Answer #2 (Rava): Really, it killed through Bi'ah. This is unlike goring. A gorer intends to kill. This animal intended for its own benefit.

Question: What do Abaye and Rava argue about?

Answer: They argue about an ox that trampled a baby in the victim's premises.

Abaye holds that it pays Kofer. Rava holds that (the Tana of the Beraisa says) it does not (because it did not intend to kill).

Support (for Rav - Beraisa): An Itztadin ox is not killed, and it is acceptable for a Korban, because it is as if it was forced.

(Mishnah): If an ox gored and killed a man, if it was Mu'ad, it pays Kofer. If it was Tam, it is exempt;

In either case, the ox is killed.

The same applies to killing a boy or girl.

If it killed a slave, it pays 30 Shekalim, even if the slave is worth much more or much less.

(Gemara) Question: Since we kill even a Tam, how can it become Mu'ad?

Answer #1 (Rabah): The case is, it chased three people. We estimate that had they not fled, it would have killed all of them.

Rejection (Rav Ashi): Our estimation has no bearing!

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, it gored three people, making them dangerously sick (and they died later).

Answer #3 (Rav Zvid): It killed three animals.

Question: Must we say that Mu'ad for animals is Mu'ad for people?!

Answer #4 (Rav Simi): It killed three Nochrim.

Question: Must we say that Mu'ad for Nochrim is Mu'ad for Yisraelim?!

Answer #5 (Reish Lakish): It killed three people who were Tereifos.

Question: Must we say that Mu'ad for Tereifos is Mu'ad for healthy people?!

Answer #6 (Rav Papa): Each time it killed, it fled and we were unable to kill it.

Answer #7 (R. Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Reuven and David testified about the first goring, and were Huzmu (Moshe and Kalev (the Mazimim) testified that Reuven and David were not where they claimed to see the goring). Also the witnesses about the second goring were Huzmu;

After witnesses testified about the third goring, (the Mazimim were Huzmu, so) we realized that the witnesses about the first two gorings really told the truth.

Question: This is like the opinion that the testimony is to establish the ox like a gorer.

But according to the opinion that it is to warn the owner to guard his animal, he thought that the first witnesses lied (he was not warned until now)!

Answer: The case is, (witnesses testify that) the owner saw all the gorings.

Answer #8 (Ravina): The witnesses recognized the ox' owner, but did not recognize the ox (until after all the gorings).

Question: Why should the owner pay Kofer? What should he have done?

Answer: He should have guarded all his oxen.

(Beraisa) Question: Since "you will stone the ox", it will be a Neveilah (an animal that died without slaughter). Why did the Torah need to write "its flesh will not be eaten"?

Answer: This teaches that even if it was slaughtered, it may not be eaten.

Question: What is the source that one may not benefit from it?

Answer: "The owner of the ox is clean".

Question: How do we learn from this?

Answer (Shimon ben Zoma): This is like people say, 'Ploni is clean of his property, and has no benefit from it'.

Question: What is the source that "its flesh will not be eaten" applies when it was slaughtered? Perhaps it forbids benefit when it was stoned, like R. Avahu taught!

(R. Avahu): Wherever the Torah said "it will not be eaten" or "you will not eat", it forbids even benefit, unless the Torah explicitly permits benefit, like regarding Neveilah (it permits giving it to a non-Yisrael who keeps his seven Mitzvos, or selling it to a Nochri).

Answer: R. Avahu's law applies only when "it will not be eaten" forbids eating it. Here, we already know that one may not eat it because it must be stoned!

If the verse came to forbid benefit, it should have said 'one will not benefit';

Alternatively, it could have said (only) 'it will not be eaten';

It adds 'its flesh' to teach that even if it was slaughtered like meat, it is forbidden.

Question (Mar Zutra): Perhaps that is only when it was slaughtered with a sharp stone, which is like stoning, but if it was slaughtered with a knife, it is permitted!

Answer: The Torah does not require a knife for slaughter. (There is no reason why this should be more permitted than through a stone.)

(Mishnah): If one slaughters with a pruning hook, stone or reed, it is Kosher.

Question: Since "its flesh will not be eaten" forbids benefit from it, what do we learn from "the owner of the ox is clean"?

Answer: It forbids benefit from the skin;

One might have thought that benefit if forbidden only from the meat. The verse teaches that even the skin is forbidden.

Question: Other Tana'im (in Beraisos below) expound "the owner of the ox is clean" differently. How do they learn that one may not benefit from the skin?

Answer: "Es Besaro" discusses what is secondary to its flesh, i.e. the skin.

Our Tana does not expound "Es".

(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.

His Talmidim: If so, perhaps also the other occurrences of 'Es' should not be expounded!

R. Shimon: Indeed, I retract them all! Just like I will receive reward for what I expounded (at the time, I believed that it was true), I will be rewarded for refusing to expound.

R. Akiva: "You will fear Es Hash-m" includes Chachamim.

(Beraisa #1 - R. Eliezer): "The owner of the ox is clean" from paying half-Kofer;

Objection (R. Akiva): A Tam only pays from itself. Since we may not benefit from the damager, obviously it does not pay Kofer!

R. Eliezer: I did not discuss when we stone it. Rather, we know that it killed through one witness or the owner's admission.

Question: If he admitted, surely he is exempt from Kofer, like anyone who admits to a fine!

Answer: R. Eliezer holds that Kofer is an atonement (therefore, it is paid even through one witness or his admission).

(Beraisa #2 - R. Eliezer): I did not discuss when we stone it, rather when it killed without intent for a Yisrael (but rather for an animal, Nochri or stillborn baby).

Question: Which of these two answers did R. Eliezer give first?