## Bava Kamma Daf 41a

###### Bava Kamma 41a:1
[Bava Kamma 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:1)

כְּמַאן דְּקַטְלַהּ דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that the ox should be considered **like one that killed her,** as it was the reason for her execution, and therefore its owner should be liable to pay a ransom, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:2
[Bava Kamma 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:2)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּרַבְעַהּ וְקַטְלַהּ; וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: מָה לִי קַטְלַהּ בְּקַרְנַיִם, מָה לִי קַטְלַהּ בִּרְבִיעָה – קֶרֶן כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ לְהַזִּיק, הַאי כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ לַהֲנָאַת עַצְמוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually,** it is a case **where** the animal **engaged in bestiality with her and killed her** in the process. **And as for the difficulty you** pose: **What** is the difference **to me** whether **it killed her with** its **horns,** and **what** is the difference **to me** whether **it killed her through bestiality,** the answer is that in that case of an animal killing with its **horn, its intention is to cause injury,** whereas in **this** case of killing through bestiality **its intention is to** achieve **its own pleasure.**


###### Bava Kamma 41a:3
[Bava Kamma 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:3)

בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? בְּרֶגֶל שֶׁדָּרְסָה עַל גַּבֵּי תִּינוֹק בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק; לְאַבָּיֵי – מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר, לְרָבָא – לָא מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** other case **would** Abaye and Rava **disagree?** They disagree **with regard to** a case where an ox **trampled a child with its foot,** killing it, **in the courtyard of the injured** party. **According to Abaye,** the owner **pays** the **ransom,** as he holds that ransom is paid even if the animal’s objective was not to cause injury or death. **According to Rava, he does not pay** the **ransom.**


###### Bava Kamma 41a:4
[Bava Kamma 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:4)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: שׁוֹר הָאִיצְטָדִין – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב מִיתָה, וְכָשֵׁר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ; מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִּמְעוּשֶּׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav: A stadium ox** that killed a person **is not liable** to be put to **death and** is **fit to** be sacrificed as an offering on **the altar, because it is as though it was compelled** to behave in this manner.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:5
[Bava Kamma 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הָאָדָם, וּמֵת – מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר, וְתָם פָּטוּר מִן הַכּוֹפֶר. וְזֶה וְזֶה חַיָּיבִין מִיתָה. וְכֵן בַּבֵּן, וְכֵן בַּבַּת. נָגַח עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה – נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים סְלָעִים; בֵּין שֶׁהוּא יָפֶה מֵאָה מָנֶה, וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָפֶה אֶלָּא דִּינָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **an ox that gored a person and** the person **died,** if the ox was **forewarned** its owner **pays ransom, but** if it was **innocuous he is exempt from** paying **the ransom. And** both **this** forewarned ox **and that** innocuous ox **are liable** to be put to **death** for killing a person. **And the same** *halakha* applies **in** a case where the animal killed **a boy and the same** applies **in** a case where it killed **a girl.** If the ox **gored** and killed a Canaanite **slave or** a Canaanite **maidservant,** its owner **gives** the victim’s master **thirty *sela*, whether he was** a slave **worth one hundred *maneh*,** i.e., one hundred silver dinars, **or worth only one dinar.**


###### Bava Kamma 41a:6
[Bava Kamma 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּמִתָּם קָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ, מוּעָד הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **But since we kill** the ox for killing a person **when it is** still considered **innocuous, how can you find** a case of **a forewarned** ox killing a person?


###### Bava Kamma 41a:7
[Bava Kamma 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:7)

אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֲמָדוּהוּ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: Here we are dealing with** a case **where in three** instances of attacking **people,** the court **assessed** that had the people not escaped, the ox would certainly have killed them. Therefore, despite the fact that the ox did not kill anyone, it now has the status of a forewarned ox.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:8
[Bava Kamma 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:8)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אוּמְדָּנָא לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא. אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁסִּיכֵּן לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** Such **an assessment is not** worth **anything.** Since the ox did not actually kill them, it is not rendered forewarned even if it intended to kill. **Rather, here we are dealing with** a case **where it endangered** the lives of **three people** by goring them, and they all died only after the third goring. Therefore, the ox had not been put to death.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:9
[Bava Kamma 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:9)

רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָרַג שָׁלֹשׁה בְּהֵמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where it killed three animals,** which is sufficient to render the ox forewarned but for which it is not put to death.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:10
[Bava Kamma 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:10)

וּמוּעָד לִבְהֵמָה הָוֵי מוּעָד לְאָדָם? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָרַג שְׁלֹשָׁה גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is** an animal that is **forewarned with regard to animals** considered **forewarned with regard to people** as well? Certainly it is not. **Rather, Rav Shimi said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where it killed three gentiles,** for which the animal is not put to death.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:11
[Bava Kamma 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:11)

