POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
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.
1) CASES WHEN "KOFER" IS PAID
(a) (Mishnah): An ox gored and killed a man - if Mu'ad it
pays Kofer, if Tam it is exempt;
2) DERIVING BENEFIT FROM AN OX THAT IS TO BE STONED
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
(e) Answer #1 (Rabah): The case is, it was chasing 3 people;
we estimate, has they not fled, it would have killed all
(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
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).
(m) Answer #8 (Ravina): The witnesses recognized the ox'
owner, but did not recognize the ox (until after all the
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
4. Answer: The case is, (witnesses testify that) the
owner saw 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
(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
(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
(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!
2. It says 'its flesh' to teach, even if it was
(slaughtered) as meat, it is forbidden.
(j) Answer: The Torah never specified a knife for slaughter
(that this should be more permitted than through a
3) WHY A "TAM" DOES NOT PAY "KOFER"
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
(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
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
(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
(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).
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
ii. Answer: R. Eliezer holds that Kofer is an
atonement (so it is paid even through 1 witness
or his admission).
(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.