Bava Kamma 40: A Transgression That Is Beyond One's Control

The Gemara continues its discussion of an ox that is induced to gore.  The consequences that accompany an ox that has gored are only enacted when the ox intends to gore of its own will.  Today the rabbis consider what would happen in other related situations.  For example, can an ox that has been induced to gore and then kills a person subsequently be used as a sacrifice?  Do the rabbis wish to assert that such an animal is in fact tainted by its actions or not?

I can't help but think of cases that involve people, partially because of the end of today's daf.  In cases like that of Bernardo and Hamolka, where women were raped and murdered by Bernardo and his girlfriend Hamolka, it was established that Hamolka was not a fully willing partner in their heinous acts.  She was violently abused by Bernardo, too.  She may have been induced to kill.  Her sentence, in the end, was much lighter than that of Bernardo.  Now in our daf's discussion, the assumption is that there is either full responsibility or possibly half-responsibility.  In fact, the rabbis wonder about half-damages and full-damages if two people are equal owners of an ox that has gored and killed.  I wonder what the rabbis would say about a case where two people actually participated in killing a person when one induced the other to kill?

At the end of today's daf, we watch the rabbis engage in a conversation about beastiality.  The Gemara wonders about the responsibility of the owner of an ox that engages in beastiality with a woman.  They discuss what will happen to the woman - capital punishment, of course, for this transgression - but are more thoughtful when considering the consequence faced by the ox's owner. And whether or not that ox could be used as a sacrifice.  And so on.

The juxtapositioning of the responsibility of the ox and the responsibility of the woman is quite jarring.  In this particular situation, a woman is held responsible for her actions.  An ox is not, as it has been induced - seemingly by the woman - to engage in this illegal act.  However, I cannot imagine a situation where a woman would engage in intercourse with an ox unless she was forced to do so.  How did the rabbis even imagine that the physical and sexual prowess of women was powerful enough to engage oxen in intercourse?  What we know from modern pornography is that men are exclusively the directors of sexual activity that involves animals.  And that they are the ones who induce women - and animals - to engage in beastiality.  So how is it that a woman would be killed for those actions?

Of course we are responsible for our own actions - and yet the rabbis recognized two thousand years ago that we must address situations when guilt is more complicated.  Again we find an example of women as fully responsible adults while they are also under the almost complete ownership of their husbands or fathers. If only this example had included the complexity of women's independent actions... perhaps tomorrow's daf will help to illuminate this difficult conversation.