Bava Kamma 41a

בבא קמא מ״א ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 41a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 41a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

כופר and intent, how an ox becomes מועד for killing, and the ban on eating or benefiting from an ox sentenced to death

Overview

The amud opens by finishing אביי's and רבא's explanations of why there is no כופר when an ox killed a woman through רביעה. Their practical difference is an ox that tramples a child in the victim's yard. A ברייתא then supports רב: a stadium ox that kills is not put to death and stays fit for the מזבח, because it was forced. A new משנה teaches that only a מועד ox's owner pays כופר, that both a תם and a מועד ox are put to death, and that killing a slave costs a fixed thirty סלעים. The גמרא asks how an ox could ever become מועד for killing if it is put to death after its first killing. Many אמוראים answer: a court assessment, deadly wounds where the victims died later, an ox that ran to the marsh, witnesses who were disqualified and then restored, and an ox that could not be identified. Several answers are rejected along the way. Next, a ברייתא learns that an ox sentenced to death is forbidden to eat even if it was slaughtered first, and that the owner may get no benefit from it ('ובעל השור נקי'). The גמרא tests this against רבי אבהו's rule that 'do not eat' also means 'do not benefit.' מר זוטרא then begins a challenge that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (34)

1. ResolutionEnd of אביי's answer: the ox is not treated as the killer
2. Resolutionרבא: the ox did kill her, but it had no intent to harm
3. QuestionWhere would אביי and רבא actually rule differently?
4. ResponseAn ox that tramples a child in the victim's yard
5. ProofA ברייתא supports רב about the stadium ox
6. StatementAn ox that kills a person: ransom and death
7. StatementAn ox that kills a slave: a fixed thirty סלעים
8. ChallengeHow can there ever be a forewarned ox for killing?
9. Resolutionרבה: the court assessed it would have killed three people
10. Rejectionרב אשי: an assessment is worth nothing
11. Resolutionרב אשי: it fatally wounded three people who died later
12. ResolutionThe ox killed three animals
13. RejectionKilling animals does not make it dangerous to people
14. ResolutionThe ox killed three גוים
15. RejectionKilling גוים does not make it מועד for Jews
16. ResolutionThe ox killed three people who were טרפה
17. RejectionKilling טרפה people does not make it מועד for healthy people
18. ResolutionThe ox killed and ran away to the marsh each time
19. ResolutionThe witnesses who disqualified the testimony were themselves disqualified
20. ChallengeBut then the owner was never warned
21. ResolutionThe owner was standing right there each time
22. ResolutionThey knew the owner but not which ox
23. ChallengeWhat could the owner have done?
24. ResolutionHe should have guarded his whole herd
25. StatementQuoting the משנה: both oxen are put to death
26. StatementThe ox is forbidden to eat even if slaughtered after the verdict
27. QuestionWhat about benefit from the ox?
28. ResponseThe source for the benefit ban: 'ובעל השור נקי'
29. QuestionHow do those words show a ban on benefit?
30. Responseשמעון בן זומא: 'clear' like a man left with nothing
31. ChallengeMaybe 'its flesh shall not be eaten' is about a stoned ox
32. Proofרבי אבהו's rule: 'do not eat' also means 'do not benefit'
33. ResolutionThe extra words 'its flesh' show the verse is about a slaughtered ox
34. Challengeמר זוטרא begins a challenge