Bava Kamma 42a — the Talmud in English

to a fisherman who pulls fish from the sea ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

when he finds large ones, he takes them,

when he finds

small ones, he takes them

when he finds large fish, he takes them and places them in his basket, and when he then finds small fish, he also places them in his basket], and so too Rabbi Eliezer: although he had already given a good answer, nevertheless, when another answer arose in his mind, even though it was less good than the second one, he stated that one as well.

Rav Taviyומי said in the name of Rava:

“He killed”

he said to him first, an analogy

to what is this comparable?

To a fisherman who pulls fish from the sea: when he finds small ones, he takes them; when he finds large ones, he throws away the small ones and takes the large ones [

if he first finds small fish, he places them in his basket, for perhaps he will not find better ones, and when he subsequently finds large fish, and there is not room in his basket for all of them, he throws away the small ones and takes only the large ones], and so too Rabbi Eliezer: at first he stated a less good answer, because no better answer than it had arisen in his mind, and when a better answer arose in his mind, he retracted the first one and gave this one.

1. It is written [Exodus 21:22]: “And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman and her children emerge, but there is no disaster [death], he shall surely be punished [the striker with monetary payment], as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him [that is, the value of the offspring], and he shall give it through the judges”; and we learned that if there is a disaster, he is not punished, and this is because there is an obligation of death, and death exempts from monetary payment, by the principle of kam lei bid’rabba minei”.

And this verse is to be interpreted in several ways:

The first: “but there shall be no disaster” among the fighters; but if there is a disaster among the fighters—that he intended to kill his fellow and killed him—he is not punished for the value of the offspring.

The second: “but there shall be no disaster” to the woman; but if the disaster is to the woman—even if he did not intend it—he is not punished for the value of the offspring.

2. It is written [Deuteronomy 25:11]: “When men fight together, each man with his brother, and the wife of one approaches to rescue her husband from the hand of the one striking him, and she stretches out her hand and grasps his shameful place [and thereby humiliates him]. Then you shall cut off her palm [that is, she shall pay money]; your eye shall not pity.”

And the Sages expounded from what the verse said, “when men fight,” that only men did the Torah obligate in payment for humiliation; but oxen that humiliate a person are not obligated in payment for humiliation.

It was taught in another beraita

[we learned another beraita]:

we learned another beraita]: It is written in the passage concerning ransom: “And

the owner of the ox is innocent,”

Rabbi

Yosei the Galilean says:

the verse comes to teach that when an ox gores a woman and her children emerge, the owner of the ox is

innocent of

payment of

the value of the offspring,

for the Torah obligated only a person.

Rabbi Akiva said

to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: Why was it necessary for the Torah to teach that an ox is exempt from the value of the offspring,

for it

the verse

says

in the passage concerning the value of the offspring: “And

when men fight,”

we have already learned:

men

are obligated in the value of the offspring

and not oxen!?

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei the Galilean’s position, for seemingly it is difficult:

he has spoken properly

to him,

Rabbi Akiva

Rabbi Akiva asked him a proper question]!?

Rav Ulla, son of Rav Idi, said

to resolve this: nevertheless,

it was necessary

for the verse to teach us the ox’s exemption from the value of the offspring from “and the owner of the ox is innocent,” because

it might enter your mind to say

that what the Torah said, “men,” should be interpreted as follows:

Men

are obligated in the value of the offspring,

but oxen resembling men

are obligated in the value of the offspring, that is:

just as men

whom the Torah obligated in the value of the offspring—the verse spoke of

forewarned

ones, for a person is forewarned—

so too oxen

whom the Torah excluded from the value of the offspring, it excluded only

forewarned

ones—

And I would say:

but an innocuous ox

which does not resemble a person, who is forewarned—

is obligated

in the value of the offspring.

And therefore

the Merciful One wrote “and

the

owner of the ox is innocent,”

to say

that

even an innocuous ox

is exempt.

Rava

said: This is

“the citizen on the ground and the convert in the heavens!”

Is it possible that the citizen should be below, on the earth, while the convert is high in the heavens]!? Would it enter our minds that a forewarned ox would be exempt, while an innocuous one would be liable!?

Rather, Rava said: It was necessary “and the owner of the ox is innocent,” because

it might enter your mind to say,

“men but not oxen resembling men,”

the verse excluded, and this is its intention:

just as men are forewarned, so too oxen are forewarned,

and I would say that the forewarned ox is exempt from the value of the offspring,

and it follows by a kal va-chomer that innocuous oxen are exempt—

And therefore

the Merciful One again wrote “and

the

owner of the ox is innocent,”

in order to teach us that

an innocuous ox is exempt

from the value of the offspring,

and a forewarned ox is liable

for the value of the offspring.

