור נקי לדרשה אחרינא [כדבעינן למימר קמן] הנאת עורו מנא להו

The Gemara asks: And according to those tanna’im who expound this verse: “The owner of the ox shall be clear,” for another interpretation, as we wish to state below, from where do they derive this prohibition against deriving benefit from the ox’s hide?

נפקא להו מאת בשרו את הטפל לבשרו מאי ניהו עורו

The Gemara answers: They derive it from the wording: “Its flesh may not be eaten [velo ye’akhel et besaro].” The verse could have been formulated: Velo ye’akhel besaro, which already means: And its flesh shall not be eaten. The addition of the word “et” teaches that the prohibition applies also to that which is secondary to the flesh. And what is that? That is its hide.

והאי תנא את לא דריש

The Gemara adds: And this tanna, who derives it from the statement: “The owner of the ox shall be clear,” does not interpret the word “et” as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word “et” to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition.

כדתניא שמעון העמסוני ואמרי לה נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתין שבתורה כיון שהגיע לאת ה׳ אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתין שדרשת מה תהא עליהן אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך קבלתי שכר על הפרישה

As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of the word “et” that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition.

עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד את ה׳ אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים

The word “et” in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall fear the Lord your God”: The word “et” serves to include Torah scholars, i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.

תנו רבנן ובעל השור נקי רבי אליעזר אומר נקי מחצי כופר

§ The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” that Rabbi Eliezer says: It means that he shall be clear from paying half a ransom. Although the owner of an innocuous ox that causes damage is liable to pay half the cost of the damage, if an ox kills a person its owner is not liable to pay any ransom.

אמר לו רבי עקיבא והלא הוא עצמו אין משתלם אלא מגופו הביאהו לבית דין וישלם לך

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this? But isn’t compensation for damage caused by an innocuous ox itself anyway paid only from the value of its body? Here too, its owner can say to the claimant: Bring it to court and it will pay you, i.e., you will be paid from its value. Since the ox is stoned, there is nothing from which he can receive payment. Therefore, according to your interpretation, the verse does not introduce any halakha that could not have been inferred by logic, and is therefore superfluous.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר כך אני בעיניך שדיני בזה שחייב מיתה אין דיני אלא כשהמית את האדם על פי עד אחד או על פי בעלים

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Is this how I appear in your eyes, that my derivation from the verse is in reference to this case, that of an ox that is liable to be put to death? Obviously no verse would be required to teach this halakha in such a case. My derivation is only with regard to a case where the assumption that the ox killed a person is based on the testimony of one witness, or is based on the admission of the owner. Such proof is not sufficient for the ox to be put to death by stoning, but one might have thought that it is sufficient to require its owner to pay ransom.

על פי בעלים מודה בקנס הוא

The Gemara asks: If it is based on the admission of the owner, he clearly would not be liable to pay ransom, since he would be admitting to an act that results in a fine, in which case a person is exempt from paying the fine; so why would it be necessary for the verse to state this exemption?

קסבר כופרא כפרה

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer holds that ransom is for the purpose of atonement, and is not considered a fine. Accordingly, one might have assumed that even in a case where there is not conclusive testimony, the owner must pay ransom to atone for the killing. Therefore, the verse states that in the case of an innocuous ox, the owner is not liable to pay half a ransom.

תניא אידך אמר לו רבי אליעזר עקיבא כך אני בעיניך שדיני בזה שחייב מיתה אין דיני אלא במתכוון להרוג את הבהמה והרג את האדם לגוי והרג ישראל לנפלים והרג בן קיימא

It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, is this how I appear in your eyes, that my derivation from the verse is in reference to this case, that of an ox that is liable to be put to death? My derivation is only with regard to a case where the ox intended to kill an animal but killed a person instead; or where it intended to kill a gentile but killed a Jew; or where it intended to kill a non-viable baby but killed a viable person. An ox is not put to death if it intended to gore in a manner which would not render it liable to be put to death, even if it did gore in such a manner. In such a case, the owner of the ox must pay ransom. Therefore, the verse states that if it is an innocuous ox, the owner is exempt from paying half a ransom.

הי אמר ליה ברישא רב כהנא משמיה דרבא אמר מתכוון אמר ליה ברישא רב טביומי משמיה דרבא אמר המית אמר ליה ברישא

These two baraitot cite different responses that Rabbi Eliezer gave Rabbi Akiva. Which one of these explanations did he say to him first? Rav Kahana said in the name of Rava: He first said to him the explanation referring to the ox’s intention to kill someone for which it would not be liable to be put to death, and subsequently gave him the second explanation with regard to the testimony of a single witness, or the owner’s admission. Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Rava: He first said to him the explanation that it is a case where the assumption that the ox killed was based on one witness or its owner’s admission.

רב כהנא משמיה דרבא אמר מתכוון אמר ליה ברישא משל לציד ששולה דגים מן הים

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind the two opinions: Rav Kahana said in the name of Rava that first he said to him the explanation involving the ox’s intention, since this opinion is preferable to the other one, against which a difficulty was raised earlier. This is analogous to a fisherman pulling fish from the sea.