Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 42a

בבא קמא מ״ב ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 42a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 42a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Why the Torah needs 'בעל השור נקי' if 'men, not oxen' already exempts an ox owner from דמי ולדות, and רבי עקיבא's reading about דמי עבד

Overview

This amud opens by finishing two pictures of how רבי אליעזר answered רבי עקיבא. In one picture he is a fisherman who keeps every fish, so both his answers stand. In רב טביומי's version, in the name of רבא, he drops the first 'הֵמִית' answer once he finds a better one. The גמרא then brings a ברייתא where רבי יוסי הגלילי reads 'בעל השור נקי' as freeing the owner from דמי ולדות. רבי עקיבא objects that the miscarriage פסוק already says 'men, not oxen', and the גמרא agrees that this is a strong point. רב עולא and then רבא each try to show why the פסוק is still needed. רב עולא's answer is rejected because it would make a תם stricter than a מועד, and אביי knocks down רבא's answer by applying the same logic to בושת. אביי and רבא then explain that the difference is about whether the woman was harmed. רב אדא בר אהבה says it is really about whom the attackers meant to hit, and רב חגי brings a ברייתא that supports him. Finally, another ברייתא quotes רבי עקיבא, who reads 'בעל השור נקי' as freeing the owner from דמי עבד.

Opening lines

מַשְׁכַּח רַבְרְבֵי – שָׁקֵיל,

He finds big ones – he takes them,

זוּטְרֵי – שָׁקֵיל.

small ones – he takes them too.

רַב טָבְיוֹמֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר

Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Rava:

״הֵמִית״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא –

He said 'killed' to him first –

The steps (15)

  1. ResponseThe fisherman who keeps every fish
  2. StatementThe fisherman who throws back the small fish
  3. Statementרבי יוסי הגלילי: the owner is free from paying for the unborn children
  4. Challengeרבי עקיבא: the פסוק already says 'men', not oxen
  5. ChallengeThe גמרא agrees that רבי עקיבא's objection is strong
  6. Resolutionרב עולא: without the verse, a תם ox might have been liable
  7. Rejectionרבא: that makes the weaker case stricter
  8. Resolutionרבא's answer: the verse exempts only a תם, so a מועד pays
  9. Challengeאביי applies רבא's method to humiliation
  10. ChallengeIf so, the ברייתא should have mentioned humiliation
  11. ResolutionNew answer: the difference is whether the woman was harmed
  12. Challengeרב אדא בר אהבה says it depends on intent, not on harm
  13. Resolutionרב אדא בר אהבה explains why the ox owner is exempt from paying for the babies
  14. Proofרב חגי brings a ברייתא that supports רב אדא בר אהבה
  15. Statementרבי עקיבא reads the verse as exempting the owner from paying for a slave