[a - 49 lines; b - 43 lines]

1)[line 1]אי לר"יIY L'REBBI YEHUDAH- if [the ruling of Rebbi Yakov is] in accordance with [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehudah

2)[line 7]חדא דאית ביה תרתי טעמאCHADA D'IS BEI TARTEI TAIMA- it is one [ruling] that incorporates two reasons (see Insights)

3)[line 8]רשות משנה איכא בינייהוRESHUS MESHANEH IKA BEINAIHU- the difference [between the opinions of Rebbi Yakov and Rebbi Yehudah] is [whether or not a change in] ownership changes [a Mu'ad back into a Tam]

4)[line 10]הרי הוא בחזקתוHAREI HU B'CHEZKASO- [the animal] remains in its current state [of a Mu'ad even after returning to its now-capable owner]

5)[line 12]כופרKOFER - Redemption Paid by one whose Animal Killed Another

(a)An animal that kills a person is put to death by stoning. The owner of the animal is not obligated in any other form of restitution, but he may not receive any benefit from his animal once the death sentence has been issued (Shemos 21:28; Sanhedrin 2a).

(b)If the animal had killed before, however, and its owner had been informed and duly warned to guard his animal after each time, then the ox is termed a Mu'ad. If a Mu'ad kills a person, then his owner is liable to Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (death delivered through natural means; see Background to Yevamos 3:27). He may, however, redeem himself by paying "Kofer" to the children or heirs of the dead man (Shemos 21:29-30). The amount paid as Kofer is either his own value or the value of the dead man, depending upon the various opinions of the Tana'im (Makos 2b). If a Mu'ad kills a Nochri slave, then the Kofer is set by the Torah at thirty Sela'im, and it is paid to the slave's owner (Shemos 21:32).

(c)Our Gemara entertains two possibilities as to the nature of the payment of Kofer. These are:

1.KUFRA KAPARAH - the payment of Kofer serves as an atonement for the owner of the animal, similar to the way in which a Korban atones for a sins.

2.KUFRA MAMONA - the payment of Kofer serves as compensation paid to the heirs of the deceased. According to this view, the owner of the animal gains atonement through the payment of Kofer as well. It is clear that if Kofer is Mamon, then it is equal to the slave market value of the deceased.

6)[line 12]מאן תנא כופרא כפרה ויתמי לאו בני כפרה נינהו?MAN TANA KUFRA KAPARAH V'YASMEI LAV BNEI KAPARAH NINHU?- which Tana is it who rules that Kofer is an atonement and that [orphans under the age of Bar Mitzvah are therefore exempt since] orphans do not require atonement [since they are not old enough to be responsible for their sins]?

7)[line 15]"[אִם-כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו,] וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ ..." דמי ניזק"[IM KOFER YUSHAS ALAV,] V'NASAN PIDYON NAFSHO ..." DEMEI NIZAK- "[If a ransom shall be laid upon him,] then he shall give the redemption of his soul ..." (Shemos 21:30), [which implies that the amount paid is the equivalent of] the slave market value of he who was damaged

8)[line 22]בדניזק שיימינןBED'NIZAK SHAIMINAN- we evaluate [Kofer] as the value of he who was damaged

9a)[line 24]נאמרה "שיתה" למטה ונאמרה "שיתה" למעלהNE'EMRAH "SHISAH" L'MATAH V'NE'EMRAH "SHISAH" L'MA'ALAH (GEZEIRAH SHAVAH - A Derivation Equating Two Subjects Utilizing a Common Word or Phrase)

(a)In a Beraisa found in the introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash on Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists the thirteen methodologies employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of these is Gezeirah Shavah, in which two identical words (or two words that share the same root) that appear in two different sections of the Torah reveal that the Halachos applicable to one section apply to the other and vice versa.

(b)One may apply a Gezeirah Shavah only if he has received a tradition from his teachers that such a connection between the two words exists. Once the connection is established, however, then one may derive Halachos that were not specified in the tradition.

(c)A Gezeirah Shavah is unlimited; one may not pick and choose which Halachos he would like to apply. This facet of a Gezeirah Shavah is termed "Ein Gezeirah Shavah l'Mechetzah". This rule is waived in the case of an explicit teaching that precludes the application of a specific Halachah.

(d)There are three possible configurations of a Gezeirah Shavah:

1.MUFNEH MI'SHNEI TZEDADIM - If both words are seemingly unnecessary and are not used in the derivation of any other teaching, then all of the rules described above apply.

