Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 12, 2016 | 讜壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Kamma 42

Three聽different explanations (in addition to the two taught yesterday) are brought to explain what the words in the verse regarding a shor tam “and the owner of the ox is clean (exempt)” come to exclude/teach. 聽Each is questioned as at first they each seem unnecessary but are then explained.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪砖讻讞 专讘专讘讬 砖拽讬诇 讝讜讟专讬 砖拽讬诇

When he finds big ones he takes them, and when he finds small ones he takes them as well. Here too, although Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 first explanation was sufficient, he added an additional response, despite the fact that it was not as good as the first.

专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诪讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 诪砖诇 诇爪讬讬讚 砖砖讜诇讛 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讬诐 诪砖讻讞 讝讜讟专讬 砖拽讬诇 诪砖讻讞 专讘专讘讬 砖讚讬 讝讜讟专讬 讜砖拽讬诇 专讘专讘讬

By contrast, Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Rava that he first said to him the explanation involving inconclusive testimony asserting that the ox killed, since this is analogous to a fisherman pulling fish from the sea, who finds small ones and takes them, and when he then finds big ones, he discards the small ones and takes only the big ones. Here too, once Rabbi Eliezer thought of a better response to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 question, he suggested it instead of the first.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转

It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It means he shall be clear from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. In other words, if an innocuous ox causes a woman to miscarry, the owner is not liable to pay half the compensation for the miscarried offspring.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬谞爪讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讜谞讙驻讜 讗砖讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐

Rabbi Akiva said to him: It is unnecessary for the verse to teach this. Doesn鈥檛 it say with regard to paying compensation for miscarried offspring: 鈥淚f men struggle and hurt a pregnant woman and her offspring emerge, and there is no tragedy, he shall be punished as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him and he shall give as the judges determine鈥 (Exodus 21:22); from which it is inferred that men who cause a woman to miscarry are liable to pay compensation for the offspring, but the owner of oxen who cause a woman to miscarry is not liable?

砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Akiva is saying well; he states a reasonable objection. What would Rabbi Yosei HaGelili have responded to him?

讗诪专 专讘 注讜诇讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗谞砖讬诐 诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗祝 砖讜讜专讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讛讗 转诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 讚驻讟讜专

Rav Ulla, son of Rav Idi, said: It was necessary for the verse to teach this exemption, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that this inference should be limited, as follows: Men are liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring, but the owner of oxen that are comparable to men is not liable. Only some oxen are excluded from this halakha. Just as men are categorically considered forewarned, so too the oxen, which are contrasted with men in this case, are considered forewarned as well. But in the case of miscarriage caused by an innocuous ox, its owner would be liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote with regard to an innocuous ox: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 to teach us that he is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗

Rava said, in objection to this answer: The native is on the ground and the stranger is in the heavens! The aforementioned suggestion contradicts the principle that the halakha of a forewarned ox is more stringent than that of an innocuous ox.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗谞砖讬诐 诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗祝 砖讜讜专讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇转诪讬谉 讚驻讟讬专讬 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 转诐 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘

Rather, Rava said a different way for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili to counter Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 objection: It was necessary for the verse to teach this exemption, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that only men are liable to pay for miscarried offspring, but the owner of oxen that are comparable to men is not liable. Just as men are categorically considered forewarned, so too the oxen, which are contrasted with men in this case, are considered forewarned as well. And for miscarriage caused by innocuous oxen, their owners are also exempt due to an a fortiori inference. The Merciful One then wrote that the owner of the innocuous ox shall be clear, indicating that only for an innocuous ox is one exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring, but for a forewarned ox the owner is liable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讘讜砖转 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗谞砖讬诐 诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗祝 砖讜讜专讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇转诪讬谉 讚驻讟讬专讬 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 转诐 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘

