## Bava Kamma Daf 44a

###### Bava Kamma 44a:1
[Bava Kamma 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:1)

שׁוֹר בְּאָדָם – שֶׁעָשָׂה בּוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל הַקְּטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
then in the case of **an ox** killing **a person, where** the Torah **renders small** oxen **like large** ones **with regard to this** act, as a young calf that kills a person is killed just as an adult ox that kills a person, **is it not logical that** the Torah **renders** it **liable for** killing **minors,** i.e., a boy or a girl, just **as** for killing **adults?** Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this *halakha*?


###### Bava Kamma 44a:2
[Bava Kamma 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:2)

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ אָדָם בְּאָדָם – שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, תֹּאמַר בְּשׁוֹר – שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ בַת יִגָּח״ – לְחַיֵּיב עַל הַקְּטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **No,** this cannot be derived by logic alone. **If you say** that **a person** who kills **a person** is liable even when the victim is a minor, this may be due to the extra severity in the case of a human assailant, **as he is liable to** pay **four types of indemnity** for causing injury; pain, humiliation, medical costs, and loss of livelihood, in addition to payment for the actual damage. **Shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to an ox, whose** owner **is not liable to** pay these **four types of indemnity?** Clearly, this *halakha* cannot be derived merely through logical comparison between the two cases. Therefore, **the verse states: “Whether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter,” to render** it **liable for minors** as well **as adults.**


###### Bava Kamma 44a:3
[Bava Kamma 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:3)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּמוּעָדִין, בְּתָם מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And I have** derived this *halakha* **only with regard to forewarned** oxen; **from where** do I derive that **in** the case of **an innocuous** ox, it is killed if it kills a boy or a girl?


###### Bava Kamma 44a:4
[Bava Kamma 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:4)

דִּין הוּא – הוֹאִיל וְחִיֵּיב בְּאִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה, וְחִיֵּיב בְּבֵן וּבַת; מָה כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב בְּאִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה – לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד; אַף כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב בְּבֵן וּבַת – לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: Could this not be derived through **logical inference? Since** the Torah **renders** an ox **liable** to be killed **for** killing **a man or a woman, and** likewise **renders** it **liable** to be killed **for** killing **a boy or a girl;** then **just as when it renders** it **liable** to be killed **for** killing **a man or a woman you do not differentiate between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox, as both are stoned, **so too, when it renders** an ox **liable** to be killed **for** killing **a boy or a girl do not differentiate between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox.


###### Bava Kamma 44a:5
[Bava Kamma 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:5)

וְעוֹד, קַל וָחוֹמֶר – מָה אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה, שֶׁכֵּן הוֹרַע כֹּחָם בִּנְזָקִין – לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד; בֵּן וּבַת, שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחָם בִּנְזָקִין – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בָּהֶן בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** it can be inferred ***a fortiori*: If** with regard to **a man or a woman, whose power is diminished with regard to damages** because adults who cause damage are liable to pay, but nevertheless **you do not differentiate between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox that kills them; then with regard to **a boy or girl, whose power is enhanced with regard to damages** because they are not liable to pay for damage they cause, **is it not logical that you should not differentiate between an innocuous** ox **and a forewarned** ox that kills them?


###### Bava Kamma 44a:6
[Bava Kamma 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:6)

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי דָּנִין קַל מֵחָמוּר לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו? אִם הֶחְמִיר בְּמוּעָד הֶחָמוּר, תַּחְמִיר בְּתָם הַקַּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers that **you could say** in response: **But does one derive** the *halakha* of **a lenient** matter **from a stringent** matter **in order to** be more **stringent with regard to it? If** the Torah **is stringent with regard to** the case of **a forewarned** ox, **which is a stringent** matter, rendering it liable to be killed for killing a minor, does that mean that **you should be stringent with regard to an innocuous** ox, **which is** a relatively **lenient** matter?


