יד אמר ליה יכילנא לשנויי לך רישא דמים וסיפא קנס מיהו שנוייא דחיקא לא משנינא לך אידי ואידי דמים
14 whereas in the case here [where Rabbah and R. Nahman interpreted it to have referred to a divorced woman] they were stating the law as maintained by Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That debts collected after the death of a creditor whether in species or out of land will be subject to the law of double portion in the case of a first-born and similarly to the law of a husband inheriting his wife. v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 518. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Where an ox killed a slave without purposing to do so, there would be exemption from the payment of thirty <i>shekels</i>, since it is written, He shall give unto their master thirty <i>shekels</i> of silver, and the ox shall be stoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 32. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> [implying that] where the ox would be liable to be stoned the owner is to pay thirty <i>shekels</i>, but where the ox would not be liable to be stoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As e.g., where it killed a human being by accident. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> the owner need not pay thirty <i>shekels</i>. Rabbah [similarly] said: Where an ox killed a freeman without purposing to do so there would be exemption from <i>kofer</i>, for it is written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> The ox should be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a ransom, [implying that] where the ox has to be stoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As e.g., where it killed a human being by accident. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> the owner has not to pay <i>kofer</i>. Abaye raised an objection to this [from the following Mishnah]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. III, 9. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> If a man says: 'My ox has killed so-and-so' or 'has killed so-and-so's' ox, [in either case] the defendant has to pay in virtue of his own admission. Now, does the payment [in the former case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the defendant admitted that his ox killed a man. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> not mean <i>kofer</i> [though the ox would not become liable to be stoned through the owner's admission]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the corroboration of witnesses; v. supra p. 236, n. 8. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — No; [it means for] the actual value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the pecuniary loss sustained through the man's death. [It is distinguished from kofer in that the payment of the latter is an act of atonement to be compounded in no circumstance; v. Tosaf. s.v. [H].] ');"><sup>21</sup></span> If [it means payment for] the pecuniary loss, read the concluding clause: [If he says], 'My ox has killed so-and-so's slave,' the defendant is not liable to pay in virtue of his own admission.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the payment of thirty shekels in the case of a slave is of the nature of a penalty which could not be inflicted on the strength of the word of mouth of the defendant. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Now, if [the payment referred to in the first clause was meant for] the pecuniary loss, why is there no liability [to pay for the pecuniary loss in the case of a slave]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does this not prove that in the case of manslaughter committed by cattle no payment for the pecuniary loss would have to be made if you except kofer in the case of a freeman, and the thirty shekels in the case of a slave? ');"><sup>23</sup></span> — He, however, said to him: I could have answered you that the opening clause refers to the actual value<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the pecuniary loss sustained through his death. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [of the killed person],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has to be paid even where kofer could for some reason or other not be imposed upon the defendant. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> whereas the concluding clause refers to the fixed fine [of thirty <i>shekels</i>]. As, however, I have no intention to answer you by means of forced interpretations, [I will say that] both clauses do in fact refer to the actual value [of the killed person].