וּמוּעָד לְגוֹיִם הָוֵי מוּעָד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָרַג שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם טְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is** an animal that is **forewarned with regard to gentiles** considered **forewarned with regard to Jews** as well? **Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where it killed three people who had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [*tereifa*].** Since they were on the verge of dying anyway, the ox is not put to death for killing them. Nevertheless, it is rendered forewarned with regard to its future goring and killing of people.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:12
[Bava Kamma 41a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:12)

וּמוּעָד לִטְרֵפָה הָוֵי מוּעָד לְשָׁלֵם? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּקְטַל וַעֲרַק לְאַגְמָא, דִּקְטַל וַעֲרַק לְאַגְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is** an animal that is **forewarned with regard to a *tereifa*** considered **forewarned with regard to an intact** person, i.e., one who is not a *tereifa*? **Rather, Rav Pappa said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where it killed** a person **and fled to the marsh,** then **killed** again **and fled to the marsh,** and then killed again and fled to the marsh, so the court was not able kill it before it had killed three times, rendering it forewarned.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:13
[Bava Kamma 41a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:13)

רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּזְמוּ זוֹמְמֵי זוֹמְמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where** the witnesses **who had rendered** the witnesses who testified to the three incidents of goring as **conspiring witnesses,** resulting in the animal not being put to death, **were** themselves subsequently **proven** to be **conspiring witnesses** by other witnesses. Consequently, the testimonies of the witnesses who testified about the incidents of goring were reinstated, rendering the ox forewarned.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:14
[Bava Kamma 41a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:14)

הָנִיחָא אִי לְיַיעוֹדֵי תּוֹרָא בָּעֵינַן – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי לְיַיעוֹדֵי גַּבְרָא בָּעֵינַן, מֵימַר אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא הֲוָה יָדַעְנָא! כְּגוֹן דְּאָמְרִי: כֹּל אֵימַת דְּקָטֵיל תּוֹרֵיהּ, גַּבֵּיהּ הֲוָה קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** explanation **works out well if** it is assumed that the purpose of testifying to the ox’s goring is because **we wish to establish the ox as forewarned;** once the testimony concerning the incidents of goring is reinstated, it is established that the ox gored three times. **But if we wish to warn the man** who owns the ox by testifying that the animal gored, **he could say to** the judge, after it is established that his ox was forewarned: **I did not know** that my ox was forewarned, since the witnesses had previously been rendered conspiring witnesses. The Gemara answers: This is a case **where** the witnesses **say: Each time his ox killed** a person **he was standing by it,** so that he cannot claim ignorance.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:15
[Bava Kamma 41a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:15)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: בְּמַכִּירִין אֶת בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר, וְאֵין מַכִּירִין אֶת הַשּׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where** the witnesses **recognized the owner of the ox but did not recognize the ox** itself. Therefore, with regard to the first incidents of goring, they testified that it was his ox that gored, but they did not testify with regard to the ox itself. That is why the ox was not put to death. Only afterward did they realize that this was the ox that had gored three times previously.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:16
[Bava Kamma 41a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:16)

מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: תּוֹרָא נַגְחָנָא אִית לָךְ בְּבַקְרָךְ, אִיבְּעִי לָךְ נַטּוֹרֵי כּוּלֵּי בַּקְרָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, why is the ox rendered forewarned? **What could** the owner **have done** to prevent it from goring again, as he did not know which of his oxen had gored? The Gemara answers that it is rendered forewarned **because** the court effectively **said to him: You have** a habitually **goring ox in your herd,** so **you must safeguard your entire herd.**


###### Bava Kamma 41a:17
[Bava Kamma 41a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:17)

וְזֶה וָזֶה חַיָּיבִין מִיתָה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״סָקֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁנְּבֵילָה הִיא, וּנְבֵילָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״? מַגִּיד לְךָ הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁאִם שְׁחָטוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** both **this** forewarned ox **and that** innocuous ox **are liable** to be put to **death. The Sages taught:** We learn **by inference from** that **which is stated** with regard to an ox that killed a person: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die, **the ox shall be stoned,** and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear” (Exodus 21:28). **Don’t I know** from this verse **that** the stoning makes it an unslaughtered **animal carcass, and it is prohibited to eat** an unslaughtered **animal carcass? What** is the meaning when **the verse states: “Its flesh shall not be eaten”? The verse is telling you that** even **if one slaughtered** the ox **after its verdict had been reached** but before it was stoned, it is still **prohibited to eat** it.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:18
[Bava Kamma 41a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:18)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילָה, בַּהֲנָאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** that one is prohibited **to eat** it; **from where** is it derived that one is prohibited **from** deriving **benefit** from the ox as well? **The verse states: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear.”**


