Commentary for Bava Kamma 81:24

מתקיף לה מר זוטרא אימא הני מילי

But if the three days are needed to warn the owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 121. ');">¹⁸</span> why should he not plead [against the plaintiff], 'I was not aware [that the evidence as to the first three gorings was genuine]'? — [This could not be pleaded where] e.g., it was stated [by the very last pair of witnesses] that whenever the ox had [gored and] killed he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the defendant. ');">²⁰</span> had been present [and witnessed every occasion]. — Rabina said: [The case of an ox not being stoned after any of the first three fatal gorings might be] where, though recognising the owner of the ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the defendant. ');">²⁰</span> [the witnesses who testified to the first three time of goring] did not at that time recognise the identity of the ox [also].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox thus escaped death. ');">¹⁷</span> But what could the owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the defendant. ');">²⁰</span> have done [where the ox that gored and killed had not been identified]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could this be called warning? ');">²¹</span> — [He is culpable because] they could say to him: 'Knowing that an ox inclined to gore has been among your herd, you ought to have guarded the whole of your herd.' IN BOTH CASES, HOWEVER, THE OXEN ARE LIABLE [TO BE STONED] TO DEATH. Our Rabbis taught: From the implication of the statement <i>The ox shall be surely stoned</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI. 28. ');">²²</span> would I not have known that it becomes <i>nebelah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.. the carcass of an animal not ritually slaughtered. ');">²³</span> and that by becoming <i>nebelah</i> it should be forbidden to be consumed for food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Deut XIV, 21. ');">²⁴</span> Why then was it necessary to state further <i>And his flesh shall not be eaten</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 233, n. 6. ');">²⁵</span> Scripture must therefore have intended to tell us that were the ox to be slaughtered after the sentence has been passed upon it, it would be forbidden to be consumed as food. This rule is thus established as regards food; whence could it be derived that it would also be forbidden for any [other] use whatsoever? The text therefore says, But the owner of the ox shall be quit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 233, n. 6. ');">²⁵</span> How does this bear [on the matter in hand]? — Simeon B. Zoma said: [The word 'quit' is used here] as in [the colloquial expression,] So-and-so went out quit from his possessions without having any benefit of them whatsoever. But how do we know that '<i>his flesh shall not be eaten'</i> refers to a case where the ox has been slaughtered after the sentence had been passed on it, to indicate that it should be forbidden to be used as food? Why not rather suppose that where it has been slaughtered after the sentence had been passed on it, the ox would be eligible to be used for food, and take the words <i>'his flesh shall not be eaten'</i> as referring to a case where the ox had already been stoned, and indicating that it should [then] be forbidden for any use whatsoever?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For without this implication it would have followed the general rule that an animal which was not slaughtered in accordance with the requirements of the law could be used for any purpose but food; cf. Deut. XIV, 21 and Lev. VII, 24. ');">²⁶</span> Such an implication is even in conformity with the view of R. Abbahu, for R. Abbahu said on behalf of R. Eleazar:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 21b; Kid. 56b. ');">²⁷</span> Wherever Scripture says either <i>it shall not be eaten</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such e.g. as in Ex. XIII, 3. ');">²⁸</span> or <i>thou shalt not eat</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' See Lev. XVII, 12 but also Pes. 22a. ');">²⁹</span> or you shall not eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. e.g., Gen. XXXII, 33 and Pes. 22a and Hul. 100b. ');">³⁰</span> a prohibition both in respect of food and in respect of any [other] use is implied, unless where Scripture makes an explicit exception, as it did make an exception in the case of a thing that dies of itself, which may be given unto a stranger or sold unto a heathen!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Deut XIV, 21. ');">²⁴</span> — It may, however, be argued against this that these words [of R. Abbahu] hold good only where the prohibition both in respect of food and in respect of any [other] use is derived from the one Scriptural text, [viz.,] 'it <i>shall not be eaten'</i>, but here where the prohibition in respect of food is derived from '[the ox] shall be surely stoned', should you suggest that [the words] <i>'his flesh shall not be eaten'</i> were meant as a prohibition for any use, [we may ask] why then did the Divine Law not plainly state 'No benefit shall be derived from it'? Or again, why not merely say, <i>'It shall not be eaten'</i>? Why [the additional words] 'his flesh', if not to indicate that even where it had been made and prepared to resemble other meat, as where the ox was slaughtered, it should still be forbidden. Mar Zutra strongly demurred to this: Why not [he said] take this prohibition

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 81:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.