Reference for Sanhedrin 29:15

שור הנסקל בעשרים ושלשה: שנא' (שמות כא, כט) השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור: א"ל אביי לרבא ממאי דהאי וגם בעליו יומת לכמיתת בעלים כך מיתת השור הוא דאתא

But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Liability is incurred in respect of his hair. And we know that the point on which they differ is regarding the hair which is ready to be shorn. Infer, therefore, from this [that R. Abin's question is a point of difference among the Rabbis]. Shall we take it that these Tannaim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the first Tanna of the Baraitha. ');">²⁴</span> differ in the same respect as the Tannaim of the following Mishnah? For we learnt: R. Meir says: There are things that notwithstanding their attachment to the soil are considered as movable property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there are things which are as real estate (being attached to the soil) yet are not as real estate (in a legal sense).' ');">²⁵</span> But the Sages disagree with him. In what case? [If A says to B.] 'I handed over to thee ten vines laden with fruit,' and the latter replies, 'They were only five,' R. Meir imposes [an oath on the defendant],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in a case where there is partial admission of the claim (cf. B.K. 107a) and though an oath is not administered in cases of immovable property (v. Shebu, VI, 5). Here, however, since the vines no longer depend on the soil for ripening, they are considered as gathered. ');">²⁶</span> while the Sages say that an object which is still attached to the soil is subject to the laws of immovable property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no oath can be administered. ');">²⁷</span> And R. Jose b. Hanina said: The case in question is one of grapes ready to be gathered: according to the one master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir. ');">²⁸</span> they are considered as gathered; according to the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">²⁹</span> they are not! — No, you might say it is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that hair, even though ready for cutting, is to be considered as immovable property, because the cases are not alike. ');">³⁰</span> even according to R. Meir. Only there, in the case of grapes, which after ripening deteriorate by remaining ungathered, does R. Meir hold that they are considered as gathered: whereas hair, the longer it is left, the better it is. CAPITAL CASES, CASES OF CARNAL CONNEXION WITH BEASTS etc. The law is stated categorically, without any distinction whether the connection is between a beast and a man or a beast and a woman. It is right as regards the [requirement of twenty-three] in the case of a woman, as this follows from the verse, Thou shalt slay the woman and the beast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 16, which indicates that the judgment on the ox is similar to that on the woman, and therefore the verdict must be pronounced by a similar body. ');">³¹</span> But whence is it to be deduced in the case of a man? — It is written, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 18. ');">³²</span> If this has no bearing on a case where a man is the active participant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the reference in Lev. XX, 15, And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, suffices. ');">³³</span> we must refer it to one in which he is the passive offender. And it is expressed in the Divine Law as if the man were the active sinner, for the purpose of equating the passive sinner to him. Just as in the case where the man approaches the beast, both he and the beast are judged by [a court of] twenty-three; so also, where the man is approached by the beast, both he and the beast are judged by twenty-three. THE CASE OF AN OX TO BE STONED IS BY TWENTY-THREE, AS IT IS WRITTEN: THE OX SHALL BE STONED AND ITS OWNER ALSO SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');">³⁴</span> AS THE DEATH OF THE OWNER [IS BY TWENTY-THREE], SO THE DEATH OF THE OX. Abaye said to Raba: Whence do we know that the verse, and its owner also shall be put to death, means to [teach that] the judgment of the ox is to be similar to that of the owner?

Jastrow

Jastrow

Tosafot on Kiddushin