(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama 41

BAVA KAMA 41 - Sponsored by the generous contributions of an anonymous donor in Manchester, England. May he be blessed with a Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah, and a year of physical and spiritual growth and prosperity.


(a) (Mishnah): An ox gored and killed a man - if Mu'ad it pays Kofer, if Tam it is exempt;
1. In either case, the ox is killed.
(b) The same applies to killing a boy or girl.
(c) If it killed a slave, it pays 30 Shekalim, whether the slave is worth much more or much less.
(d) (Gemara) Question: Since we kill even a Tam, how can it become Mu'ad?
(e) Answer #1 (Rabah): The case is, it was chasing 3 people; we estimate, has they not fled, it would have killed all of them.
(f) Rejection (Rav Ashi): Our estimation has no bearing!
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, it gored 3 people, making them dangerously sick (and they died later).
(h) Answer #3 (Rav Zvid): It killed 3 animals.
1. Question: Must we say that Mu'ad for animals is Mu'ad for people?!
(i) Answer #4 (Rav Simi): It killed 3 Nochrim.
1. Question: Must we say that Mu'ad for Nochrim is Mu'ad for Yisraelim?!
(j) Answer #5 (Reish Lakish): It killed 3 people that were Treifos.
1. Question: Must we say that Mu'ad for Treifos is Mu'ad for healthy people?!
(k) Answer #6 (Rav Papa): Each time it killed, it fled and we were unable to kill it.
(l) Answer #7 (R. Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Reuven and David testified about the first goring, and were Huzmu (Moshe and Kalev (Mezimim) testified that Reuven and David were not where they claimed to see the goring), also the witnesses on the second goring were Huzmu;
1. When witnesses testified about the third goring, we found that the witnesses on the first 2 gorings really told the truth (the Mezimim were Huzmu).
2. This fits the opinion that the testimony is to establish the ox as a gorer.
3. Question: But according to the opinion that it is to warn the owner to guard his animal - he thought that the first witnesses lied (he has not been warned until now)!
4. Answer: The case is, (witnesses testify that) the owner saw all the gorings.
(m) Answer #8 (Ravina): The witnesses recognized the ox' owner, but did not recognize the ox (until after all the gorings).
1. Question: Why should the owner pay Kofer - what should he have done?
2. Answer: He should have guarded all his oxen.
(a) (Beraisa) Question: Since "You will stone the ox", it is Neveilah - why did the Torah have to say "Its flesh will not be eaten"?
(b) Answer: That even if it was slaughtered, it may not be eaten.
(c) Question: From where do we know that it is forbidden to benefit from it?
(d) Answer: "The owner of the ox is clean".
(e) Question: How do we hear this?
(f) Answer (Shimon ben Zoma): As people say - 'Ploni is clean of his property, he has no benefit from it'.
(g) Question: How do we know that "Its flesh will not be eaten" applies when it was slaughtered - perhaps it forbids benefit when it was stoned, as R. Avahu!
1. (R. Avahu): Wherever the Torah said "It will not be eaten" or "You will not eat", it also forbids benefit, unless the Torah explicitly permits benefit, as by Neveilah (where it permits giving it to a law-abiding resident, or selling it to a Nochri).
(h) Answer: R. Avahu's law only applies when the source to forbid eating is learned from "Its flesh will not be eaten" - here, we already know it is forbidden to eat because it must be stoned!
1. If the verse came to forbid benefit, it should have said 'Benefit will not be taken', or 'It will not be eaten';
2. It says 'its flesh' to teach, even if it was (slaughtered) as meat, it is forbidden.
(i) Question (Mar Zutra): Perhaps that is only when it was slaughtered with a sharp stone, for that is like stoning - but when slaughtered with a knife, it is permitted!

(j) Answer: The Torah never specified a knife for slaughter (that this should be more permitted than through a stone)!
1. (Mishnah): One who slaughters with a pruning hook, stone or reed - it is Kosher.
(k) Question: Now that "Its flesh will not be eaten" teaches that we may not eat nor benefit from it - what do we learn from "The owner of the ox is clean"?
(l) Answer: He may not benefit from the skin.
1. One might have thought, only the meat is forbidden to benefit from - we hear, even the skin is forbidden.
(m) Question: The Tana'im (below) that expound "The owner of the ox is clean" differently - how do they learn that one may not benefit from the skin?
(n) Answer: "Es its flesh" - what is secondary to its flesh, i.e. the skin.
1. Our Tana does not expound "Es".
2. (Beraisa): R. Shimon ha'Amsoni used to expound every 'Es' in the Torah (to include something). When he came to "You will fear Es Hash-m", he found nothing to include.
i. His Talmidim: If so, perhaps the other words 'Es' also should not be expounded!
ii. R. Shimon: Indeed, I retract them all! Just as I will receive reward for what I expounded (at the time, I believed it was true), I will be rewarded for refusing to expound.
iii. R. Akiva: "You will fear Es Hash-m" - this includes Chachamim.
(a) (Beraisa #1 - R. Eliezer): "The owner of the ox is clean" - from having to pay half-Kofer;
1. R. Akiva: A Tam only pays from itself - since we may not benefit from the damager, obviously it does not pay Kofer!
2. R. Eliezer: I did not speak when we stone it, rather when we only have 1 witness or the owner's admission that it killed.
i. Question: If he admitted, of course he is exempt from Kofer, as anyone that admits to a fine!
ii. Answer: R. Eliezer holds that Kofer is an atonement (so it is paid even through 1 witness or his admission).
(b) (Beraisa #2 - R. Eliezer): I did not speak when we stone it, rather when it killed not intending for a Yisrael (but rather for an animal, Nochri or stillborn baby).
(c) Question: Which answer did R. Eliezer give first?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): That it intended for an animal.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Tavyumi): One witness or the owner told us that it killed.
1. Rav Kahana says that even though the case of intending for an animal is a better answer, when he thought of another answer, he gave it as well.
2. Rav Tavyumi says that once he thought of the better answer, he discarded the inferior answer.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,