Q&A: Detached Horn
Detached Horn
Question
Regarding the Talmud in Bava Kamma 2b: there is an initial assumption that the entire Torah passage concerning an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox applies only to a detached horn, or as Rashi explains, where the animal held a horn in its teeth and gored with it. Now, does the Rabbi think it makes sense that this is what the Torah was talking about? Thank you.
Answer
The initial assumption is not that the liability applies only to a detached horn, but rather that only in the case of a detached horn did they distinguish between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, whereas in the case of an attached horn they did not. The reasoning is simple: when an ox grabs a detached horn and gores with it, that is something very strange and unusual, so in that case we overlook the first three gorings and classify it as innocuous. But an ox that gores with its own horns causes damage in an expected and normal way, and there it must be guarded from the outset. Therefore, in that case it is considered forewarned from the beginning.
Discussion on Answer
That is why they brought in Zedekiah son of Chenaanah, where those were detached horns. We are talking about an explanation of an amoraic statement that adds another verse. This is not an explanation of the Torah itself. I don’t see a problem.
I claim that this case is too esoteric and bizarre to assign it a law of its own; it is reasonable to assume that such a case never happened and never will happen.