Abaye said to him: If that is so, then with regard to compensation for humiliation, which is derived from the verse: 鈥淲hen men struggle together, a man and his brother, and the wife of one drew near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who smites him, and extended her hand, and grabbed his genitals鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11), let us say this as well: Only men are liable to pay for humiliation, but the owner of oxen that are comparable to men is not liable. Just as men are categorically considered forewarned, so too the oxen, which are contrasted with men in this case, are considered forewarned as well. And for humiliation caused by innocuous oxen, their owners are also exempt due to an a fortiori inference. The Merciful One then wrote that the owner of the innocuous ox shall be clear, indicating that only for an innocuous ox is one exempt from paying compensation for humiliation, but for a forewarned ox the owner is liable.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 讜诪讘讜砖转

And if you would say that indeed that is the halakha according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, if so, let the baraita teach that with regard to the verse: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: He is exempt both from paying compensation for miscarried offspring and from paying compensation for humiliation.

讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讬谉 讗住讜谉 讘讗砖讛 讬注谞砖讜 讬砖 讗住讜谉 讘讗砖讛 诇讗 讬注谞砖讜 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬砖 讗住讜谉 讬注谞砖讜 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 讚驻讟讜专

Rava then retracted this explanation of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion. Rather, Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 inference is correct, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, but with regard to the continuation of the verse: 鈥淏ut if any harm follows, you shall give life for life鈥 (Exodus 21:22). With regard to men, if there is no harm caused to the woman, i.e., she is not killed, they shall be punished financially and are liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring. But if there is harm caused to the woman and she dies, they shall not be punished financially, as they are liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. This distinction applies only with regard to men but not with regard to oxen, as even if there is harm caused to the woman, the owners shall be punished financially. In order to preclude this inference, the Merciful One then wrote: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 to teach that he is exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讟讜 讘讗住讜谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav Adda bar Ahava objects to this: Is that to say that the issue of financial liability is dependent on whether or not there was harm caused to the woman? Clearly, the issue is dependent on the intent to strike the woman.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讻讬 谞转讻讜谞讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖讬砖 讗住讜谉 讘讗砖讛 讬注谞砖讜 讻讬 谞转讻讜谞讜 诇讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬注谞砖讜 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻讜谞讜 诇讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 讬注谞砖讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 讚驻讟讬专讬

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said a different inference: With regard to men, in a case where they intended to strike each other, even if there is harm caused to the woman, i.e., she dies, they shall be punished financially, and are liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring. But when they intended to strike the woman herself they shall not be punished financially, as they are liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. But this distinction does not apply with regard to oxen, as even if they intended to strike the woman herself, their owners shall be punished. In order to preclude this inference, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 to teach that the owners are exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讞讙讬 诪讚专讜诪讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛

And similarly, when Rav 岣ggai came from the South, he came and brought a baraita in his hand that interprets the verse in accordance with the explanation of Rav Adda bar Ahava.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 注讘讚

It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear鈥 that Rabbi Akiva says: This statement teaches that if an innocuous ox kills a Canaanite slave, its owner shall be clear from paying compensation for the slave, unlike the case of a forewarned ox that killed a Canaanite slave, where the ox鈥檚 owner is liable.

讜谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛诇讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诪讙讜驻讜 讛讘讬讗讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讬砖诇诐 诇讱

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Akiva say to himself the same objection that he raised against Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 interpretation of the verse, that the owner of an innocuous ox is exempt from paying half a ransom (see 41b): Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this? But isn鈥檛 compensation for damage caused by an innocuous ox itself paid only from the value of its body? Therefore, its owner can say to the slave鈥檚 owner: Bring it to court and you will be paid from it. Since the ox was stoned, there is nothing from which he can collect payment.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讻砖拽讚诐 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖讞讟讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬砖转诇诐 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讞讟讬讛 诇讗 诇讬砖转诇诐 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 interpretation is applicable in a case where its owner slaughtered it first, before it was sentenced to stoning. Lest you say that the slave鈥檚 owner should be paid from the value of the flesh, the verse teaches us that since the ox was subject to be killed, although its owner slaughtered it, the slave鈥檚 owner should not be paid from it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 讻砖拽讚诐 讜砖讞讟讜

