Bava Kamma

to refer to a case where the slaughterer prepared  a piece of sharp flint and with it slaughtered the ox, which was thus dealt with as if it has been stoned, whereas where it had been slaughtered by means of a knife the prohibition should not apply? — To this it may be replied: Is a knife specifically mentioned in Scripture? Moreover we have learnt:  If one slaughters with a hand-sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the act of slaughtering has been properly executed. And now that the prohibition in respect both of food and of any [other] use has been derived from [the text] 'his flesh shall not be eaten', what additional teaching is afforded to me by [the words] 'The owner of the ox shall be quit'? — [The prohibition of] the use of the skin. For otherwise you might have been inclined to think that it was only the flesh that had been proscribed from being used, whereas the skin should be permitted to be used; we are therefore told [that this is not the case but] that 'the owner of the ox shall be quit.' But what of those Tannaim who employ this [text], 'The owner of the ox shall be quit' for deriving other implications (as we will indeed have to explain infra);  whence do they derive the prohibition against the making use of the skin? — They derive it from [the auxiliary term in the Hebrew text] 'eth his flesh', meaning, 'together with that which is joined to its flesh', that is, its skin. This Tanna,  however, does not stress [the term] 'eth' for legal expositions, as it has been taught:  Simeon the Imsonite, or as others read, Nehemiah the Imsonite, used to expound [the term] 'eth'  wherever it occurred in the Torah. When, however, he reached, Thou shalt fear eth the Lord thy God,  he abstained.  His disciples said to him: Rabbi, what is to be done with all the expositions of [the term] 'eth' which you have already given?  He said to them: Just as I have received reward for the [previous] expositions so have I received reward for the [present] abstention. When R. Akiba, however, came, he taught: 'Thou shalt fear eth the Lord thy God' implies that the scholarly disciples are also to be feared. Our Rabbis taught: 'But the owner of the ox shall be quit' means, according to the view of R. Eliezer, quit from [paying] half kofer.  Said R. Akiba to him: Since any actual liability in the case of the ox itself [being a Tam] is not paid except out of its body,  [why cannot the owner say to the plaintiff,] 'Bring it to the Court of Law and be reimbursed out of it'?  R. Eliezer then said to him: 'Do I really appear so [simple] in your eyes that [you should take] my exposition to refer to a case of an ox liable [to be stoned] to death? My exposition referred only to one who killed the human being in the presence of one witness or in the presence of its owner.'  In the presence of its owner! Would he not be admitting a penal liability?  — R. Eliezer maintains that kofer partakes of a propitiatory character. Another [Baraitha] teaches: R. Eliezer said to him: Akiba, do I really appear so [simple] in your eyes that [you take] my exposition to refer to an ox liable [to be stoned] to death? My exposition referred only to one who had been intending to kill a beast but [by accident] killed a man, [or where it had been intending to kill] an Egyptian and killed an Israelite, [or] a non-viable child and killed a viable child.  Which of the answers, was given first? — R. Kahana in the name of Raba said that [the answer about] intention was given first, whereas R. Tabyomi in the name of Raba said that [the answer about] having killed [the man in the presence of one witness etc.] was given first. R. Kahana, who in the name of Raba said [that the answer about] intention was given first, compared him to a fisherman who had been catching fishes in the sea;