## Bava Kamma Daf 42b

###### Bava Kamma 42b:1
[Bava Kamma 42b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:1)

וְנֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ – וַהֲלֹא עַצְמוֹ אֵין מִשְׁתַּלֵּם אֶלָּא מִגּוּפוֹ, הֲבִיאֵהוּ לְבֵית דִּין וִישַׁלֶּם לָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let Rabbi Akiva say to himself** the same objection that he raised against Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation of the verse, that the owner of an innocuous ox is exempt from paying half a ransom (see 41b): Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this? **But isn’t** compensation for damage caused by an innocuous ox **itself paid only from** the value of **its body?** Therefore, its owner can say to the slave’s owner: **Bring it to court and you will be paid from it.** Since the ox was stoned, there is nothing from which he can collect payment.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:2
[Bava Kamma 42b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:2)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: כְּשֶׁקָּדַם בְּעָלָיו וּשְׁחָטוֹ; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִישְׁתַּלַּם מִינֵּיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, הוֹאִיל וּבַר קְטָלָא הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ – לָא לִישְׁתַּלַּם מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said:** Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation is applicable in a case **where its owner slaughtered it first,** before it was sentenced to stoning. **Lest you say** that the slave’s owner **should be paid from** the value of the flesh, the verse **teaches us** that **since** the ox **was subject to be killed, although** its owner **slaughtered it,** the slave’s owner **should not be paid from it.**


###### Bava Kamma 42b:3
[Bava Kamma 42b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:3)

אִי הָכִי, לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי – כְּשֶׁקָּדַם וּשְׁחָטוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** why did Rabbi Akiva raise this objection against Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation? **According to Rabbi Eliezer as well,** it could be explained as referring to a case **where** its owner **slaughtered it first.**


###### Bava Kamma 42b:4
[Bava Kamma 42b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:4)

הָכִי נָמֵי; וְסָבַר: דִּלְמָא אִית לֵיהּ טַעְמָא אַחֲרִינָא דַּעֲדִיף מֵהַאי, וְנֵימָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Indeed,** Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation could also be explained in this manner. **And** the reason Rabbi Akiva raised this objection was because **he reasons: Perhaps** Rabbi Eliezer **has another explanation that is better than this one, and will state it.** Rabbi Eliezer did in fact respond with another explanation.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:5
[Bava Kamma 42b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:5)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי – לִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ שֶׁקָּדַם וּשְׁחָטוֹ! אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם הוּא דְּנִתְכַּוֵּון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, דְּשׁוֹר לָאו בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא כְּלָל; דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נִיחַיַּיב – אִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי; אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא בַּר קְטָלָא הֲוָה – לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let Rabbi Eliezer also answer him that** the owner **slaughtered it first.** Why did he offer a different explanation? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have **said to you: Specifically there,** in the case Rabbi Eliezer referred to in his explanation, namely, **where** the ox **intended to kill** another **animal but killed a person** instead, **since the ox was not subject to be killed at all,** it might **enter your mind to say** that **he should be liable** to pay half a ransom from the ox’s body. Therefore, **the verse is necessary to exclude** the owner from liability to pay half a ransom. **But here, since** the ox **was initially subject to be killed, a verse is not necessary** to teach that the owner is exempt from paying half a ransom **even if he slaughtered it.**