The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rabbi Akiva raise this objection against Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 interpretation? According to Rabbi Eliezer as well, it could be explained as referring to a case where its owner slaughtered it first.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜住讘专 讚诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚注讚讬祝 诪讛讗讬 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 interpretation could also be explained in this manner. And the reason Rabbi Akiva raised this objection was because he reasons: Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer has another explanation that is better than this one, and will state it. Rabbi Eliezer did in fact respond with another explanation.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 砖拽讚诐 讜砖讞讟讜 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讚砖讜专 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讻诇诇 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬讞讬讬讘 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讞讟讬讛

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Eliezer also answer him that the owner slaughtered it first. Why did he offer a different explanation? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: Specifically there, in the case Rabbi Eliezer referred to in his explanation, namely, where the ox intended to kill another animal but killed a person instead, since the ox was not subject to be killed at all, it might enter your mind to say that he should be liable to pay half a ransom from the ox鈥檚 body. Therefore, the verse is necessary to exclude the owner from liability to pay half a ransom. But here, since the ox was initially subject to be killed, a verse is not necessary to teach that the owner is exempt from paying half a ransom even if he slaughtered it.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讜讚讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Akiva also, certainly it is so, that a verse is not necessary to teach that if the owner slaughters the ox before its verdict he is exempt from liability.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 诪驻讬 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖转诇诐 谞诪讬 [讚诪讬 注讘讚] 诪注诇讬讬讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬

Rather, Rav Asi said: The above explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 interpretation should be rejected, as I heard this following statement from a great man, and who is he? He is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. This is what he said: It might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Akiva says in the mishna (33a) that in a case where a person and an innocuous ox damaged each other concurrently, the owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference between the two valuations of the damage, as there is no distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox with regard to injuries caused to a person, compensation for the slave is also paid from his superior-quality property, not from the body of the ox; just as in a case where a forewarned ox kills a slave. Therefore, its owner cannot say: Bring it to court and you will be paid from it. To counter this possibility, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 indicating that he is exempt from this liability.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讛讗 转讘专讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讝讬讝讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诪砖驻讟 讛讝讛 讬注砖讛 诇讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva already break the force of his fist, i.e., qualify this opinion of his? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that the owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person pays compensation from his superior-quality property, the same as the owner of a forewarned ox. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to this judgment shall be done to him [lo]鈥 (Exodus 21:31), indicating that he pays restitution exclusively from the body of the ox but he does not pay from his superior-quality property, as the word lo also means: To it. This negates Rav Asi鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 interpretation.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讞诪讬专谞讬 讘注讘讚 讬讜转专 诪讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 住诇注 砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注讘讚 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 诪砖转诇诐 谞诪讬 讚诪讬 注讘讚 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬

Rather, Rava said a different explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement: The verse is necessary because it might enter your mind to say that since I, referring to the Torah, am more stringent with regard to a forewarned ox that kills a person in the case of a Canaanite slave than in the case of a freeman; as in the case of a freeman who was worth one sela the owner of the ox gives one sela in ransom, and if he was worth thirty sela he gives thirty; but in the case of a Canaanite slave the Torah imposes a fixed amount, so even if he was worth only one sela the owner gives thirty sela, therefore, since the Torah is more stringent in the case of a slave, payment for the slave should also be paid from the owner鈥檚 superior-quality property. To counter this, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 indicating that payment is not required in a case where an innocuous ox kills a slave.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 注讘讚

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rava to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement. The baraita states that with regard to the verse 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 Rabbi Akiva says: He shall be clear from payment for a Canaanite slave.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注讘讚 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘注讘讚 谞讞诇拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

Rabbi Akiva discusses this interpretation: And could this halakha not be derived through logical inference, without the verse? Since the Torah deemed him liable to pay for the killing of a slave and deemed him liable for the killing of a freeman as well, just as when the Torah deemed him liable for a freeman you distinguished between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, as no ransom is paid in the case of an innocuous ox, so too, when the Torah deemed him liable for a slave, let us distinguish between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.