2.MUFNEH MI'TZAD ECHAD - If the word in only one of the sections is available, some maintain that Halachos may be derived from such a Gezeirah Shavah only if there is no argument against comparing the two sections. This status is known as "Lemedin u'Meshivin". Others rule that such a Gezeirah Shavah is no more limited than one that is Mufneh mi'Shnei Tzedadim.

3.EINO MUFNEH KOL IKAR - If neither word is free, then those who maintain that a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad is unlimited grant such a Gezeirah Shavah the status of Lemedin u'Meshivin. Those who applied the status of Lemedin u'Meshivin to a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufneh mi'Shnei Tzedadim rule that this one may not be used to determine any Halachos whatsoever.

(e)Our Gemara explains that the Rabanan have a tradition that a Gezeirah Shavah connects the subject of Kofer to that of Demei Velados. Demei Velados refers to that which one is obligated to pay for the slave market value of any unborn fetus' that he caused the miscarriage of. With regard to Kofer the verse states "Im Kofer Yushas Alav" (Shemos 21:30), and regarding Demei Velados the verse states "Ka'asher Yashis Alav Ba'al ha'Ishah" - "as the husband of the woman places upon him" (ibid. 21:22).

10)[line 27]"ונתן פדיון נפשו" כתיב"V'NASAN PIDYON NAFSHO" KSIV- it is written "then he shall give the redemption of his soul" [which clearly implies that the payment is equal to the value of the owner of the animal which attacked]

11)[line 27]איןIN- indeed

12)[line 29]משבח ליהMESHABACH LEI- he praised him

13)[line 30]א"ל, "לכשיבא לידך הביאהו לידי"AMAR LEI, "LECHESHE'YAVO L'YADACH HEVI'EHU L'YADI"- [Rav Nachman] said to [Rava], "When he comes to visit you bring him to see me"

14)[line 31]א"ל, "בעי מינאי מילתא"AMAR LEI, "BA'I MINA'I MILSA"- [Rav Nachman] said to [Rav Acha bar Yakov], "Ask of me a [Torah] matter"

15)[line 32]שותפיןSHUTFIN- partners

16)[line 33]משלם האי כופר והאי כופרMESHALEM HAI KOFER V'HAI KOFER- [if you would like to suggest that] each pays a [full] Kofer

17a)[line 34]כופר אחד אמר רחמנא ולא שני כופריןKOFER ECHAD AMAR RACHMANA V'LO SHNEI KOFRIM- the Torah says that he should pay one Kofer and not two Kofrim [since it is illogical that the heirs of the deceased should benefit simply because the animal is jointly owned (TOSFOS DH Kofer Echad)]

b)[line 35]כופר שלם אמר רחמנא ולא חצי כופרKOFER SHALEM AMAR RACHMANA V'LO CHATZI KOFER- the Torah says that he should pay a full Kofer and not half a Kofer [since it is illogical that one who acted in a negligent manner resulting in the death of another should receive atonement through the payment of half a Kofer (TOSFOS DH Kofer Shalem)]

18)[line 36]אדיתיב וקא מעיין בהAD'YASIV V'KA ME'AYEN BAH- while [Rav Nachman] sat and delved into [the question]

19)[line 37]חייבי ערכיןCHAYAVEI ERCHIN (ERECH - The Torah Valuation of a Person)

(a)If one wishes to pledge the value of an individual - whether himself or another - to Hekdesh, there are two ways to do so. The first is to appraise him based upon how much he would fetch on the slave market. This takes into account factors such as physical strength, trade skills, health, etc. This is known as the Damim - worth - of a person.

(b)In addition, every individual has a Torah value, known as an "Erech". The Torah designates a specific value for every person based upon his or her gender and age, as specified in Vayikra 27:1-8. For this value, it is irrespective if the individual is healthy, sick, strong, weak, etc.

(c)If one wishes to pledge the value of an individual - whether his own or that of someone else:

1.For ages 1 month to 5 years - the Erech for males is 5 Shekalim and for females is 3 Shekalim

2.For ages 5 years to 20 years - the Erech for males is 20 Shekalim and for females is 10 Shekalim

3.For ages 20 yrs. to 60 years - the Erech for males is 50 Shekalim and for females is 30 Shekalim

4.For ages 60 years and older - the Erech for males is 15 Shekalim and for females is 10 Shekalim

20)[line 37]ממשכנין אותןMEMASHKENIN OSAN- [the treasurers of Hekdesh] take collateral from them [to insure that they make good on their pledge]

21)[line 37]חייבי חטאות ואשמותCHAYAVEI CHATA'OS VA'ASHAMOS (CHATA'OS VA'ASHAMOS - Sacrifices Offered as Atonement for Sins)


(a) If a person transgresses a sin b'Shogeg (unintentionally) for which he is liable to receive the punishment of Kares (see Background to Pesachim 32:16) b'Mezid (intentionally), he must offer a Korban Chatas. This Korban consists of a female goat or sheep.

