Study Bava Kamma folio 42B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ונימא רבי עקיבא לנפשיה – והלא עצמו אין משתלם אלא מגופו, הביאהו לבית דין וישלם לך!
The Talmud asks: But let R' Akiva say to himself the same objection that he raised against R' Eliezer’s interpretation of the verse, that the owner of an innocuous ox is exempt from paying half a ransom (see 41b): Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this? But isn’t compensation for damage caused by an innocuous ox itself paid only from the value of its body? Therefore, its owner can say to the slave’s owner: Bring it to court and you will be paid from it. Since the ox was stoned, there is nothing from which he can collect payment.
אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק: כשקדם בעליו ושחטו; מהו דתימא: לישתלם מיניה; קא משמע לן, הואיל ובר קטלא הוא, אף על גב דשחטיה – לא לישתלם מיניה.
Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: R' Akiva’s interpretation is applicable in a case where its owner slaughtered it first, before it was sentenced to stoning. Lest you say that the slave’s owner should be paid from the value of the flesh, the verse teaches us that since the ox was subject to be killed, although its owner slaughtered it, the slave’s owner should not be paid from it.
אי הכי, לרבי אליעזר נמי – כשקדם ושחטו!
The Talmud asks: If so, why did R' Akiva raise this objection against R' Eliezer’s interpretation? According to R' Eliezer as well, it could be explained as referring to a case where its owner slaughtered it first.
The Talmud answers: Indeed, R' Eliezer’s interpretation could also be explained in this manner. And the reason R' Akiva raised this objection was because he reasons: Perhaps R' Eliezer has another explanation that is better than this one, and will state it. R' Eliezer did in fact respond with another explanation.