Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 43b

בבא קמא מ״ג ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 43b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 43b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

An ox that kills a free man or a slave: admission, accidental killing, כופר and the thirty שקלים, and liability for killing minors

Overview

רבה explains why an owner who admits that his ox killed a free man pays the victim's value (דמים), while an owner who admits that his ox killed a slave pays nothing. For a free man, admission can obligate כופר, but the thirty שקלים for a slave are a קנס, and a קנס is never paid through one's own admission. רב שמואל בר רב יצחק challenges this from a ברייתא. The ברייתא is then reread so that it only covers cases proven by witnesses. רבא asks whether a fire that kills someone by accident should also pay דמים. The גמרא tests two possible sources for his view, rejects both, and leaves the question as תיקו. רבי יוחנן learns from the extra word 'אם' that כופר is paid even for an accidental killing, and also that the thirty שקלים are paid for a slave killed by accident. ריש לקיש exempts the accidental slave case but agrees about כופר, because only the 'אם' in the payment clause is extra. Finally, a ברייתא learns that an ox's owner is liable for killing children just as for adults, and asks whether logic could have taught this. Its קל וחומר continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

מִיהוּ, בֶּן חוֹרִין

However, with a free man,

דִּמְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ –

where one pays ransom based on his own admission –

וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

and what is the case?

דְּאִי אֲתוֹ סָהֲדֵי וְאַסְהִידוּ בֵּיהּ דִּקְטַל,

if witnesses came and testified about it that it killed,

The steps (25)

  1. StatementFree man: admission can obligate ransom, so without witnesses he pays value
  2. StatementSlave: admission never obligates the fine, so without witnesses no value is paid
  3. ChallengeA ברייתא equates slave and free man
  4. ChallengeRansom for a slave must mean value
  5. ResolutionRereading the ברייתא so it fits רבה
  6. Challengeרבא: Then an accidental fire should pay דמים too
  7. QuestionHow does רבא know fire does not pay?
  8. ProofA first try: the משנה of the bound slave and the goat
  9. RejectionThe goat-and-slave משנה is no proof
  10. ProofA second suggested source: the fire-versus-pit ברייתא
  11. RejectionThe ברייתא may have left things out
  12. Conclusionרבא was really asking a question
  13. QuestionLaying out both sides of רבא's question about fire
  14. ConclusionThe question stays unresolved
  15. Statementרבי יוחנן: an ox that kills by accident still pays כופר
  16. Challengeאביי: then the slave case should work the same way
  17. ResolutionTwo different אמוראים can disagree
  18. Statementרבין reports that רבי יוחנן applies 'אם עבד' to accidental killing
  19. ProofSuggesting that ריש לקיש rejects both extra words
  20. Rejectionריש לקיש learns from 'אם כופר' but not from 'אם עבד'
  21. QuestionWhat is the difference between the two words 'אם'?
  22. ResponseThe word 'אם' by כופר sits in the payment part of the פסוק
  23. StatementAn ox that kills children: the owner is liable just as for adults
  24. ChallengeCouldn't we learn this from a person who kills?
  25. ChallengeA second argument: a קל וחומר begins