(b) One who offers a Korban Chatas first leans on the animal with all his might (Semichah) in the northern area of the Azarah. He then recites Viduy, confessing his sin and asking Hash-m for forgiveness. The animal is then immediately slaughtered. The blood of the Chatas is applied to the Keranos (cubic Amah posts on the corners of the Mizbe'ach) beginning with the southeastern corner of the Mizbe'ach and continuing to the northeastern, northwestern, and southwestern corners. The remaining blood is then spilled onto the Yesod (base) of the Mizbe'ach. Certain parts of the Korban is eaten by Kohanim in the Azarah; it must be consumed before the day following its offering (Vayikra 4:27-31).


(a) The Torah specifies five cases in which a Korban Asham must be offered. This Korban usually consists of a ram which is worth a minimum of two Sela'im. The first three cases involve transgressions:

1.ASHAM ME'ILOS: One who benefits from Hekdesh b'Shogeg must offer a Korban Asham, aside from that which he is obligated to repay 125% of the value of that which he benefited (Vayikra 5:14-16; see Background to Kidushin 55:5a).

2.ASHAM GEZEILOS: If one steals money from his fellow Jew, swears in Beis Din that he holds no such money, and later admits to his sin, then he must first repay 125% of the value of that which he stole, and then offer a Korban Asham in order to receive atonement (Vayikra 5:20-26).

3.ASHAM SHIFCHAH CHARUFAH: If one had relations with a Shifchah Charufah (see Background to Yevamos 55:5), then he must offer a Korban Asham whether he transgressed this sin b'Mezid or b'Shogeg (Vayikra 19:20-22).

4.ASHAM NAZIR: If a Nazir (see Background to Beitzah 35:23) becomes Tamei during his period of Nezirus, he must offer a sheep within its first year as an Asham (Bamidbar 6:12; see also Background to Nazir 60:2).

5.ASHAM METZORA: When a Metzora completes his Taharah process (see Background to Sukah 13:10:a:III), he must offer a sheep within its first year as an Asham (Vayikra 14:12).

(b) If one is in doubt as to whether or not he committed a transgression for which he must offer a Korban Chatas, then he offers a ram worth two Sela'im as a Korban Asham Taluy (dependant; Vayikra 5:17-19). Should he later discover that he did indeed sin, he must then offer a proper Korban Chatas; the Asham Taluy provides only temporary atonement as long as he is unsure of his requirement (see Background to Nazir 23:2b).

(c) The offering of an Asham is similar to that of a Chatas. The main distinction between them is that the blood of an Asham is applied to the northeastern and southwestern Keranos only, in such a way that there is Dam on all sides of the Mizbe'ach (Shenayim she'Hen Arba).

22)[line 38]אין ממשכנין אותןEIN MEMASHKENIN OSAN- [the treasurers of Hekdesh] take collateral from them [since they are assumed to take their need for atonement seriously]

23)[line 40]מחמר חמיר עילויהMICHMAR CHAMIR ILAVEI- he takes it very seriously

24)[line 41]לחבריה הוא דבעי מיתבא ליהL'CHAVREI HU D'VA'I MEISVA LEI- he must give it to his fellow [Jew]

25)[line 41]גבוהGAVOHA- Hekdesh; the treasury of the Beis ha'Mikdash

26)[line 42]ממוניהMAMONEI- his possession; i.e., his animal

27)[line 43]שבקן אסתגר בקמייתאSHAVKAN! ISTAGER B'KAMAISA!- leave us! I am a) lit. closed in; i.e., left with no answer (RASHI); b) according to the GIRSA "Istanid" - ill (ARUCH) as a result of the first [question]!

28)[line 43]שאלו בחזקת תםSHA'ALO B'CHEZKAS TAM- if one borrowed [an ox, at which point he becomes responsible to guard the animal in place of the owner] assuming that it was a Tam

29)[line 45]מכלוםMI'KLUM- from [paying] anything

30)[line 46]לימא ליה, "תורא שאילי, אריא לא שאילי!"LEIMA LEI, "TORA SHE'ILI, ARYA LO SHE'ILI!"- [the borrower] should say to [the lender], "I borrowed an ox, not a lion (i.e., an animal expected to intentionally attack others)!"