That is, the principal exclusion from “and the owner of the ox is innocent” did not come to teach the exemption from the value of the offspring, but rather to tell you: only the owner of an innocuous ox—in which the verse spoke, for afterward it says, “and if it was a goring ox”—is innocent of the value of the offspring, but not the owner of a forewarned ox. Do not say: the Torah excluded “men but not forewarned oxen resembling men”; it comes to teach us that the owner of a forewarned ox is not innocent.

Abaye said to him: But from now on,

according to your words, that “and the owner of the ox is innocent” comes to make the forewarned ox liable, and so that we should not exclude it through “men,”

concerning humiliation

of oxen

let us also say this:

Since the Torah said concerning humiliation, “when men fight,” it follows that

men

are obligated for humiliation

but oxen resembling men.

Just as men,

among

forewarned

ones, the verse obligated them for humiliation,

so too, among oxen, the forewarned

the verse exempted,

and it follows by a kal va-chomer that innocuous oxen are exempt

from humiliation. And therefore

the Merciful One again wrote “the owner of the ox is innocent,”

in order to teach you that

an innocuous ox is exempt and a forewarned ox is liable.

And if you would say: so too

Indeed, this is so].

This cannot be said, for

if so, let it teach

this in the beraita: “

the owner of the ox is innocent.”

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says:

to teach that he is

exempt from the value of the offspring and from humiliation.

Rather, Abaye and Rava both say,

the Torah needed to exclude through “and the owner of the ox is innocent” from the value of the offspring, and it was not enough that it said “men,” implying “and not oxen,” because I would have interpreted the verse’s exclusion of “men” as coming to be stringent with regard to oxen, and this is what the verse said:

Men,

if

there is no disaster to the woman, they shall be punished.

As it says, “but there shall be no disaster [to the woman], he shall surely be punished”; but if

there is a disaster to the woman, they shall not be punished,

as is implied by the verse—

but not oxen.

For even though there is a disaster

to the woman,

they shall be punished,

since there is no obligation of death in this case upon the owner of the ox.

And therefore

again

he returned and

the Merciful One wrote “and

the

owner of the ox is innocent,”

for he is exempt

the owner of the ox from the value of the offspring.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to this,

to Abaye and Rava, who interpreted the verse “but there shall be no disaster” as: if there is no disaster to the woman, they shall be punished; but if there is a disaster to the woman—which they did not intend—they shall not be punished:

Is it so

that

the matter depends upon the disaster!?

And is it that which the Torah exempted the striker from the monetary payment depends only upon the disaster, with no distinction between whether the disaster was among the fighters, who intended against one another, or whether the disaster was to the woman, whom he did not intend; in either case the striker is exempt from the monetary payment

!

But this is not so. Rather,

the matter depends upon intention.

For the Torah did not say “but there shall be no disaster,” implying that if there is a disaster he shall not be punished, except when there is a disaster to the man whom he intended to strike; but if he struck the woman, whom he did not intend to strike, he is not exempt from the monetary payment.

And if so, how can it be said that the verse’s exclusion is that, with men, if there is a disaster to the woman they shall not be punished, whereas oxen shall be punished!? For even men are punished when there is a disaster to the woman, since he did not intend to strike her.

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

this is what one should say: had the Torah said only “men,” I would have said that the Torah’s intention in this exclusion is:

men, when they intended against one another, even though there is a disaster to the woman, they shall be punished.

For the Torah said only, “but there shall be no disaster” to the man; but if there is a disaster to the woman, since he did not intend to strike her, he is liable for the value of the offspring—

But

when they intended for the woman herself, they shall not be punished,

just as when there was a disaster to the man whom he intended to strike, the Torah exempted him—

but not oxen.

For even when they intended for the woman herself, they shall be punished.

And therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

the owner of the ox is innocent,”

for they are exempt.

And likewise, when Rav Hagai came from the south

when Rav Hagai came from the south],

he came and brought a teaching in his hand

[he came and brought with him a beraita] which was stated

he came and brought with him a beraita] that was in accordance with Rav Adda bar Ahava.

It was taught in another beraita:

It is written in the passage concerning ransom, “And

the owner of the ox is innocent.”

Rabbi Akiva says:

the verse comes to say that an innocuous ox is

innocent of the value of a slave.

And it is not like a forewarned ox that killed a slave, for which it is liable for a fine of thirty shekels.