Study Bava Kamma folio 91A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלמא בעינן אומדנא דבי דינא; והא, כיון דגמר דיניה לקטלא – לא משהינן ליה לאומדנא דבי דינא, ולא מענינן לדיניה.
Rava continues the report in their name: Apparently, we require the evaluation of the court in order to render him liable to pay for the damage. And with regard to this ox that killed, once the verdict was given that it to be put to death, we do not delay the implementation of the verdict in order to wait for the evaluation of the court, and we do not delay its judgment. Therefore, the monetary case is not judged.
ואמינא להו אנא: אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא, הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון שברח.
And I, Rava, said to the rabbis of the school of Rav: Even if you say that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, who does not require assessment by the court, one could explain that here we are dealing with a case where the owner of the ox fled, and the court cannot judge his case in his absence and cannot render him liable to pay for the damage caused by his ox.
אי ברח, כי לא דנוהו דיני נפשות – היכי דיינינן ליה דיני ממונות בלא בעלים? דקביל סהדי וברח.
The Talmud asks: If the baraita is discussing a case where the owner fled, then in the case where they did not yet judge it as a case of capital law, how does the court judge it as a case of monetary law without the owner of the ox being present? The Talmud answers: The baraita is discussing a case where the court accepted the testimony of the witnesses in the presence of the owner, and he subsequently fled.
סוף סוף, מהיכא משתלם – מרידיא; אי הכי, תם – נדייניה דיני ממונות ברישא ונשתלם מרידיא, והדר נדייניה דיני נפשות!
The Talmud asks: Ultimately, from where are the damages paid in a situation where the owner fled, as he is not here to pay the damages? The Talmud answers: They are paid from plowing. The ox is rented out to plow fields, and the fees generated are used to pay the damages. Afterward, the ox is judged for the killing as a case of capital law. The Talmud asks: If so, with regard to an innocuous ox, why did the baraita rule that the court does not judge it as a case of monetary law? The court should judge it as a case of monetary law first, and the damages will be paid from fees generated from renting out the animal for plowing, and then the court should judge it as a case of capital law.