###### Bava Kamma 42b:6
[Bava Kamma 42b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:6)

וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי, וַדַּאי הָכִי הֲוָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according **to Rabbi Akiva also, certainly it is so,** that a verse is not necessary to teach that if the owner slaughters the ox before its verdict he is exempt from liability.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:7
[Bava Kamma 42b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:7)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הַאי מִילְּתָא – מִפִּי דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וּמַנּוּ – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אַף תָּם שֶׁחָבַל בָּאָדָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, מִשְׁתַּלַּם נָמֵי [דְּמֵי עֶבֶד] מֵעֲלִיָּיה; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Asi said:** The above explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation should be rejected, as **I heard this** following **statement from a great man, and who is he?** He is **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.** This is what he said: It might **enter your mind to say** that **since Rabbi Akiva says** in the mishna (33a) that in a case where a person and an innocuous ox damaged each other concurrently, the owner of **an innocuous** ox **that injured a person also pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference** between the two valuations of the damage, as there is no distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox with regard to injuries caused to a person, **compensation for the slave is also paid from** his **superior-quality** property, not from the body of the ox; just as in a case where a forewarned ox kills a slave. Therefore, its owner cannot say: Bring it to court and you will be paid from it. To counter this possibility, **the Merciful One wrote: “The owner of the ox shall be clear,”** indicating that he is exempt from this liability.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:8
[Bava Kamma 42b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי: וְהָא תַּבְרֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִגְזִיזֵיהּ – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה יֵעָשֶׂה לוֹ״ – מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But didn’t Rabbi Akiva** already **break** the force of **his fist,** i.e., qualify this opinion of his? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says:** One **might** have thought that the owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person **pays** compensation **from** his **superior-quality** property, the same as the owner of a forewarned ox. Therefore, **the verse states: “According to this judgment shall be done to him [*lo*]”** (Exodus 21:31), indicating that **he pays** restitution exclusively **from** the **body** of the ox **but he does not pay from** his **superior-quality** property, as the word *lo* also means: To it. This negates Rav Asi’s explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:9
[Bava Kamma 42b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמַחְמִירַנִי בְּעֶבֶד יוֹתֵר מִבֶּן חוֹרִין, שֶׁבֶּן חוֹרִין יָפֶה סֶלַע – נוֹתֵן סֶלַע, שְׁלֹשִׁים – נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים, וְעֶבֶד יָפֶה סֶלַע – נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים; מִשְׁתַּלַּם נָמֵי דְּמֵי עֶבֶד מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** a different explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s statement: The verse is **necessary** because it might **enter your mind to say** that **since I,** referring to the Torah, **am more stringent with regard to** a forewarned ox that kills a person in the case of a Canaanite **slave than** in the case of **a freeman; as** in the case of **a freeman** who was **worth** one ***sela*** the owner of the ox **gives** one ***sela*** in ransom, and if he was worth **thirty** *sela* **he gives thirty; but** in the case of a Canaanite **slave** the Torah imposes a fixed amount, so even if he was **worth** only one ***sela*** the owner **gives thirty** *sela*, therefore, since the Torah is more stringent in the case of a slave, **payment for the slave should also be paid from** the owner’s **superior-quality** property. To counter this, **the Merciful One writes: “The owner of the ox shall be clear,”** indicating that payment is not required in a case where an innocuous ox kills a slave.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:10
[Bava Kamma 42b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:10)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the explanation **of Rava** to Rabbi Akiva’s statement. The *baraita* states that with regard to the verse **“The owner of the ox shall be clear,” Rabbi Akiva says:** He shall be **clear from payment for** a Canaanite **slave.**


###### Bava Kamma 42b:11
[Bava Kamma 42b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:11)

וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא – הוֹאִיל וְחַיָּיב בְּעֶבֶד וְחַיָּיב בְּבֶן חוֹרִין; מָה כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב בְּבֶן חוֹרִין – חָלַקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד, אַף כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב בְּעֶבֶד – נַחְלֹק בּוֹ בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva discusses this interpretation: **And** could this *halakha* **not** be derived through **logical inference,** without the verse? **Since** the Torah **deemed** him **liable** to pay **for** the killing of **a slave and deemed** him **liable for** the killing of **a freeman** as well, **just as when** the Torah **deemed** him **liable for a freeman you distinguished between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox, as no ransom is paid in the case of an innocuous ox, **so too, when** the Torah **deemed** him **liable for a slave, let us distinguish between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:12
[Bava Kamma 42b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:12)

וְעוֹד, קַל וָחוֹמֶר – וּמָה בֶּן חוֹרִין, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן כׇּל שׇׁוְויוֹ, חָלַקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד; עֶבֶד, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Furthermore,** this *halakha* could be proven through an ***a fortiori*** inference: **If,** in the case of **a freeman, where he,** the owner, **gives his full value, you distinguished between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox, with regard to **a slave, where he gives only thirty** *sela* and not more, even if the slave was worth more, **is it not logical that we should distinguish between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox, and exempt him from liability for an innocuous ox?