31)[line 46]הכיר בו שהוא נגחןHIKIR BO SHE'HU NAGCHAN- [the borrower] recognized that the animal was one that gored others [although he thought that it had not yet gored three times]

32)[line 47]פלגא נזקא בעית שלומיPALGA NIZKA BA'IS SHELUMI- you would have had to pay half damages

33)[line 47]זילZIL- go

34)[last line]הוה משתלם מגופו[HAVAH] MISHTALEM MI'GUFO- the payment [for the half-damage] would have come from the animal itself [and I myself would not have had to pay anything whatsoever]

35)[last line]את לאו תורא בעית שלומי לדידי?AT LAV TORA BA'IS SHELUMI L'DIDI?- would you not have had to pay me for the value of [half of my] ox?


36)[line 1]מודינא ומפטרינאMODINA U'MIFTERINA (MODEH BI'KENAS PATUR - One who Admits to his Guilt is Exempt from a Fine)

(a)Any payment that constitutes an over-compensation for a monetary loss or is set regardless of the specific circumstances of the damage incurred has the status of a "Kenas" (fine) as opposed to that of Mamon (remuneration). One becomes liable to pay a Kenas only based upon the testimony of valid witnesses; he is never liable to pay a Kenas based upon his own admission. If, after his admission, witnesses subsequently testify to his action in Beis Din, Amora'im disagree as to whether or not he must make these extra payments (see Bava Kama 74b-75a). One is under no moral obligation to pay a Kenas unless it has been placed upon him by Beis Din (RASHBA to Bava Kama 74b; see also MILCHAMOS HASH-M at the end of the third Perek of Kesuvos).

37)[line 2]פלגא נזקא ממונאPALGA NIZKA MAMONA (PALGA NIZKA MAMONA / KENASA - Whether or Not Oxen are Aggressive by Nature)

(a)An ox that has either never gored another animal or that has done so no more than twice is termed a Tam. Should such an ox gore another animal, then its owner need only pay half of the damages (Chatzi Nezek). Furthermore, he need not pay any more than the worth of his own ox ("mi'Gufo") (Shemos 21:35).

(b)If an ox has gored the same species of animal three times or more, and its owner was informed and duly warned to guard his ox after each time, then the ox is termed a Mu'ad. Since its owner has been negligent, he must make full restitution for the damages caused by his animal (Nezek Shalem), even if this amounts to more that the value of his animal ("min ha'Aliyah") (Shemos 21:36).

(c)Amora'im disagree as to the underlying reason why the Torah requires a Tam to pay Chatzi Nezek. Rav Papa explains that all oxen are aggressive by nature, and that one ought to have taken precautions to prevent even a Tam from attacking. Although he should therefore be responsible to pay for full damages, the Torah was lenient since the animal had not yet been established as a Mu'ad and exempted him from half of the damages. According to this opinion, Chatzi Nezek is "Mamona" - monetary compensation. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua maintains that oxen are passive by nature, and one has no reason to fear that his Tam will attack. Although this should exempt one from paying anything when his ox attacks unless it has been established as a Mu'ad, the Torah imposed a penalty of Chatzi Nezek upon him so that he will guard his ox carefully in the future. According to this opinion, Chatzi Nezek is "Kenasa" - a fine.

(c)According to the opinion that Palga Nizka Kenasa, if the owner of the Tam admits in Beis Din that his animal attacked he will be exempt from paying even Chatzi Nezek. This is because one who admits to a fine need not pay it (Modeh bi'Kenas Patur; see previous entry). If Palga Nizka is Mamona, however, then he will always be responsible to pay Chatzi Nezek.

38)[line 3]הוה מעריקנא ליה לאגמאHAVAH ME'ARIKNA LEI L'AGMA- I would have chased it into a marsh [where Beis Din could not find it, in which case they would be unable to collect from it since the payment of a Tam comes from the animal itself (mi'Gufo)]

39)[line 4]אקדים בי דינא ותפסיהAKDIM BEI DINA V'SAFSEI- Beis Din seized the animal before [the borrower even knew that it had attacked] (see Insights)

40)[line 6]אתפסתיה לתוראי בידא מאן דלא מצינא לאשתעויי דינא בהדיהATPASTEI L'SORA'I B'YADA MAN D'LO MATZINA L'ISHTA'UYEI DINA BAHADEI- you caused my ox to be seized by one with whom I am unable to have a dialog (i.e., Beis Din, who will not agree to release the animal under any circumstances other than those prescribed by Halachah)

41)[line 7]אי אהדרתיה ניהלך, לאו מינך הוו שקלי ליה?IY AHADRASEI NIHALACH, LAV MINACH HAVU SHAKLI LEI?- had I returned it to you, would they not have taken it from you?

