Bava Kamma 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

Lest you say

it is considered as though it killed her

as though the ox itself had killed her]

it teaches us otherwise!

That is, this is a leniency with regard to bestiality: although death was caused through it, nevertheless the owners are not liable to pay kofer, and we do not consider the ox as though it were the one that killed the woman.

Rava said:

Actually,

in a case

where it mated with her and killed her,

it is with regard to the act of mating itself that they said that the animal that mates does not pay kofer;

and what is difficult for you:

why should it not pay, seeing that

what difference is there whether it killed her with its horn or whether it killed her through mating!?

I can say to you:

The characteristic of keren is that its intention is to cause damage, whereas this animal’s intention is for its own pleasure;

and if so, it is not included in the category of keren, and the Torah made kofer obligatory only in the case of keren.

And we explain:

With regard to what do

Abaye and Rava disagree, such that according to Abaye, when it killed her through mating, it is liable to pay kofer, whereas according to Rava it is not liable to pay kofer?

With regard to a leg that trampled a child in the courtyard of the injured party,

that is, an ox that killed through its “leg”:

According to Abaye: It pays kofer,

because in all the ox’s liabilities the Torah made its owner liable to pay kofer, whereas

according to Rava: It does not pay kofer,

because the Torah made kofer obligatory only in the category of keren.

Here the Gemara returns to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to whether an arena ox is fit for the altar, and cites that

a beraita was taught in accordance with Rav’s opinion,

that it is fit for the altar:

For it was taught in a beraita:

An arena ox is not liable to be put to death, and

it is also

fit

is it

for the altar,

because

it is considered coerced.

That is, it is as though the one who incited it was the one who killed, and not the ox itself.

Mishna:

An ox that gored a person and the person died,

the person.

If the ox is

forewarned

to kill, it

pays kofer,

as it is stated: “But if the ox was a goring ox from yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner was warned but did not guard it, and it killed a man or a woman: the ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. If a ransom is imposed upon him…”

And

if it is

innocent,

it

is exempt from kofer,

as it is stated: “But when an ox gores a man or a woman and he dies, the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox is clear. And if the ox was a goring ox…” And we expound on page b: “clear” of half a kofer,” teaching that an innocent ox does not pay even half a kofer, and the law of kofer is not like payment for damage, of which an innocent ox pays half.

And both this and that,

whether innocent or forewarned,

are liable to death,

as it is stated: “When an ox gores a man or a woman and he dies, the ox shall surely be stoned. And if the ox was a goring ox from yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner was warned but did not guard it, and it killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned.” Thus, both the innocent ox and the forewarned ox are stoned.

And likewise,

the same law applies—that the ox is liable to death whether it is innocent or forewarned— and when it is forewarned it pays kofer—

with regard to a son

[a minor] who was killed by an ox,

and likewise with regard to a daughter,

a minor, as it is stated: “Whether it gores a son or gores a daughter, according to this law shall it be done to him.”

And if

the ox gored

a male slave or a female slave

and they died, its owner does not pay kofer according to the value of the damager or the injured party. Rather,

he gives

a fine

of thirty sela,

to the owners of the slave,

whether he

the slave

is worth one hundred maneh, or whether he is worth only one dinar,

as it is stated: “If the ox gores a male slave or a female slave, he shall give thirty shekels of silver to his master, and the ox shall be stoned.”

Gemara:

The Gemara raises an objection to what is stated in our Mishna, that kofer is paid only for a forewarned ox:

But

since we put an innocent ox to death when it kills,

[since an innocent ox is stoned when it kills a person], then a

forewarned

ox that is forewarned to kill—that is, witnesses testified concerning it for three days, after each goring, that it had killed a person—

how can you find such a case!?

It should already have been stoned after its first gorings!?

He said

as an answer,

Rava said: Here we are dealing with

a case in which its forewarning was not established through its actually killing three people. Rather,

for example, they assessed it as capable of

killing

three people.

That is, it ran after three people on three separate days, and they fled from it, and they testified about this before the court and the owners after each pursuit; and the court assessed that had those people not fled, it would have killed them.