###### Bava Kamma 42b:13
[Bava Kamma 42b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:13)

לֹא, מַחְמִירַנִי בְּעֶבֶד יוֹתֵר מִבֶּן חוֹרִין; שֶׁבֶּן חוֹרִין יָפֶה סֶלַע – נוֹתֵן סֶלַע, שְׁלֹשִׁים – נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים; וְעֶבֶד יָפֶה סֶלַע – נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״ – נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva rejects this opinion: **No,** one could disagree and say the opposite: **I,** referring to the Torah, **am more stringent with regard to** the case of **a slave than** with regard to that of **a freeman; as** for **a freeman worth** one ***sela*,** the ox’s owner **gives** only one ***sela*,** and if he is worth **thirty** *sela* **he gives thirty. But** in the case of **a slave,** even if he was **worth** only one ***sela*, he gives thirty** *sela*. Therefore, one **might** have thought that **he should be liable** to pay for a slave killed by his innocuous ox. To counter this, **the verse states: “The owner of the ox shall be clear,”** indicating that he shall be **clear from** paying **compensation for a slave.**


###### Bava Kamma 42b:14
[Bava Kamma 42b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה״ – אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וְכִי מָה בָּא זֶה לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְחַיֵּיב עַל הָאִשָּׁה כָּאִישׁ – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִגַּח שׁוֹר אֶת אִישׁ אוֹ אֶת אִשָּׁה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** The verse states with regard to a forewarned ox: “But if the ox was a goring ox in time past and warning has been given to its owner, and he has not secured it; **and it killed a man or a woman;** the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:29). **Rabbi Akiva said: And what does this come to teach us? If** it is **to deem** the owner **liable for** the killing of **a woman** just **as** for the killing of **a man, this is already stated** with regard to an innocuous ox, where it is stated: **“When an ox gores a man or a woman,** and they die, the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:28).


###### Bava Kamma 42b:15
[Bava Kamma 42b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:15)

אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ, מָה אִישׁ – נְזָקָיו לְיוֹרְשָׁיו, אַף אִשָּׁה – נְזָקֶיהָ לְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the verse is stated **to compare a woman to a man** with regard to another issue: **Just as** with regard to **a man,** payment for **his injuries** is paid **to his heirs, so too,** with regard to **a woman,** payment for **her injuries** is paid **to her heirs,** and not to her husband.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:16
[Bava Kamma 42b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:16)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לָא יָרֵית לַהּ בַּעַל? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְיָרַשׁ אוֹתָהּ״ – מִכָּאן שֶׁהַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi Akiva hold** that **a husband does not inherit** from his wife? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And he shall inherit it [*otah*]”** (Numbers 27:11). **From here** it is derived **that the husband inherits** from **his wife,** as *otah* also means: Her. This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Bava Kamma 42b:17
[Bava Kamma 42b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:17)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא בְּכוֹפֶר – הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מִשְׁתַּלֵּם אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ רָאוּי, וְאֵין הַבַּעַל נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said:** Rabbi Akiva **says** that her heirs and not her husband receive the payment **only with regard to ransom, since it is paid only posthumously and is** therefore **considered** property **due** to her; **and the husband does not take** in inheritance the property **due** to the deceased **as** he does the property she **possessed.** For instance, an inheritance that would have gone to the woman had she been alive is not awarded to the husband, but rather, to her other heirs.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:18
[Bava Kamma 42b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:18)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה, הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת. אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for the assumption that even if it is clear that the victim is about to die, the husband is not owed ransom? **The verse states: “And it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is laid on him,** then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid on him” (Exodus 21:29–30), indicating that the owner’s liability to pay ransom is dependent on the ox’s liability to be stoned, which, in turn, applies only after the death of the victim.


###### Bava Kamma 42b:19
[Bava Kamma 42b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:19)

וּבִנְזָקִין לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to damages, did Rabbi Akiva not say** that damages due to a wife are paid to her heirs and not to her husband, just as with regard to ransom?


###### Bava Kamma 42b:20
[Bava Kamma 42b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/42b:20)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ – נוֹתֵן נֶזֶק וָצַעַר לָאִשָּׁה, וּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל. אֵין הַבַּעַל – נוֹתֵן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו, אֵין הָאִשָּׁה – נוֹתֶנֶת לְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ. הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If an assailant **struck the woman and her offspring emerged** due to miscarriage, **he gives** compensation for **damage and pain to the woman and compensation for** miscarried **offspring to the husband.** If **the husband is not** alive, **he gives** the compensation for the offspring **to his heirs.** If **the woman is not** alive, **he gives** the payment owed to her **to her heirs.** If **she was** a Canaanite **maidservant and** then **she was emancipated,**