Commentary for Kiddushin 112:15
ולהנך תנאי דמפקי ליה האי בעל השור נקי לחצי כופר ולדמי ולדות הנאת עורו מנא להו
with a stone, glass, or a reed haulm. But now that the prohibitions of both eating and benefit are derived from, 'it shall not be eaten,' what is the purpose of this [clause], 'and the owner of the ox shall be clear'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was interpreted in the same way; supra.');"><sup>28</sup></span> - In respect of the benefit of its skin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that even that is forbidden.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Some tannaim use the verse “and the owner of the ox shall be clear” to teach that the owner of the ox does not pay even half damages. And if the ox kills a pregnant woman, the owner does not pay for the miscarriages. Since they use this verse for another purpose, how do they derive the law that the hide is prohibited?
They use the extra word “et.” This word comes to include the hide.
They use the extra word “et.” This word comes to include the hide.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy