Study Bava Kamma folio 41B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
only in a case where he checked a sharp piece of flint, and, seeing that it did not have any defects, slaughtered the ox with it. In that case, one could say that by slaughtering it with a stone, he performed the equivalent to stoning. Therefore, it is prohibited to eat it. But in a case where he
The rabbis said in response: Is that to say that it is written in the Torah that slaughter must performed specifically with a knife, which would justify a distinction between slaughtering with a stone and a knife? But didn’t we learn in the Mishnah (Ḥullin 15b): With regard to one who slaughters wi
The Talmud asks: And according to R' Abbahu, now that he derives the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of deriving benefit from the verse “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” why do I require the statement: “The owner of the ox shall be clear”? The Talmud answers: This is stated to prohibit deri
The Talmud asks: And according to those tanna’im who expound this verse: “The owner of the ox shall be clear,” for another interpretation, as we wish to state below, from where do they derive this prohibition against deriving benefit from the ox’s hide?
The Talmud answers: They derive it from the wording: “Its flesh may not be eaten [velo ye’akhel et besaro].” The verse could have been formulated: Velo ye’akhel besaro, which already means: And its flesh shall not be eaten. The addition of the word “et” teaches that the prohibition applies also to