讜注讜讚 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞讜转谉 讻诇 砖讜讜讬讜 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 注讘讚 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

Furthermore, this halakha could be proven through an a fortiori inference: If, in the case of a freeman, where he, the owner, gives his full value, you distinguished between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, with regard to a slave, where he gives only thirty sela and not more, even if the slave was worth more, is it not logical that we should distinguish between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, and exempt him from liability for an innocuous ox?

诇讗 诪讞诪讬专谞讬 讘注讘讚 讬讜转专 诪讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 住诇注 砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注讘讚 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 注讘讚

Rabbi Akiva rejects this opinion: No, one could disagree and say the opposite: I, referring to the Torah, am more stringent with regard to the case of a slave than with regard to that of a freeman; as for a freeman worth one sela, the ox鈥檚 owner gives only one sela, and if he is worth thirty sela he gives thirty. But in the case of a slave, even if he was worth only one sela, he gives thirty sela. Therefore, one might have thought that he should be liable to pay for a slave killed by his innocuous ox. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 indicating that he shall be clear from paying compensation for a slave.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讗砖讛 讻讗讬砖 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讙讞 砖讜专 讗转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗转 讗砖讛

The Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a forewarned ox: 鈥淏ut if the ox was a goring ox in time past and warning has been given to its owner, and he has not secured it; and it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned鈥 (Exodus 21:29). Rabbi Akiva said: And what does this come to teach us? If it is to deem the owner liable for the killing of a woman just as for the killing of a man, this is already stated with regard to an innocuous ox, where it is stated: 鈥淲hen an ox gores a man or a woman, and they die, the ox shall be stoned鈥 (Exodus 21:28).

讗诇讗 诇讛拽讬砖 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诪讛 讗讬砖 谞讝拽讬讜 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 讗祝 讗砖讛 谞讝拽讬讛 诇讬讜专砖讬讛

Rather, the verse is stated to compare a woman to a man with regard to another issue: Just as with regard to a man, payment for his injuries is paid to his heirs, so too, with regard to a woman, payment for her injuries is paid to her heirs, and not to her husband.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讬专讬转 诇讛 讘注诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讬专砖 讗讜转讛 诪讻讗谉 砖讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Akiva hold that a husband does not inherit from his wife? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall inherit it [otah]鈥 (Numbers 27:11). From here it is derived that the husband inherits from his wife, as otah also means: Her. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讻讜驻专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讗讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Akiva says that her heirs and not her husband receive the payment only with regard to ransom, since it is paid only posthumously and is therefore considered property due to her; and the husband does not take in inheritance the property due to the deceased as he does the property she possessed. For instance, an inheritance that would have gone to the woman had she been alive is not awarded to the husband, but rather, to her other heirs.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讗诐 讻驻专 讬讜砖转 注诇讬讜

What is the reason for the assumption that even if it is clear that the victim is about to die, the husband is not owed ransom? The verse states: 鈥淎nd it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid on him鈥 (Exodus 21:29鈥30), indicating that the owner鈥檚 liability to pay ransom is dependent on the ox鈥檚 liability to be stoned, which, in turn, applies only after the death of the victim.

讜讘谞讝拽讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to damages, did Rabbi Akiva not say that damages due to a wife are paid to her heirs and not to her husband, just as with regard to ransom?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讻讛 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讬诇讚讬讛 谞讜转谉 谞讝拽 讜爪注专 诇讗砖讛 讜讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 诇讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 谞讜转谉 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讬讜专砖讬讛 讛讬转讛 砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If an assailant struck the woman and her offspring emerged due to miscarriage, he gives compensation for damage and pain to the woman and compensation for miscarried offspring to the husband. If the husband is not alive, he gives the compensation for the offspring to his heirs. If the woman is not alive, he gives the payment owed to her to her heirs. If she was a Canaanite maidservant and then she was emancipated,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 42

诪砖讻讞 专讘专讘讬 砖拽讬诇 讝讜讟专讬 砖拽讬诇

When he finds big ones he takes them, and when he finds small ones he takes them as well. Here too, although Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 first explanation was sufficient, he added an additional response, despite the fact that it was not as good as the first.