42)[line 10]לאו מעלייה הוו משתלמי?LAV ME'ALIYAH HAVU MISHTALMEI?- would you not have had to pay [Nezek Shalem] from your other possessions [since, as you know, it was truly a Mu'ad]?

43)[line 11]הניחא היכא דאית ליה נכסיHANICHA HEICHA D'IS LEI NICHSEI- this [answer] suffices if [the lender] has other possessions

44)[line 13]כי (היכא) [היכי] דמשתעבדנא לדידך הכי נמי משתעבדנא להאיךKI (HEICHA) [HEICHI] D'MISHTABDANA L'DIDACH, HACHI NAMI MISHTABDANA L'HA'ICH- just as I am obligated to you [since the animal belongs to you], I am equally obligated to the other (i.e., the Nizak)

45)[line 15]נושה בחבירו מנה וחבירו בחבירוNOSHEH B'CHAVEIRO MANEH VA'CHAVEIRO L'CHAVEIRO- one who is owed a Maneh (100 Zuz) by his fellow, who in turn is owed a Maneh by another

46)[line 16]מוציאין מזה ונותנים לזהMOTZI'IN L'ZEH V'NOSNIN L'ZEH- [Beis Din] may take [the Maneh] from [he who owes the middleman] and give it to [the one whom the middleman owes]

47)[line 17]"... וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ.""... V'NASAN LA'ASHER ASHAM LO."- "... and he shall give to the one whom he owes" (Bamidbar 5:7). The verse does not say "to the one whom he borrowed from".

48)[line 20]רישא רשות אינה משנה!REISHA RESHUS EINAH MESHANEH!- the [ruling of the] first case [in the Beraisa clearly implies that] an animal does not revert to a Tam when it changes owners [since it remained a Mu'ad even after the borrower took charge of it]!

49a)[line 21]תברא!TAVRA!- a) lit. it is broken; the two parts of the Beraisa contradict one another! (RASHI to Kesuvos 75b and Yevamos 13a); b) an oath (TOSFOS to Kesuvos 75b DH Tavra, citing RABEINU CHANANEL)

b)[line 21]מי ששנה זו לא שנה זוMI SHE'SHANAH ZO LO SHANAH ZO- [the Tana] who taught this [first case of the Beraisa] did not teach that [second case of the Beraisa]

50)[line 24]לאו כל כמינך דמייעדת ליה לתוראיLAV KOL KEMINACH D'MEYA'EDES LEI L'SORA'I- it is not within your ability to cause my ox to gain the status of a Mu'ad [since you negligence it guarding it was not that of its owner]

51)[line 27]כל מקום שהולך שם בעליו עליוKOL MAKOM SHE'HOLECH, SHEM BE'ALAV ALAV- wherever it goes, it is known as the ox of so-and-so. This logic does not apply in the Seifa, however, since whatever degree of ownership held by the borrower dissipated entirely when the ox was returned to its owner (Darchei David).

52)[line 29]מהו לגבי מזבח?MAHU L'GABEI MIZBE'ACH? (SHOR HA'NISKAL - - A Stoned Ox

(a)The term "Shor ha'Niskal" - lit. an ox that is stoned - may refer to any animal or bird that is determined by Beis Din to deserve stoning. The owner of a Shor ha'Niskal may not receive any benefit from his animal once the death sentence has been issued.

(b)There are three categories of Shor ha'Niskal:

1.An animal that killed a person (Shemos 21:28-31; Sanhedrin 2a);

2.An animal that had relations with a human (Vayikra 20:15-16; Sanhedrin 2a). This includes both a Rove'a (male animal) and a Nirva (female animal). Such animals are put to death for two reasons: so that others not sin with them in a similar manner, and so as to avoid disgracing previous sinners by reminding all who see them of the sin that had been committed (Sanhedrin 54a);

3.When the Torah was given, Har Sinai was declared off-limits not only to all people other than Moshe Rabeinu, but even to animals and birds. Any animal or bird that stepped foot on the mountain was to be stoned (Shemos 19:13; Sanhedrin 15b). This Halachah, of course, applied only during that one period in history.

