Study Gittin folio 42B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and half of a ransom, i.e., half of the value of the deceased, to his heirs. According to what was stated earlier, why is this the halakha? So too, in this case let us say: If the ox killed him on the day of his master, then the full penalty of 30 shekels is paid to his master, but if it kille
The Talmud asks: Rather, what are the circumstances when the principal is not consumed and the reimbursement is paid based on the day on which the ox gored the slave? The Talmud explains: It is a case where an ox struck him on his hand and his hand withered, but it will eventually return and heal.
The Talmud challenges: This works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who says: If one injures another and the injury causes him temporary paralysis, then he gives him the value of the major loss of livelihood, i.e., the decrease in his value, as measured by his price on the slave market,
However, according to the opinion of Rava, who says: He gives him only the value of his loss of livelihood for each and every day but does not have to pay for the decrease in his value because the slave will be healed and will return to his previous value, this case is one of an ox that injured the
The Talmud answers: If you wish, say that this is referring to a case where the slave was struck by a person, not an ox, so that the one who struck him must pay for the loss of livelihood. And if you wish, say instead: This halakha is merely a statement of an amora, and Rava is not bound to hold in