专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诪讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 诪砖诇 诇爪讬讬讚 砖砖讜诇讛 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讬诐 诪砖讻讞 讝讜讟专讬 砖拽讬诇 诪砖讻讞 专讘专讘讬 砖讚讬 讝讜讟专讬 讜砖拽讬诇 专讘专讘讬

By contrast, Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Rava that he first said to him the explanation involving inconclusive testimony asserting that the ox killed, since this is analogous to a fisherman pulling fish from the sea, who finds small ones and takes them, and when he then finds big ones, he discards the small ones and takes only the big ones. Here too, once Rabbi Eliezer thought of a better response to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 question, he suggested it instead of the first.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转

It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It means he shall be clear from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. In other words, if an innocuous ox causes a woman to miscarry, the owner is not liable to pay half the compensation for the miscarried offspring.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬谞爪讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讜谞讙驻讜 讗砖讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐

Rabbi Akiva said to him: It is unnecessary for the verse to teach this. Doesn鈥檛 it say with regard to paying compensation for miscarried offspring: 鈥淚f men struggle and hurt a pregnant woman and her offspring emerge, and there is no tragedy, he shall be punished as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him and he shall give as the judges determine鈥 (Exodus 21:22); from which it is inferred that men who cause a woman to miscarry are liable to pay compensation for the offspring, but the owner of oxen who cause a woman to miscarry is not liable?

砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Akiva is saying well; he states a reasonable objection. What would Rabbi Yosei HaGelili have responded to him?

讗诪专 专讘 注讜诇讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗谞砖讬诐 诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗祝 砖讜讜专讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讛讗 转诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 讚驻讟讜专

Rav Ulla, son of Rav Idi, said: It was necessary for the verse to teach this exemption, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that this inference should be limited, as follows: Men are liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring, but the owner of oxen that are comparable to men is not liable. Only some oxen are excluded from this halakha. Just as men are categorically considered forewarned, so too the oxen, which are contrasted with men in this case, are considered forewarned as well. But in the case of miscarriage caused by an innocuous ox, its owner would be liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote with regard to an innocuous ox: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 to teach us that he is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗

Rava said, in objection to this answer: The native is on the ground and the stranger is in the heavens! The aforementioned suggestion contradicts the principle that the halakha of a forewarned ox is more stringent than that of an innocuous ox.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗谞砖讬诐 诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗祝 砖讜讜专讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇转诪讬谉 讚驻讟讬专讬 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 转诐 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘

Rather, Rava said a different way for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili to counter Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 objection: It was necessary for the verse to teach this exemption, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that only men are liable to pay for miscarried offspring, but the owner of oxen that are comparable to men is not liable. Just as men are categorically considered forewarned, so too the oxen, which are contrasted with men in this case, are considered forewarned as well. And for miscarriage caused by innocuous oxen, their owners are also exempt due to an a fortiori inference. The Merciful One then wrote that the owner of the innocuous ox shall be clear, indicating that only for an innocuous ox is one exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring, but for a forewarned ox the owner is liable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讘讜砖转 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗谞砖讬诐 诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讗祝 砖讜讜专讬诐 诪讜注讚讬谉 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇转诪讬谉 讚驻讟讬专讬 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 转诐 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘

Abaye said to him: If that is so, then with regard to compensation for humiliation, which is derived from the verse: 鈥淲hen men struggle together, a man and his brother, and the wife of one drew near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who smites him, and extended her hand, and grabbed his genitals鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11), let us say this as well: Only men are liable to pay for humiliation, but the owner of oxen that are comparable to men is not liable. Just as men are categorically considered forewarned, so too the oxen, which are contrasted with men in this case, are considered forewarned as well. And for humiliation caused by innocuous oxen, their owners are also exempt due to an a fortiori inference. The Merciful One then wrote that the owner of the innocuous ox shall be clear, indicating that only for an innocuous ox is one exempt from paying compensation for humiliation, but for a forewarned ox the owner is liable.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 讜诪讘讜砖转

And if you would say that indeed that is the halakha according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, if so, let the baraita teach that with regard to the verse: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: He is exempt both from paying compensation for miscarried offspring and from paying compensation for humiliation.

讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讬谉 讗住讜谉 讘讗砖讛 讬注谞砖讜 讬砖 讗住讜谉 讘讗砖讛 诇讗 讬注谞砖讜 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬砖 讗住讜谉 讬注谞砖讜 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 讚驻讟讜专

Rava then retracted this explanation of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion. Rather, Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 inference is correct, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, but with regard to the continuation of the verse: 鈥淏ut if any harm follows, you shall give life for life鈥 (Exodus 21:22). With regard to men, if there is no harm caused to the woman, i.e., she is not killed, they shall be punished financially and are liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring. But if there is harm caused to the woman and she dies, they shall not be punished financially, as they are liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. This distinction applies only with regard to men but not with regard to oxen, as even if there is harm caused to the woman, the owners shall be punished financially. In order to preclude this inference, the Merciful One then wrote: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 to teach that he is exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讟讜 讘讗住讜谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav Adda bar Ahava objects to this: Is that to say that the issue of financial liability is dependent on whether or not there was harm caused to the woman? Clearly, the issue is dependent on the intent to strike the woman.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讻讬 谞转讻讜谞讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖讬砖 讗住讜谉 讘讗砖讛 讬注谞砖讜 讻讬 谞转讻讜谞讜 诇讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬注谞砖讜 讜诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻讜谞讜 诇讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 讬注谞砖讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 讚驻讟讬专讬

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said a different inference: With regard to men, in a case where they intended to strike each other, even if there is harm caused to the woman, i.e., she dies, they shall be punished financially, and are liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring. But when they intended to strike the woman herself they shall not be punished financially, as they are liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. But this distinction does not apply with regard to oxen, as even if they intended to strike the woman herself, their owners shall be punished. In order to preclude this inference, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 to teach that the owners are exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讞讙讬 诪讚专讜诪讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛

And similarly, when Rav 岣ggai came from the South, he came and brought a baraita in his hand that interprets the verse in accordance with the explanation of Rav Adda bar Ahava.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 注讘讚

It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear鈥 that Rabbi Akiva says: This statement teaches that if an innocuous ox kills a Canaanite slave, its owner shall be clear from paying compensation for the slave, unlike the case of a forewarned ox that killed a Canaanite slave, where the ox鈥檚 owner is liable.

讜谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛诇讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诪讙讜驻讜 讛讘讬讗讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讬砖诇诐 诇讱

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Akiva say to himself the same objection that he raised against Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 interpretation of the verse, that the owner of an innocuous ox is exempt from paying half a ransom (see 41b): Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this? But isn鈥檛 compensation for damage caused by an innocuous ox itself paid only from the value of its body? Therefore, its owner can say to the slave鈥檚 owner: Bring it to court and you will be paid from it. Since the ox was stoned, there is nothing from which he can collect payment.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讻砖拽讚诐 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖讞讟讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬砖转诇诐 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讞讟讬讛 诇讗 诇讬砖转诇诐 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 interpretation is applicable in a case where its owner slaughtered it first, before it was sentenced to stoning. Lest you say that the slave鈥檚 owner should be paid from the value of the flesh, the verse teaches us that since the ox was subject to be killed, although its owner slaughtered it, the slave鈥檚 owner should not be paid from it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 讻砖拽讚诐 讜砖讞讟讜