Rav Ashi

disagrees with Rava’s answer, and

said: An assessment is nothing,

and the ox becomes forewarned only through actually killing three people.

Rather,

Rav Ashi explained:

Here we are dealing with a case in which

at first it

endangered three people

on three separate days, and they testified concerning it, but they did not put it to death, since no person had yet died; and when it committed the fourth goring, the three people died.

Rav Zevid said:

Here we are dealing with a case

in which it killed three animals,

for which it is not stoned, but it nevertheless becomes forewarned with regard to killing.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

And

if it is

forewarned to

kill

an animal, does it become forewarned to

kill

a person!?

Rather, Rav Shimi said:

Here we are dealing with a case

in which it killed three gentiles,

and an ox is not put to death for killing a gentile.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

And

if it is

forewarned to

kill

gentiles, does it become forewarned to

kill

Jews,

so that it must pay kofer for them when it kills them!?

Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

Here we are dealing with a case

in which it killed three people who were tereifa,

and the ox is not put to death for killing a tereifa, because the person it killed was a “dead man”—a living person who is considered as dead.

And we wonder:

And

if it is

forewarned to

kill

a tereifa, does it become forewarned to

kill a fully viable person

!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Here we are dealing with a case in which

it killed

the ox

and fled to the marsh, and it killed

again

and fled to the marsh

[the ox killed and fled to the marsh so that it would not be put to death].

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:

Here we are dealing with a case

in which the refuters of the refuters were discredited—

That is, witnesses testified against it on the first day, and the witnesses were proven to be conspiring witnesses, so the court exempted the ox from stoning. Then other witnesses testified against it on the second day, and they too were proven to be conspiring witnesses. Then witnesses testified against it on the third day, and on that same day witnesses arrived who discredited those who had discredited the first two groups; the testimony of the original witnesses was thereby reinstated, and the ox was now forewarned. Before the court managed to complete its judgment sentencing the ox to death, the ox committed a fourth goring while it was still in its owner’s possession, and for this goring it pays kofer.

The Gemara above, 24a, states: They raised a dilemma before them: The “three days” taught in the Mishna there—“A forewarned ox is one concerning which testimony was given for three days”—is this in order to forewarn the ox, or in order to forewarn the person? What is the practical difference? If three sets of witnesses come on one day [on one day they testify concerning three gorings that occurred on three days], if you say it is in order to forewarn the ox, it becomes forewarned; but if you say it is in order to forewarn the person, it does not become forewarned, because the owner of the ox can say: It is only now that they are testifying against me.

The Gemara raises an objection:

This works out well if

we require forewarning of the ox

,

for according to this view, it becomes forewarned even when witnesses testify on one day concerning three gorings that occurred over three days;

well,

it is possible to explain the Mishna as described, that the refuters of the refuters were discredited.

But if we require forewarning of the person,

and testimony must be given before the owners after each goring, then the owners cannot be held liable in a case where the witnesses were discredited, even though after all the gorings it became clear that they were truthful witnesses. For

they can say

[they will say]: At the time the witnesses came,

we did not know

[we did not know] that they were truthful witnesses. Our knowledge that our ox had gored was established only after it had committed three gorings, and this does not constitute forewarning according to the one who says: “To forewarn the person”!?

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case

in which they said—

the witnesses who testified concerning the ox’s gorings—

Whenever your ox killed, it was standing beside it

[the owners were present at every goring of the ox]. Therefore, the owners knew the truth—that the ox was forewarned.

Ravina said,

to resolve our Mishna in another manner:

Here we are dealing with a case

in

which the witnesses who testified concerning the ox’s gorings in order to make it forewarned

recognized the owner of the ox,

and could testify before him that his ox had gored,

but

they

did not

they

recognize the

ox

so that the court could not put it to death. After it committed a fourth goring, it became known that it was the ox that had committed the previous three gorings, and its owner is therefore liable to pay kofer.

The Gemara raises an objection:

What could he have done

[what could the owner have done]? That is, since when testimony was given before the owner concerning the ox’s gorings he did not know which ox had gored, he did not know which ox he had to guard, and this does not constitute forewarning!?

you have an ox accustomed to goring in your herd, and you should have guarded the entire herd].