Bava Kamma — Daf 71b

להכי פטרי רבנן אלא למ"ד דרבנן אמאי פטרי רבנן

אשארא אע"ז ושור הנסקל

ורבי מאיר אמאי מחייב שוחט לע"ז

כיון דשחט בה פורתא אסרה אידך איסורי הנאה הוא ולא דמריה קא טבח (ולא דידיה קא טבח)

אמר רבא באומר בגמר זביחה הוא עובדה

שור הנסקל איסורי הנאה נינהו לאו דמריה קא טבח (ולאו דידיה קא טבח)

אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שמסרו לשומר והזיק בבית שומר והועד בבית שומר ונגמר דינו בבית שומר ור"מ סבר לה כרבי יעקב וס"ל כר' שמעון

סבר לה כרבי יעקב דאמר אף משנגמר דינו החזירו שומר לבעלים מוחזר

וסבר לה כרבי שמעון דאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי

דתנן ר"ש אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב אלמא דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי

אמר רב כהנא אמריתא לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא מי מצית מוקמת מתניתין כר"מ ולא כר"ש והא קתני סיפא רבי שמעון פוטר בשני אלו מכלל דבכולה מתניתין מודה

א"ל לא מכלל דמודה בטבח ומכר לרפואה ולכלבים:

גנב משל אביו וטבח ומכר וכו': בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן גנב שור של שני שותפין וטבחו והודה לאחד מהן מהו

(שמות כא, לז) חמשה בקר אמר רחמנא ולא חמשה חצאי בקר או דלמא חמשה בקר אמר רחמנא ואפילו חמשה חצאי בקר א"ל חמשה בקר אמר רחמנא ולא חמשה חצאי בקר

איתיביה גנב משל אביו וטבח ומכר ואח"כ מת אביו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה והא הכא כיון דמת אביו כמו שקדם והודה לאחד מהן דמי וקתני משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעמד אביו בדין

אבל לא עמד בדין מאי אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אי הכי אדתני סיפא גנב משל אביו ומת ואח"כ טבח ומכר אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ניפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים כשעמד בדין אבל לא עמד בדין אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

א"ל הכי נמי איידי דנסיב רישא גנב משל אביו וטבח ומכר ואח"כ מת אביו נסיב סיפא נמי גנב משל אביו ומת אביו ואח"כ טבח ומכר

לצפרא א"ל חמשה בקר אמר רחמנא ואפי' חמשה חצאי בקר והאי דלא אמרי לך באורתא

of this have rightly ruled that there is exemption,  but according to the view that it is based on Rabbinic authority, why did the Rabbis rule that there is exemption?  — [Their exemption applies] to the other cases; to serving idols, and an ox condemned to be stoned. But why does R. Meir impose liability in the case of slaughtering for the service of idols? For as soon as he starts the act of slaughtering in the slightest degree he renders the animal forbidden,  so that the continuation of the slaughter is done on an animal already forbidden for any use whatever, and as such, was he therefore not slaughtering that which no longer belonged to the owner?  — Raba replied: The rule applies to one who declares that it is only at the very completion of the act of slaughter that he intends to serve idols therewith. But what about an ox condemned to be stoned? Is it not forbidden for any use whatever, so that he slaughters that which does not belong to the owner?  — Raba thereupon said: We are dealing here with a case where the owner had handed over the ox to a bailee, and as it did damage [by killing a person] in the house of the bailee it was declared Mu'ad in the house of the bailee and its final verdict was issued while it was in the house of the bailee; R. Meir thus on one point concurred with R. Jacob and on another point he concurred with R. Simeon: On one point he concurred with R. Jacob who said that if even after its final verdict was issued the bailee restored it to the owner, it would be a legal restoration;  and on another point he concurred with R. Simeon who stated  that an object the absence of which entails money loss is regarded as possessing an intrinsic value,  as we have learned: R. Simeon says: In the case of consecrated animals  for the loss of which the owner is liable to replace them by others, the thief has to pay,  thus proving that an object whose absence entails money loss is regarded as possessing an intrinsic value.  R. Kahana said: When I reported this discussion in the presence of R. Zebid of Nehardea, I asked: How could you explain our Mishnah  to be [only] in accordance with R. Meir  but not in accordance with R. Simeon, since it is stated in the concluding clause, R. SIMEON HOWEVER RULES THAT THERE IS EXEMPTION IN THE LAST TWO CASES,  thus implying that in the other cases of the whole Mishnah he agrees? — He  however said to me; No, it merely implies that he agrees in the case of slaughtering or selling to use the meat for curative purposes or to give to dogs. IF HE STEALS FROM HIS OWN FATHER AND AFTER HE HAD SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD, HIS FATHER DIED, etc. Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If he steals an ox of two partners and after slaughtering it he confesses to one of them,  what would be the law?  — Shall we say that the Divine law says: 'Five oxen',  [implying] 'but not five halves of oxen', or do the 'five oxen' mentioned by the Divine Law include also five halves of oxen? — He replied:  The Divine Law says 'five oxen' [implying] 'but not five halves of oxen'. He, however, raised an objection against him [from the following]: IF HE STEALS FROM HIS FATHER AND AFTER HE HAD SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD, HIS FATHER DIED, HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT. Seeing that the father died,  is not this case here on a par with a case where he went  and confessed to one of the partners, and it is yet stated that he has to make four-fold or five-fold payment? — He replied: Here we are dealing with a case where, for instance, his father has already appeared in the court before he died.  Had he not appeared in court, the son would not have had to make four-fold or five-fold payment. If so, instead of having the subsequent clause 'Where he steals of his father [who subsequently died] and afterwards he slaughters or sells, he has not to pay four-fold and five-fold payments,'  why should not [the Mishnah] make the distinction in the same case itself by stating, 'This ruling  applies only where the father appeared in court, whereas if he did not manage to appear in court, the thief would not have to make four-fold and five-fold payments'?  — He replied:  This is indeed so, but since the opening clause runs 'IF HE STEALS FROM HIS FATHER AND AFTER HE HAD SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD, HIS FATHER DIED', the later clause also has the wording, 'where he steals from his father and after his father died he slaughters or sells'. In the morning, however, he said to him:  When the Divine Law said 'five oxen' it also meant even five halves of oxen, and the reason why I did not say this to you on the previous evening