(c)Only a Shor ha'Niskal that was observed by two valid witnesses when involved in the implicating act is put to death. If there was only a single witness, or if it was the owner who came to Beis Din to acknowledge the action of his animal, then the animal is left alive. It may not, however, be offered as a Korban.

(d)Our Gemara asks whether or not an animal that was incited to kill may be offered as a Korban.

53)[line 31]"[... אָדָם כִּי-יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן לַה',] מִן-הַבְּהֵמָה, מִן-הַבָּקָר, וּמִן-הַצֹּאן, [תַּקְרִיבוּ אֶת-קָרְבַּנְכֶם.]"[... ADAM KI YAKRIV MI'KEM KORBAN LA'SH-M,] MIN HA'BEHEMAH, MIN HA'BAKAR, U'MIN HA'TZON [TAKRIVU ES KORBANCHEM.]"- "[... if a person amongst you offers a sacrifice to Hash-m, you shall offer your sacrifice] from the domesticated animals, from the cattle, and from the sheep and/or goats" (Vayikra 1:2). The phrase "from the ..." implies that not all animals within the category mentioned are valid as Korbanos.

54)[line 31]רובע ... נרבעROVE'A ... NIRVAH- see above, entry #52

55)[line 32]נעבדNE'EVAD - A Worshipped Animal

(a)A "Ne'evad" is an animal before which a person bowed down, worshipping it as Avodah Zarah. It is unfit to be offered as a Korban. It remains permitted for personal use, however, as live animals do not become prohibited for such when worshiped.

56)[line 32]מוקצהMUKTZAH - An Animal Designated as an Offering to Avodah Zarah

(a)A "Muktzah" is an animal that has been designated as an offering to Avodah Zarah. It is unfit to be offered as a Korban.

(b)An animal acquires the status of Muktzah only when a designation action has been performed upon it. Mere verbal designation (Hekdesh l'Avodah Zarah) is insufficient to render it invalid as a Korban.

57)[line 33]ומן הצאןU'MIN HA'TZON- [the extra "Vav" in the words] "u'Min ha'Tzon" (see above, entry #53)

58)[line 33]אם נאמר רובע למה נאמר נוגח ...?IM NE'EMAR ROVE'A LAMAH NE'EMAR NOGE'ACH ...?- [since an animal that has killed a person and a Rove'a are equally put to death when they were observed by witnesses] why need it be written that an ox that gored [may not be offered as a Korban] if it is already written [that] an animal that had relations with a woman [may not be offered as a Korban] ...?

59a)[line 35]רובע עשה בו אונס כרצוןROVE'A ASAH BO ONES K'RATZON- the status of a Rove'a is the same whether it intended to participate or whether it was coerced [since a) a Nirva, which did not necessarily cooperate willingly, is also killed (RASHI); b) a Rove'a is put to death even in a case in which a woman switched places with the animal of its own species with which it intended to mate (TOSFOS DH Rove'a)]

b)[line 35]נוגח לא עשה בו אונס כרצוןNOGE'ACH LO ASAH BO ONES K'RATZON- A Noge'ach does not have the same status when it was coerced as when it acted of its own free will [as an ox that killed a matador is exempt due to that which it was incited]

60)[line 37]קתני מיהתKETANI MIHAS- we did, however, learn in the Beraisa

61)[line 38]למאי הלכתא? לאו לקרבן?L'MAI HILCHESA? LAV L'KORBAN?- for what Halachic purpose [is a Noge'ach that was incited unlike one that acted of its own free will]? Is it not regarding its validity as a Korban?

62)[line 38]לקטלאL'KETALA- regarding [whether or not it is put to] death

63)[line 39]לאו אונס דידיה כתיב ולאו רצון דידיה כתיבLAV ONES DIDEI KESIV V'LAV RATZON DIDEI KESIV- neither [its validity as a Korban] when it was coerced nor [its validity as a Korban] when it acted of its own free will are explicitly written [in the Torah]

64)[line 41]מה לי קטלה בקרנאMAH LI KATLAH B'KARNA ...- what [difference] is it to me whether it killed her with its horn ...

65)[last line]דאתיוה לבי דינא וקטלוהD'ASYUHA L'VEI DINA V'KATLUHA- and then [witnesses] brought her to Beis Din and they killed her [for cohabitating with an animal]