The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rabbi Akiva raise this objection against Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 interpretation? According to Rabbi Eliezer as well, it could be explained as referring to a case where its owner slaughtered it first.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜住讘专 讚诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚注讚讬祝 诪讛讗讬 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 interpretation could also be explained in this manner. And the reason Rabbi Akiva raised this objection was because he reasons: Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer has another explanation that is better than this one, and will state it. Rabbi Eliezer did in fact respond with another explanation.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 砖拽讚诐 讜砖讞讟讜 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讚砖讜专 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讻诇诇 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬讞讬讬讘 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讞讟讬讛

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Eliezer also answer him that the owner slaughtered it first. Why did he offer a different explanation? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: Specifically there, in the case Rabbi Eliezer referred to in his explanation, namely, where the ox intended to kill another animal but killed a person instead, since the ox was not subject to be killed at all, it might enter your mind to say that he should be liable to pay half a ransom from the ox鈥檚 body. Therefore, the verse is necessary to exclude the owner from liability to pay half a ransom. But here, since the ox was initially subject to be killed, a verse is not necessary to teach that the owner is exempt from paying half a ransom even if he slaughtered it.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讜讚讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Akiva also, certainly it is so, that a verse is not necessary to teach that if the owner slaughters the ox before its verdict he is exempt from liability.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 诪驻讬 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗祝 转诐 砖讞讘诇 讘讗讚诐 诪砖诇诐 讘诪讜转专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖转诇诐 谞诪讬 [讚诪讬 注讘讚] 诪注诇讬讬讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬

Rather, Rav Asi said: The above explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 interpretation should be rejected, as I heard this following statement from a great man, and who is he? He is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. This is what he said: It might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Akiva says in the mishna (33a) that in a case where a person and an innocuous ox damaged each other concurrently, the owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference between the two valuations of the damage, as there is no distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox with regard to injuries caused to a person, compensation for the slave is also paid from his superior-quality property, not from the body of the ox; just as in a case where a forewarned ox kills a slave. Therefore, its owner cannot say: Bring it to court and you will be paid from it. To counter this possibility, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 indicating that he is exempt from this liability.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讛讗 转讘专讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讝讬讝讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诪砖驻讟 讛讝讛 讬注砖讛 诇讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva already break the force of his fist, i.e., qualify this opinion of his? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that the owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person pays compensation from his superior-quality property, the same as the owner of a forewarned ox. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to this judgment shall be done to him [lo]鈥 (Exodus 21:31), indicating that he pays restitution exclusively from the body of the ox but he does not pay from his superior-quality property, as the word lo also means: To it. This negates Rav Asi鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 interpretation.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讞诪讬专谞讬 讘注讘讚 讬讜转专 诪讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 住诇注 砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注讘讚 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 诪砖转诇诐 谞诪讬 讚诪讬 注讘讚 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬

Rather, Rava said a different explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement: The verse is necessary because it might enter your mind to say that since I, referring to the Torah, am more stringent with regard to a forewarned ox that kills a person in the case of a Canaanite slave than in the case of a freeman; as in the case of a freeman who was worth one sela the owner of the ox gives one sela in ransom, and if he was worth thirty sela he gives thirty; but in the case of a Canaanite slave the Torah imposes a fixed amount, so even if he was worth only one sela the owner gives thirty sela, therefore, since the Torah is more stringent in the case of a slave, payment for the slave should also be paid from the owner鈥檚 superior-quality property. To counter this, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 indicating that payment is not required in a case where an innocuous ox kills a slave.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 注讘讚

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rava to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement. The baraita states that with regard to the verse 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 Rabbi Akiva says: He shall be clear from payment for a Canaanite slave.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注讘讚 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘注讘讚 谞讞诇拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

Rabbi Akiva discusses this interpretation: And could this halakha not be derived through logical inference, without the verse? Since the Torah deemed him liable to pay for the killing of a slave and deemed him liable for the killing of a freeman as well, just as when the Torah deemed him liable for a freeman you distinguished between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, as no ransom is paid in the case of an innocuous ox, so too, when the Torah deemed him liable for a slave, let us distinguish between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.

