Bava Kamma 41b — the Talmud in English

Where he examined a flint

[stone]

and slaughtered with it, making it like stoning

[for it appears like stoning with stones] and not like slaughtering—

But where he slaughtered it with a knife, no

it is forbidden in eating and benefit!?

They said

to reject and explain:

Is it indeed the case that

whether

a knife is written in the Torah

[and is a knife mentioned in the passage of slaughtering]!?

And

for

we learned: One who slaughters with a hand-sickle, with a flint, or with a reed—his slaughtering is valid!

And we object:

And now, since it emerges for him

both

the prohibition of eating and

both

the prohibition of benefit, from “

he shall not eat its flesh,”

since it has been explained that this verse comes to teach a prohibition after its verdict has been completed, and it newly teaches us as well the prohibition of eating, which we did not know, then it necessarily follows that within “he shall not eat” the prohibition of benefit is also implied [for only if the verse was not needed for the prohibition of eating would it be impossible that it came for the prohibition of benefit, but now the prohibition of eating too is learned from this verse]—

And if so, “

and the owner of the ox is clean,”

which was mentioned above as coming to teach the prohibition of benefit,

why do I need it

[why does it come]!? We already know the prohibition of benefit from “he shall not eat.”

And we answer: “And the owner of the ox is clean” does not come to teach about the prohibition of benefit from the flesh of the ox, for indeed we already knew this from “he shall not eat.” Rather,

for the

prohibition of

benefit from its hide

it comes, whether its verdict has been completed or whether it has already been stoned.

And the verse needed to teach us the prohibition of benefit from its hide because

it might enter your mind to say,

since “he shall not eat its flesh” is written, then only

its flesh is forbidden in benefit, but its hide is permitted

[it will be permitted]

in benefit.

And therefore

it teaches us “

and the owner of the ox is clean,”

that even the hide is forbidden in benefit.

And we object:

And according to those other tannaim

[Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yose the Galilean, and Rabbi Akiva],

who derive this “

and the owner of the ox is clean”

[according to the method of these tannaim, who remove this verse]

for another exposition

[to exclude a harmless ox from half a ransom, or to exclude an ox from the monetary value of miscarried offspring, or to exclude a harmless ox from half the monetary value of a slave],

as we will say below

[as explained on this page and on the next page], according to their method, surely it is difficult:

the benefit from its hide—from where do they derive it

that it is forbidden?

And we answer: They derive the prohibition of benefit from the hide of an ox that is to be stoned

from “

and he shall not eat” “

the”

“its flesh,”

which comes to include for prohibition

that which is ancillary to its flesh,

which too is forbidden in benefit. And

what is it

[what is ancillary to its flesh]? This is

its hide.

The Gemara explains the view of the one who disagrees with those tannaim: according to his words, “and the owner of the ox is clean” necessarily comes to teach about benefit from its hide, and the difficulty is: why do I need this, since it follows from “the”:

And this tanna

—who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yose the Galilean, and Rabbi Akiva—“

the”

does not expound

anywhere that it comes to include; and if so, “and the owner of the ox is clean” is needed to teach about benefit from its hide.

As it was taught

in a beraita, that there is one who does not expound “the” as an inclusion:

Shimon the Imsonite—and some say Nehemiah the Imsonite—was

initially

expounding every “

the”

in the Torah

as coming to include something, but

when he reached “

the”

Lord your God you shall fear,

he withdrew

from expounding them, because he was afraid to include anything and equate it with fear of the Omnipresent.

His students said to him: Rabbi! What will become of all the “the”s that you expounded!?

He said to them: Just as I received reward for expounding, so did I receive reward for withdrawing.

Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: “

the”

Lord your God you shall fear”

to include Torah scholars,

so that the fear of your teacher should be like the fear of Heaven.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of ransom: “

And the owner of the ox is clean.”

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The verse comes to teach that one should not say that a harmless ox that killed a person makes its owner pay half a ransom, just as when it caused damage it makes him pay half the damage. Rather,

clean

means that the owner of the harmless ox that killed is

clean from half a ransom,

and he pays nothing.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Rabbi Akiva:

Why was it necessary for the Torah to exclude the harmless ox from payment of the ransom?

For it itself is paid for only from its body,

for if the harmless ox were liable for half a ransom, the ransom would be collected only from its body, in the manner in which half the damage is collected from its body. And if so, the owners would say to the heirs of the slain man:

Bring it

—the harmless ox—

to the court, and it will pay you!

[The court will pay you the ransom from its body]!

That is, there is no possibility of collecting ransom, for the ox’s law is to be stoned, and how will he collect the ransom from it!?

He said

in reply

to him, Rabbi Eliezer

to Rabbi Akiva:

Do you take me to be such, that my ruling

[that which I expounded]

in this matter is that it is liable to death?

Do you take me to be such that I expounded the verse in order to exclude a harmless ox that is liable to death from ransom!?

My ruling

[the exposition that I expounded to exclude it]

is only to exclude it from payment of ransom

to exempt it from paying ransom

when it killed

the ox

the person on the testimony of one witness or on the word of the owners,

when there were not two witnesses to testify about its goring, but only one witness testified about it, or the owners confessed. In such a case they do not kill the ox, and there the verse needed to exclude it from liability for ransom! And we objected to this: “

on the word of the owners”!?

Was it necessary for the verse to exclude the harmless ox from liability for ransom on the basis of the owners’ admission? For just as half-damage is a fine, so half a ransom—which is payment of the injured party’s value, like damage—is also only a fine.

But

he is one who admits to a fine!

And a person is not made liable for a fine on the basis of his admission!?

And we answer:

He holds

Rabbi Eliezer, who answered Rabbi Akiva thus, that

ransom is atonement,

and he may be made liable on the basis of his admission.

It was taught in another baraita,

in which Rabbi Eliezer gave Rabbi Akiva another answer:

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva!

Is it so that

this is how you regard my ruling concerning

this ox,

that it is liable to death!?

My ruling applies only to

an ox that

intended to kill the animal, and

mistakenly

killed a person,

for which the ox is not liable to death, and Scripture needed to exclude it from kofer.

Or, in a case where the ox intended

to kill a gentile, and killed an Israelite.

Or where it intended

to kill miscarried fetuses and killed a viable child.

For in all these cases it is not liable to death, since it did not intend to kill one subject to liability, and Scripture needed to exclude it from kofer. And since the answer in the second baraita is better than the answer in the first baraita, the Gemara now deliberates about the order of these two answers:

Which one did he say to him

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Akiva

first [

which answer did he first give him?] Did he first give him the less good answer, or did he first give him the better answer?

Rav Kahana in the name of Rava said:

It was the answer of “

intending

to kill one for whose killing he is not liable” that

he said to him

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Akiva

first,

for it is the better answer.

But

Rav Tavyumi in the name of Rava said:

It was the answer of “

killed

on the basis of the owner and one witness” that

he said to him first,

for it is the less good answer.

And the Gemara explains their reasons:

Rav Kahana in the name of Rava said: “

Intending”

he said to him first; it is analogous

to what is this comparable,