Study Bava Kamma folio 42B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 cau
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 kill
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 anot
The Talmud asks: But let R' Eliezer also answer him that the owner slaughtered it first. Why did he offer a different explanation? The Talmud answers that R' Eliezer could have said to you: Specifically there, in the case R' Eliezer referred to in his explanation, namely, where the ox intended to