Reference for Bava Kamma 80:25

אמר אביי לעולם דרבעה ולא קטלה דאתיוה לבי דינא וקטלוה מהו דתימא

excludes an animal that has been set apart for idolatrous purposes; and <i>of the flock</i> excludes an animal that has gored [and committed manslaughter]. R. Simeon remarked upon this: If it is laid down that an animal that has copulated with a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev., XVIII, 23 and ib. XX, 15-16. ');">¹⁹</span> [is to be excluded] why was it necessary to lay down that an animal goring [and committing manslaughter is also excluded]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in both cases the animal is to be killed where the crime has been testified to by witnesses. ');">²⁰</span> Again, if it is laid down that an animal that gored [and committed manslaughter is to be excluded], why was it necessary to lay down that an animal copulating with a woman [is also excluded]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in both cases the animal is to be killed where the crime has been testified to by witnesses. ');">²⁰</span> [The reason is] because there are features in an animal copulating with a woman which are not present in an animal goring [and committing manslaughter], and again there are features in an animal goring [and committing manslaughter] which are not present in the case of an animal copulating with a woman. In the case of an animal copulating with a human being the law makes no distinction between a compulsory<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of animal copulating with man. ');">²¹</span> and a voluntary act [on the part of the animal],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 229, n. 7. ');">²²</span> whereas in the case of an animal goring [and committing manslaughter] the law does not place a compulsory act on the same footing as a voluntary one. Again, in the case of an animal goring [and committing manslaughter] there is liability to pay <i>kofer</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 224. n. 6. ');">²³</span> whereas in the case of an animal copulating with a woman there is no liability to pay <i>kofer</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' See the discussion which follows. ');">²⁴</span> It is on account of these differences that it was necessary to specify both an animal copulating with a woman and an animal goring [and committing manslaughter]. Now, it is here taught that in the case of an animal copulating with a human being the law makes no distinction between a compulsory and a voluntary act, whereas in the case of an animal goring [and committing manslaughter the law] does not place a compulsory act on the same footing as a voluntary one. What rule are we to derive from this? Is it not the rule in respect of eligibility for becoming a sacrifice [upon the altar]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this was the point under consideration, which solves the question as to the eligibility of a stadium ox for the altar. ');">²⁵</span> — No; the rule in respect of stoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In respect of which the difference between compulsory goring and voluntary goring is admitted.] ');">²⁶</span> This indeed stands also to reason, for if you maintain that it is with reference to the sacrifice that the law does not place a compulsory act on the same footing as a voluntary one in the case of an animal goring, [I would point out that with reference to its eligibility for the altar] the Scripture says nothing explicitly with regard either to a compulsory act or a voluntary act on its part. Does it therefore not [stand to reason that what we are to derive from this is] the rule in respect of stoning? The Master stated: 'In the case of an animal goring [and committing manslaughter] there is liability to pay <i>kofer</i>, whereas in the case of an animal copulating with a woman there is no liability to pay <i>kofer</i>.' What are the circumstances? It could hardly be that while copulating with a woman it killed her, for what difference could be made between killing by means of a horn and killing by means of copulating? If on the other hand the act of copulating did not result in manslaughter, is the exemption from paying <i>kofer</i> not due to the fact that no killing took place? — Abaye said: We suppose, in fact, that it deals with a case where, by the act of copulating, the animal did not kill the woman, who, however, was brought to the Court of Law and by its orders executed. [In such a case] you might perhaps have thought

Jastrow