Bava Kamma 42A

משכח רברבי ⁠– שקיל, זוטרי ⁠– שקיל.

When he finds big ones he takes them, and when he finds small ones he takes them as well. Here too, although R' Eliezer’s first explanation was sufficient, he added an additional response, despite the fact that it was not as good as the first.

רב טביומי משמיה דרבא אמר ״המית״ אמר ליה ברישא ⁠– משל לצייד ששולה דגים מן הים, משכח זוטרי ⁠– שקיל, משכח רברבי ⁠– שדי זוטרי ושקיל רברבי.

By contrast, Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Rava that he first said to him the explanation involving inconclusive testimony asserting that the ox killed, since this is analogous to a fisherman pulling fish from the sea, who finds small ones and takes them, and when he then finds big ones, he discards the small ones and takes only the big ones. Here too, once R' Eliezer thought of a better response to R' Akiva’s question, he suggested it instead of the first.

תניא אידך: ״בעל השור נקי״⁠ – רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר: נקי מדמי ולדות.

§ It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse: “The owner of the ox should be clear,” that R' Yosei HaGelili says: It means he should be clear from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. In other words, if an innocuous ox causes a woman to miscarry, the owner is not liable to pay half the compensation for the miscarried offspring.

אמר לו רבי עקיבא, הרי הוא אומר: ״כי ינצו אנשים ונגפו אשה״⁠ – אנשים, ולא שוורים.

R' Akiva said to him: It is unnecessary for the verse to teach this. Doesn’t it say with regard to paying compensation for miscarried offspring: “If men struggle and hurt a pregnant woman and her offspring emerge, and there is no tragedy, he should be punished as the husband of the woman should impose upon him and he should give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22); from which it is inferred that men who cause a woman to miscarry are liable to pay compensation for the offspring, but the owner of oxen who cause a woman to miscarry is not liable?