###### Bava Kamma 41a:19
[Bava Kamma 41a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:19)

מַאי מַשְׁמַע? שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זוֹמָא אוֹמֵר, כְּאָדָם שֶׁאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״יָצָא אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נָקִי מִנְּכָסָיו, וְאֵין לוֹ בָּהֶם הֲנָאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the inference?** How is this *halakha* derived from the statement that the owner shall be clear? **Shimon ben Zoma says:** This is **like a person who says to his friend: So-and-so was left clear of his property, and has no benefit from it at all.** Similarly, “but the owner of the ox shall be clear” means that he may not derive benefit from the ox.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:20
[Bava Kamma 41a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:20)

וּמִמַּאי דְּ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״ – לְהֵיכָא דִּשְׁחָטוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ, שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה? אֵימָא דְּהֵיכָא דִּשְׁחָטוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ – שְׁרֵי בַּאֲכִילָה הוּא; וְהַאי ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״ – לְהֵיכָא דְּסַקְלֵיהּ מִסְקָל, דְּאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה הוּא – כִּדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** is it known **that** this phrase: **“Its flesh shall not be eaten,”** serves to teach a *halakha* **with regard to** a case **where he slaughtered** the ox **after its verdict was reached,** but before it was stoned, and is teaching that one is **prohibited to eat** it? Why not **say that it is permitted to eat** the ox **if he slaughtered** it **after its verdict had been reached. And this** phrase: **“Its flesh shall not be eaten,”** serves to teach a *halakha* **with regard to** a case **where they** had already **stoned it,** but not to teach a prohibition against eating it, as that is already known due to the fact that it was stoned. Rather, it serves to prohibit deriving benefit from the ox, **and** that would be **in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Abbahu.**


###### Bava Kamma 41a:21
[Bava Kamma 41a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:21)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יֹאכַל״; ״לֹא תֹאכַל״; ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ״ – אֶחָד אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה וְאֶחָד אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rabbi Elazar says** that **wherever it is stated: “It shall not be eaten”;** or **“you,”** singular, **“shall not eat”; or “you,”** plural, **“shall not eat”; both a prohibition** against **eating and a prohibition** against deriving **benefit** are indicated. This is so **unless the verse specifies for you** that one may derive benefit, **in the manner that it specified for you with regard to an animal carcass,** from which the verse explicitly permits one to derive benefit.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:22
[Bava Kamma 41a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:22)

עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ בִּנְבֵילָה – לַגֵּר בִּנְתִינָה, וְלַנׇּכְרִי בִּמְכִירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: This is so **unless the verse specifies for you** that one may derive benefit, **in the manner that it specified for you with regard to an animal carcass,** from which the verse explicitly permits one to derive benefit, as it states: “You may sell it to a foreigner” (Deuteronomy 14:21). Accordingly, it is permitted to transfer an unslaughtered animal carcass **to a *ger*** *toshav*, i.e., a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot, **through giving** it to him as a gift, **and to** any other **gentile through selling** it to him. Apparently, without this explicit permission, it would be prohibited to derive any benefit from a carcass, due to the prohibition: “You shall not eat.” Here, too, with regard to the ox that is stoned, the phrase: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” may serve to teach that one may not derive benefit from the stoned ox.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:23
[Bava Kamma 41a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:23)

אָמְרִי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּנָפֵיק לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה וְאִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה מִקְּרָא – מִ״לֹּא יֹאכַל״; אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה מִ״סָּקֹל יִסָּקֵל״ נָפְקָא, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הַאי ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״ אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה הוּא, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא יֵהָנֶה״, אִי נָמֵי ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״; ״אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּעַבְדֵיהּ כְּעֵין בָּשָׂר, דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: **That statement** applies **where** both **the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of deriving benefit are derived from a verse** using an expression such as: **“It shall not be eaten.” But here, where the prohibition of eating is derived from** the statement: “The ox **shall be stoned,” if it enters your mind** that **this** expression: **“Its flesh shall not be eaten,” is** stated only in reference to the **prohibition of deriving benefit, let the Merciful One write** explicitly: **Benefit shall not be derived** from it. **Alternatively,** let the verse simply state: **“It shall not be eaten”; why do I** require the specific term: **“Its flesh”?** Clearly, the intention of the verse is to teach **that even if he has rendered it like** kosher **flesh by** properly **slaughtering it** after the verdict, one is still **prohibited** to eat it.


###### Bava Kamma 41a:24
[Bava Kamma 41a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/41a:24)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: אֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra objects to this: Say** that **this statement** applies