Bava Kamma - Daf 41
- How an ox can become a mu’ad to kill people before being stoned
The next Mishnah teaches about an ox which kills a person, that a mu’ad would pay kofer and a tam would not, but even a tam is stoned to death. The Gemara asks that since a tam is killed, how can it become a mu’ad to kill people? Seven answers are offered, and four remain: (1) כגון שסיכן לשלשה בני אדם – where it mortally injured three people, who died after the third goring, rendering the ox a mu’ad then and obligating its owner in kofer. (2) דקטל וערק לאגמא – where it killed and fled to a swamp before it could be sentenced to death for its first killing and did so again after its second killing. (3) The original witnesses who testified to the first two killings were discredited through hazamah and reinstated after the third killing. (4) The witnesses could not identify which of his oxen was the killer before the third goring, so it could not be stoned earlier. He still pays kofer for its third killing, because he is told: תורא נגחנא אית לך בבקרך – you have a goring ox among your cattle; איבעי לך נטורי כולי בקרך – you must guard all your cattle.
- A שור נסקל is forbidden for any benefit
A Baraisa discusses the laws of a condemned ox: since it is stoned to death, it is obvious that it cannot be eaten (lacking shechitah), so why does the Torah need to write "לא יאכל את בשרו" – its flesh shall not be eaten? It teaches: שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו – if he shechted it after its sentence was finalized, but before it was stoned, אסור באכילה – it is forbidden in consumption. The Baraisa then derives that it is even prohibited in benefit from the phrase "ובעל השור נקי" – and the owner of the ox is “clean,” which is interpreted as an expression, like one who says: יצא איש פלוני נקי מנכסיו – Ploni went out “clean” from his possessions, ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום – and he has no benefit from them at all. Later, the Gemara explains that since Rebbe Abahu taught that the phrase "לא יאכל" already includes a prohibition from benefit, the phrase "בעל השור נקי" instead teaches that its hide is also prohibited in benefit. According to Tannaim who darshen "בעל השור נקי" differently below, the hide is prohibited based on "את" בשרו, which includes את הטפל לבשרו – that which is auxiliary to its flesh, i.e., the hide.
- Machlokes about חצי כופר
In a Baraisa it was taught: the passuk says "ובעל השור נקי" – and the ox’s owner is absolved (from payment), which Rebbe Eliezer explains: נקי מחצי כופר – the owner of a tam is absolved from paying half-kofer. Rebbe Akiva asked why a passuk is necessary: והלא הוא עצמו אין משתלם אלא מגופו – why, [half-kofer] itself would only have been paid from [the ox’s] body, הביאהו לבית דין וישלם לך – and since this ox is killed and forbidden in benefit, let him say, “Bring [the ox] to court and it will pay you!” Rebbe Eliezer countered: כך אני בעיניך שדיני בזה שחייב מיתה – Is that how I am in your eyes, that you think my derashah is with this ox which is liable to death? Rather, the case is where a single witness, or the owner himself, testified to the killing, based on which the ox would not be killed. Still, since Rebbe Eliezer holds kofer is an atonement, such testimony would have been adequate to obligate kofer. On another occasion, he answered the case is where the ox intended to kill an animal or Gentile, and inadvertently killed a Jew, for which it is not killed, but would pay kofer.
