Bava Kamma 81

כמאן דקטלה דמי קמ"ל

that the execution amounted to manslaughter on the part of the animal; we are therefore told [that this is not the case]. Raba on the other hand held that [we deal here with a case where] while copulating with a woman the animal did kill her, and as for the objection what difference could be made between killing committed by means of horns and killing committed by means of copulating, [the answer would be that] in the case of Horn the animal purposes to do damage, whereas in this case [of copulating] the intention of the animal is merely for self-gratification. What is the point at issue [between these two explanations]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given by Abaye and Raba respectively. ');">¹</span>

רבא אמר לעולם דרבעה וקטלה ודקא קשיא לך מה לי קטלה בקרנים מה לי קטלה ברביעה קרן כוונתו להזיק האי כוונתו להנאת עצמו הוא

— [Whether <i>kofer</i> should be paid] in the case of Foot treading upon a child in the premises of the plaintiff [and killing it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discussed supra p. 134. ');">²</span>

במאי פליגי ברגל שדרסה על גבי תינוק בחצר הניזק לאביי משלם כופר לרבא לא משלם כופר

According to Abaye there would be liability to pay <i>kofer</i>, whereas according to Raba no payment of <i>kofer</i> would have to be made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the intention of the animal was not to do damage. ');">³</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב שור האיצטדין אינו חייב מיתה וכשר לגבי מזבח מפני שהוא כמעושה:

It was taught in accordance with the view of Rab: An ox trained for the arena [that killed a person] is not liable [to be stoned] to death, and is eligible for the altar, for it had been compelled [to commit the manslaughter].

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שור שנגח את האדם ומת מועד משלם כופר ותם פטור מן הכופר וזה וזה חייבין מיתה וכן בבן וכן בבת נגח עבד או אמה נותן שלשים סלעים בין שהוא יפה מאה מנה ובין שאינו יפה אלא דינר אחד:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF AN OX GORES A MAN AND DEATH RESULTS, IN THE CASE OF <i>MU'AD</i> THERE IS LIABILITY TO PAY <i>KOFER</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 30. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וכי מאחר דמתם קטלינן ליה מועד היכי משכחת לה

BUT IN THE CASE OF <i>TAM</i>, THERE IS NO LIABILITY TO PAY <i>KOFER</i>. IN BOTH CASES, HOWEVER, THE OXEN ARE LIABLE [TO BE STONED] TO DEATH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 28-29. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רבה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאמדוהו לשלשה בני אדם

THE SAME [JUDGMENT APPLIES] IN THE CASE OF A [MINOR] SON AND THE SAME [JUDGMENT APPLIES] IN THE CASE OF A [MINOR] DAUGHTER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 31 ');">⁶</span>

רב אשי אמר אומדנא לאו כלום הוא אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שסיכן לשלשה בני אדם

BUT WHERE THE OX HAS GORED A MANSERVANT OR A MAIDSERVANT [AND DEATH HAS RESULTED], COMPENSATION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE AMOUNT OF THIRTY <i>SELA'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 32. ');">⁷</span>

רב זביד אמר כגון שהרג שלשה בהמות

WHETHER THE KILLED SERVANT WAS WORTH A HUNDRED <i>MANEH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

ומועד לבהמה הוי מועד לאדם אלא אמר רב שימי כגון שהרג שלשה עובדי כוכבים

OR NOT WORTH ANY MORE THAN ONE <i>DENAR</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁹</span>

ומועד לעובדי כוכבים הוי מועד לישראל אלא אמר רשב"ל כגון שהרג שלשה בני אדם טרפה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But since when it was still the state of <i>Tam</i> it had to be killed [for manslaughter], how could it ever have been possible to declare it <i>Mu'ad</i>? — Rabbah said: We are dealing here with a case where, e.g. it had been estimated that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox. ');">¹⁰</span>

ומועד לטרפה הוי מועד לשלם אלא אמר רב פפא דקטל וערק לאגמא דקטל וערק לאגמא

might have killed three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Mu'ad could be only on the fourth occasion; cf. however Rashi a.l.; also Tosaf. a.l. and supra p. 119. ');">¹¹</span>

רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כגון שהוזמו זוממי זוממין

human beings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom the ox pursued but who had a very narrow escape from death by running away to a safe place. ');">¹²</span>

הניחא אי לייעודי תורא בעינן שפיר אלא אי לייעודי גברא בעינן מימר אמר ליה לא הוה ידענא כגון דאמרי כל אימת דקטיל תוריה גביה הוה קאי

R. Ashi, however, said that such estimation amount to nothing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no actual goring took place. ');">¹³</span>

רבינא אמר במכירין את בעל השור ואין מכירין את השור

and that we are therefore dealing here with a case where the ox gored and endangered the lives of three human beings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, however, did not die until after the ox gored again on the fourth occasion, and it was on account of this delay that the ox was not stoned previously. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי ה"ל למעבד משום דאמרי ליה תורא נגחנא אית לך בבקרך איבעי לך נטורי כולי בקרך:

R. Zebid [on the other hand] said: [The case is one] where, for instance, it killed three animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the ox should not be put to death. ');">¹⁵</span>

וזה וזה חייבין מיתה כו': ת"ר ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כא, כח) סקל יסקל השור איני יודע שנבילה היא ונבילה אסורה באכילה מה ת"ל לא יאכל את בשרו מגיד לך הכתוב שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו אסור באכילה

But is an ox [which has been declared] <i>Mu'ad</i> to kill animals also <i>Mu'ad</i> to kill men?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 4, and p. 205. ');">¹⁶</span>

אין לי אלא באכילה בהנאה מנין ת"ל (שמות כא, כח) ובעל השור נקי

— R. Shimi therefore said: [The case is one] where for instance it killed three heathens.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the ox should not be put to death. ');">¹⁵</span>

מאי משמע שמעון בן זומא אומר כאדם שאומר לחבירו יצא איש פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום

But is an ox [which has been declared] <i>Mu'ad</i> to gore persons who are heathens also <i>Mu'ad</i> with reference to those who are Israelites? — R. Simeon b. Lakish therefore said: [The case is one] where, for instance, it killed three persons who had already been afflicted with fatal organic diseases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the ox should not be put to death. ');">¹⁵</span>

וממאי דלא יאכל את בשרו להיכא דשחטו אחר שנגמר דינו שאסור באכילה אימא דהיכא דשחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו שרי באכילה הוא והאי לא יאכל את בשרו להיכא דסקליה מסקל דאסור בהנאה הוא כדר' אבהו

But is an ox [which has been declared] <i>Mu'ad</i> with reference to persons afflicted with fatal organic diseases also <i>Mu'ad</i> regarding persons in sound condition? — R. Papa therefore said: [The case is one where] the ox [on the first occasion] killed [a sound person] but escaped to the pasture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox thus escaped death. ');">¹⁷</span>

דאמר רבי אבהו אמר ר' אלעזר כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע

killed again [a sound person] but similarly escaped to the pasture. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: [The case is one] where, for instance, [two witnesses alleged in every case an alibi against the three pairs of witnesses who had testified to the first three occasions of goring,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox thus escaped death. ');">¹⁷</span>

עד שיפרט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבילה לגר בנתינה ולעובד כוכבים במכירה

and] it so happened that [after evidence had been given regarding the fourth time of goring the accusation of the alibi with reference to the first three times of goring fell to the ground as] a new pair of witnesses gave evidence of an alibi against the same two witnesses who alleged the alibi [against the three sets of witnesses who had testified to the first three occasions of goring]. Now this explanation would be satisfactory [if the three days required for] the declaration of <i>Mu'ad</i> refer to [the goring of] the ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 121. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמרי הני מילי היכא דנפיק ליה איסור אכילה ואיסור הנאה מקרא מלא יאכל אבל הכא דאיסור אכילה מסקל יסקל נפקא אי סלקא דעתך האי לא יאכל את בשרו איסור הנאה הוא נכתוב רחמנא לא יהנה אי נמי לא יאכל את בשרו למה לי דאף על גב דעבדיה כעין בשר דשחטיה אסור

[so as to make sure that it has an ingrained tendency].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case also the first three times of goring took place on three successive days. ');">¹⁹</span>

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