Study Bava Kamma folio 15B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If one admits: My ox killed so-and-so, or my ox killed so-and-so’s ox, then this person pays based on his own admission.
The Talmud analyzes the Mishnah: What, is the halakha of the Mishnah not stated with regard to an innocuous ox? If so, this Mishnah proves that one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage even based on one’s own admission, which demonstrates that the payment is monetary restitution and n
The Talmud rejects the proof: No, the halakha of the Mishnah is stated with regard to a forewarned ox. The Talmud asks: But according to this explanation, if it had been an innocuous ox that gored, what would be the halakha? Would one say that indeed, he does not pay based on his own admission? But
The Mishnah would have continued: In what case is this statement in the first clause said? It is said with regard to a forewarned ox, but with regard to an admission that one’s innocuous ox gored, he does not pay based on his own admission. The fact that the Mishnah does not do so suggests that in
The Talmud rejects this: The reason the Mishnah did not raise the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox is not because that distinction is not a valid one, but because the entire Mishnah speaks only of cases of a forewarned ox. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the Mishnah.