Bava Kamma 83

משכח רברבי שקיל זוטרי שקיל

when he caught big ones he took them and when he [subsequently] caught little ones he took them also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So also here where the better answer was given first and the inferior one later. The answer about intention is considered the better one. ');">¹</span>

רב טביומי משמיה דרבא אמר המית אמר ליה ברישא משל לצייד ששולה דגים מן הים משכח זוטרי שקיל משכח רברבי שדי זוטרי ושקיל רברבי

But R. Tabyomi, who in the name of Raba said that [the answer about] having killed [the man in the presence of one witness etc.] was given first, compares him to a fisherman who was catching fishes in the sea and when he caught little ones he took them, but when he [subsequently] caught big ones he threw away the little ones and took the big ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here also when R. Eliezer subsequently found a better answer he withdrew the answer which he had given first. ');">²</span>

תניא אידך (שמות כא, כח) בעל השור נקי רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר נקי מדמי ולדות

Another [Baraitha] teaches: <i>'And the owner of the ox shall be quit'</i> [implies] according to the statement of R. Jose the Galilean, quit from compensating [in the case of <i>Tam</i> killing] embryos. Said R. Akiba to him: Behold Scripture states: If men strive together and hurt a woman with child etc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 22. ');">³</span>

אמר לו ר"ע הרי הוא אומר (שמות כא, כב) כי ינצו אנשים (ונגפו אשה) אנשים ולא שוורים

[implying that only] men but not oxen [are liable for killing embryos]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then a special implication to exempt Tam? ');">⁴</span>

שפיר קאמר ר"ע

Was not this a good question on the part of R. Akiba? — R. 'Ulla the son of R. Idi said: [The implication drawn by R. Jose] is essential. For otherwise it might have occurred to you to apply [R. Akiba's] inference 'Men but not oxen' [exclusively to such] oxen as are comparable to men: Just as men are <i>Mu'ad</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 68. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב עולא בריה דרב אידי איצטריך ס"ד אמינא אנשים ולא שוורים הדומין לאנשים מה אנשים מועדין אף שוורים מועדין הא תם מיחייב כתב רחמנא בעל השור נקי דפטור

so also here the oxen referred to are <i>Mu'ad</i>, whereas in the case of <i>Tam</i> there should be liability. The Divine Law has therefore stated, <i>'The owner of the ox shall be quit'</i>, implying exemption [also in the case of <i>Tam</i>]. Said Raba thereupon: Is the native born to be on the earth and the stranger in the highest heavens?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how would it be possible to have exemption in the case of Mu'ad and liability in the case of Tam? ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא

No, said Raba. [The implication drawn by R. Jose] is essential [for this reason, that] you might have been inclined to apply the inference 'Men but not oxen' only to oxen which could be compared to men — just as men are <i>Mu'ad</i> so the oxen here referred to are <i>Mu'ad</i> — and to have extended the exemption to cases of <i>Tam</i> by an argument <i>a fortiori</i>. Therefore the Divine Law purposely states [further], <i>The owner of the ox shall be quit</i> [to indicate that only] in the case of <i>Tam</i> will there be exemption whereas in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> there will be liability. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, why not argue in the same way in the case of payment for degradation; thus: [Scripture says] 'Men',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 11. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא איצטריך ס"ד אמינא אנשים ולא שוורים הדומין לאנשים מה אנשים מועדין אף שוורים מועדין וק"ו לתמין דפטירי הדר כתב רחמנא בעל השור נקי תם פטור ומועד חייב

excluding oxen which could be compared with men: just as the men are <i>Mu'ad</i> so the oxen [thus exempted] must be <i>Mu'ad</i>, and <i>a fortiori</i> exemption is extended to cases of <i>Tam</i>. Thereupon the Divine Law on another occasion purposely states, <i>'The owner of the ox shall be quit'</i> [to indicate that only] in the case of <i>Tam</i> will there be exemption, whereas in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> there will be liability [for degradation]? Now you could hardly say that this is indeed the case, for if so why not teach that, <i>'the owner of the ox shall be quit'</i> [means], according to R. Jose the Galilean, quit from compensating [both in the case of <i>Tam</i> killing] embryos and [in the case of it having caused] degradation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But Mu'ad is liable. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל אביי אלא מעתה גבי בושת נמי נימא הכי אנשים ולא שוורים הדומין לאנשים מה אנשים מועדין אף שוורים מועדין וקל וחומר לתמין דפטירי הדר כתב רחמנא בעל השור נקי תם פטור ומועד חייב

— Abaye and Raba both therefore said: [You might have been inclined to suppose that] in the case of 'men' it is only where no mischief<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., death. ');">⁹</span>

וכ"ת ה"נ אי הכי ליתני בעל השור נקי רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר פטור מדמי ולדות ומבושת

[resulted to the woman] that a liability to pay [for the embryo is imposed] upon them whereas where a mischief [resulted to the woman] no civil liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the embryo. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו אנשים אין אסון באשה יענשו יש אסון באשה לא יענשו ולא שוורים דאע"ג דיש אסון יענשו הדר כתב רחמנא בעל השור נקי דפטור

[is imposed] upon them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As all civil claims would merge in the capital charge; cf. supra p. 113 and infra p. 427, n. 2. ');">¹¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב אדא בר אהבה אטו באסון תליא מילתא בכוונה תליא מילתא

but that it is not so with oxen, as in their case even if mischief [results to the woman] a liability to pay is imposed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the civil liability of the owner should not be affected by the ox having to be put to death. ');">¹²</span>

אלא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אנשים כי נתכונו זה לזה אע"ג שיש אסון באשה יענשו כי נתכונו לאשה עצמה לא יענשו ולא שוורים דאפילו נתכונו לאשה עצמה יענשו כתב רחמנא בעל השור נקי דפטירי

The Divine Law has therefore on another occasion purposely stated, <i>The owner of the ox shall be quit</i>, to indicate exemption [in all cases]. R. Adda b. Ahabah demurred to this, saying: Does then the matter of civil liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 238, n. 4. ');">¹³</span>

וכן כי אתא רב חגי מדרומא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה כוותיה דרב אדא בר אהבה

depend upon the non-occurrence of mischief to the woman? Does this matter not depend upon intention [of the defendant]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For where he intended to kill another person and it was only by accident that the woman and her embryo were killed, there would, according to R. Adda b. Ahabah, be no capital charge but a civil liability; cf. for such a view infra p. 252 and Sanh. 79a. ');">¹⁴</span>

תניא אידך בעל השור נקי ר"ע אומר נקי מדמי עבד

— R. Adda b. Ahabah therefore said: [You might have been inclined to think thus:] In the case of men where their purpose was to kill one another, even if mischief results to a woman, a civil liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 238, n. 4. ');">¹³</span> will be imposed, whereas where they purposed to kill the woman herself [who was in fact killed], no civil liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 238, n. 4. ');">¹³</span> would be imposed. In the case of oxen, however, even where their purpose was to kill the woman [who is indeed killed by them] a civil liability should be imposed for the embryo. [To prevent your reasoning thus] the Divine Law on another occasion purposely states, <i>'The owner of the ox shall be quit'</i> to indicate exemption [altogether in the case of oxen]. And so also R. Haggai upon returning from the South, came [to the College] and brought the teaching [of a Baraitha] with him stating the case in accordance with the interpretation given by R. Adda b. Ahabab. Another [Baraitha] teaches: <i>'The owner of the ox shall be quit'</i> [implies], according to the statement of R. Akiba, quit from compensating for [the killing of] a slave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 232. ');">¹⁵</span>