###### Bava Kamma 44a:7
[Bava Kamma 44a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:7)

וְעוֹד: אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה – שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בְּמִצְוֹת, תֹּאמַר בְּבֵן וּבַת – שֶׁפְּטוּרִין מִן הַמִּצְוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** there is another reason to reject the earlier opinion: **If you say** that an innocuous ox is liable to be killed **for** killing **a man or a woman, as they are obligated to** observe the **mitzvot,** which gives them importance, does that mean that **you should say** the same **with regard to a boy or a girl, who are exempt from the mitzvot?**


###### Bava Kamma 44a:8
[Bava Kamma 44a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:8)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ בַת יִגָּח״ – נְגִיחָה בְּתָם נְגִיחָה בְּמוּעָד, נְגִיחָה לְמִיתָה נְגִיחָה לִנְזָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since this *halakha* could not have been derived through logic alone, **the verse states: “Whether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter,”** stating the phrase “has gored” twice, to teach that it is referring both to the **goring of an innocuous** ox and to the **goring of a forewarned** ox, and both to **goring** that causes **death** and to **goring** that causes **injury.** In all these cases the owner of the ox is liable even if the ox gores a minor.


###### Bava Kamma 44a:9
[Bava Kamma 44a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְחַכֵּךְ בַּכּוֹתֶל – וְנָפַל עַל הָאָדָם; נִתְכַּוֵּין לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה – וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם; לְגוֹי – וְהָרַג בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל; לִנְפָלִים – וְהָרַג בֶּן קַיָּימָא; פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **an ox was rubbing against a wall, and** as a result the wall **fell on a person** and killed him; or if the ox **intended to kill** another **animal but killed a person;** or if it intended **to** kill **a gentile but killed a Jew;** or intended **to** kill **a non-viable baby but killed a viable person;** in all these cases the ox is **exempt** from being killed.


###### Bava Kamma 44a:10
[Bava Kamma 44a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פָּטוּר מִמִּיתָה, וְחַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר. וְרַב אָמַר: פָּטוּר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says:** The ox is **exempt from** being put to **death,** since it did not intend to kill, **but** its owner is **liable to** pay **ransom. And Rav says:** They are **exempt from this** liability **and from that** liability.


###### Bava Kamma 44a:11
[Bava Kamma 44a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:11)

וְאַמַּאי? הָא תָּם הוּא! כִּדְאָמַר רַב: בְּמוּעָד לִיפּוֹל עַל בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּבוֹרוֹת, הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּמוּעָד לְהִתְחַכֵּךְ עַל בְּנֵי אָדָם בִּכְתָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks about Shmuel’s opinion: **And why** is he liable to pay ransom? **Isn’t** the ox **innocuous** with regard to this action? The Gemara answers: **As Rav says** in a different context, it is referring **to** an ox that was **forewarned with regard to falling on people in pits. Here too,** it is referring **to** an ox that was **forewarned with regard to rubbing against walls,** causing them to fall **on people.**


###### Bava Kamma 44a:12
[Bava Kamma 44a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:12)

אִי הָכִי, בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם – דַּחֲזָא יְרוֹקָא וּנְפַל, אֶלָּא הָכָא – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** if it was forewarned with regard to this behavior, it clearly intended to kill the person and **is** therefore **subject to** being put to **death,** contrary to the ruling in the mishna. The Gemara explains: **Granted there,** in the case where the ox was forewarned with regard to falling on people in pits, it could be **that it saw a vegetable** on the edge of the pit **and** subsequently **fell** in, without any intention to kill. **But here,** where it rubbed against a wall, causing it to fall on a person, and was forewarned with regard to this behavior, **what is there to say** in its defense?


###### Bava Kamma 44a:13
[Bava Kamma 44a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44a:13)

הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּמִתְחַכֵּךְ בַּכּוֹתֶל לַהֲנָאָתוֹ. וּמְנָא יָדְעִינַן? דְּבָתַר דִּנְפַל קָא מִתְחַכַּךְ בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here also** the case is **where it rubbed against the wall for its pleasure** and not in order to kill. The Gemara asks: **And from where do we know** that it did not intend to kill? The Gemara answers: **Because** even **after** the wall **fell it was still rubbing against it,** which proves that this was its intention.