讜注讜讚 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞讜转谉 讻诇 砖讜讜讬讜 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 注讘讚 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

Furthermore, this halakha could be proven through an a fortiori inference: If, in the case of a freeman, where he, the owner, gives his full value, you distinguished between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, with regard to a slave, where he gives only thirty sela and not more, even if the slave was worth more, is it not logical that we should distinguish between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, and exempt him from liability for an innocuous ox?

诇讗 诪讞诪讬专谞讬 讘注讘讚 讬讜转专 诪讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 住诇注 砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注讘讚 讬驻讛 住诇注 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 谞拽讬 谞拽讬 诪讚诪讬 注讘讚

Rabbi Akiva rejects this opinion: No, one could disagree and say the opposite: I, referring to the Torah, am more stringent with regard to the case of a slave than with regard to that of a freeman; as for a freeman worth one sela, the ox鈥檚 owner gives only one sela, and if he is worth thirty sela he gives thirty. But in the case of a slave, even if he was worth only one sela, he gives thirty sela. Therefore, one might have thought that he should be liable to pay for a slave killed by his innocuous ox. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淭he owner of the ox shall be clear,鈥 indicating that he shall be clear from paying compensation for a slave.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讗砖讛 讻讗讬砖 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讙讞 砖讜专 讗转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗转 讗砖讛

The Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a forewarned ox: 鈥淏ut if the ox was a goring ox in time past and warning has been given to its owner, and he has not secured it; and it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned鈥 (Exodus 21:29). Rabbi Akiva said: And what does this come to teach us? If it is to deem the owner liable for the killing of a woman just as for the killing of a man, this is already stated with regard to an innocuous ox, where it is stated: 鈥淲hen an ox gores a man or a woman, and they die, the ox shall be stoned鈥 (Exodus 21:28).

讗诇讗 诇讛拽讬砖 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诪讛 讗讬砖 谞讝拽讬讜 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 讗祝 讗砖讛 谞讝拽讬讛 诇讬讜专砖讬讛

Rather, the verse is stated to compare a woman to a man with regard to another issue: Just as with regard to a man, payment for his injuries is paid to his heirs, so too, with regard to a woman, payment for her injuries is paid to her heirs, and not to her husband.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讬专讬转 诇讛 讘注诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讬专砖 讗讜转讛 诪讻讗谉 砖讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Akiva hold that a husband does not inherit from his wife? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall inherit it [otah]鈥 (Numbers 27:11). From here it is derived that the husband inherits from his wife, as otah also means: Her. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讻讜驻专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讗讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Akiva says that her heirs and not her husband receive the payment only with regard to ransom, since it is paid only posthumously and is therefore considered property due to her; and the husband does not take in inheritance the property due to the deceased as he does the property she possessed. For instance, an inheritance that would have gone to the woman had she been alive is not awarded to the husband, but rather, to her other heirs.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讗诐 讻驻专 讬讜砖转 注诇讬讜

What is the reason for the assumption that even if it is clear that the victim is about to die, the husband is not owed ransom? The verse states: 鈥淎nd it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid on him鈥 (Exodus 21:29鈥30), indicating that the owner鈥檚 liability to pay ransom is dependent on the ox鈥檚 liability to be stoned, which, in turn, applies only after the death of the victim.

讜讘谞讝拽讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to damages, did Rabbi Akiva not say that damages due to a wife are paid to her heirs and not to her husband, just as with regard to ransom?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讻讛 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讬诇讚讬讛 谞讜转谉 谞讝拽 讜爪注专 诇讗砖讛 讜讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 诇讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 谞讜转谉 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讬讜专砖讬讛 讛讬转讛 砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If an assailant struck the woman and her offspring emerged due to miscarriage, he gives compensation for damage and pain to the woman and compensation for miscarried offspring to the husband. If the husband is not alive, he gives the compensation for the offspring to his heirs. If the woman is not alive, he gives the payment owed to her to her heirs. If she was a Canaanite maidservant and then she was emancipated,

Scroll To Top