Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 14, 2016 | 讞壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 44

Why was it necessary for the verses in the Torah to specify that an animal is killed even if it killed a minor? 聽Is this the case also if it was a shor tam If an animal kills without intent to kill or with intent to kill an animal and killed a person and other such cases, the animal is not killed but Rav and Shmuel have a debate about whether or not the ransom needs to be paid.聽The gemara brings in the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that even if a person tried to kill someone but killed someone else instead, he is not punished by death. He would hold the same to be true for the animal who kills. 聽And this would disagree with the tanna of our mishna.聽The derivation for the two opinions are brought.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖讜专 讘讗讚诐 砖注砖讛 讘讜 拽讟谞讬诐 讻讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讻讙讚讜诇讬诐

then in the case of an ox killing a person, where the Torah renders small oxen like large ones with regard to this act, as a young calf that kills a person is killed just as an adult ox that kills a person, is it not logical that the Torah renders it liable for killing minors, i.e., a boy or a girl, just as for killing adults? Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this halakha?

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 转讗诪专 讘砖讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘谉 讬讙讞 讗讜 讘转 讬讙讞 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讻讙讚讜诇讬诐

The Gemara rejects this claim: No, this cannot be derived by logic alone. If you say that a person who kills a person is liable even when the victim is a minor, this may be due to the extra severity in the case of a human assailant, as he is liable to pay four types of indemnity for causing injury; pain, humiliation, medical costs, and loss of livelihood, in addition to payment for the actual damage. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to an ox, whose owner is not liable to pay these four types of indemnity? Clearly, this halakha cannot be derived merely through logical comparison between the two cases. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter,鈥 to render it liable for minors as well as adults.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 讘转诐 诪谞讬谉

And I have derived this halakha only with regard to forewarned oxen; from where do I derive that in the case of an innocuous ox, it is killed if it kills a boy or a girl?

讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讜讘转 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讜讘转 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

The baraita asks: Could this not be derived through logical inference? Since the Torah renders an ox liable to be killed for killing a man or a woman, and likewise renders it liable to be killed for killing a boy or a girl; then just as when it renders it liable to be killed for killing a man or a woman you do not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, as both are stoned, so too, when it renders an ox liable to be killed for killing a boy or a girl do not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.

讜注讜讚 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讛讜专注 讻讞诐 讘谞讝拽讬谉 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讘谉 讜讘转 砖讬驻讛 讻讞诐 讘谞讝拽讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讛谉 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

And furthermore, it can be inferred a fortiori: If with regard to a man or a woman, whose power is diminished with regard to damages because adults who cause damage are liable to pay, but nevertheless you do not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox that kills them; then with regard to a boy or girl, whose power is enhanced with regard to damages because they are not liable to pay for damage they cause, is it not logical that you should not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox that kills them?

讗诪专转 讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讗诐 讛讞诪讬专 讘诪讜注讚 讛讞诪讜专 转讞诪讬专 讘转诐 讛拽诇

The baraita answers that you could say in response: But does one derive the halakha of a lenient matter from a stringent matter in order to be more stringent with regard to it? If the Torah is stringent with regard to the case of a forewarned ox, which is a stringent matter, rendering it liable to be killed for killing a minor, does that mean that you should be stringent with regard to an innocuous ox, which is a relatively lenient matter?

讜注讜讚 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪爪讜转 转讗诪专 讘讘谉 讜讘转 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪爪讜转

And furthermore, there is another reason to reject the earlier opinion: If you say that an innocuous ox is liable to be killed for killing a man or a woman, as they are obligated to observe the mitzvot, which gives them importance, does that mean that you should say the same with regard to a boy or a girl, who are exempt from the mitzvot?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘谉 讬讙讞 讗讜 讘转 讬讙讞 谞讙讬讞讛 讘转诐 谞讙讬讞讛 讘诪讜注讚 谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讬转讛 谞讙讬讞讛 诇谞讝拽讬谉

Since this halakha could not have been derived through logic alone, the verse states: 鈥淲hether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter,鈥 stating the phrase 鈥渉as gored鈥 twice, to teach that it is referring both to the goring of an innocuous ox and to the goring of a forewarned ox, and both to goring that causes death and to goring that causes injury. In all these cases the owner of the ox is liable even if the ox gores a minor.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讛讬讛 诪转讞讻讱 讘讻讜转诇 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讛讗讚诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讙讜讬 讜讛专讙 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞驻诇讬诐 讜讛专讙 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: If an ox was rubbing against a wall, and as a result the wall fell on a person and killed him; or if the ox intended to kill another animal but killed a person; or if it intended to kill a gentile but killed a Jew; or intended to kill a non-viable baby but killed a viable person; in all these cases the ox is exempt from being killed.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻讟讜专 诪诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讜专讘 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛

GEMARA: Shmuel says: The ox is exempt from being put to death, since it did not intend to kill, but its owner is liable to pay ransom. And Rav says: They are exempt from this liability and from that liability.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 转诐 讛讜讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讘诪讜注讚 诇讬驻讜诇 注诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讘讜专讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讜注讚 诇讛转讞讻讱 注诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讻转诇讬诐

The Gemara asks about Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: And why is he liable to pay ransom? Isn鈥檛 the ox innocuous with regard to this action? The Gemara answers: As Rav says in a different context, it is referring to an ox that was forewarned with regard to falling on people in pits. Here too, it is referring to an ox that was forewarned with regard to rubbing against walls, causing them to fall on people.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讚讞讝讗 讬专讜拽讗 讜谞驻诇 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: If so, if it was forewarned with regard to this behavior, it clearly intended to kill the person and is therefore subject to being put to death, contrary to the ruling in the mishna. The Gemara explains: Granted there, in the case where the ox was forewarned with regard to falling on people in pits, it could be that it saw a vegetable on the edge of the pit and subsequently fell in, without any intention to kill. But here, where it rubbed against a wall, causing it to fall on a person, and was forewarned with regard to this behavior, what is there to say in its defense?

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪转讞讻讱 讘讻讜转诇 诇讛谞讗转讜 讜诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讘转专 讚谞驻诇 拽讗 诪转讞讻讱 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Here also the case is where it rubbed against the wall for its pleasure and not in order to kill. The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that it did not intend to kill? The Gemara answers: Because even after the wall fell it was still rubbing against it, which proves that this was its intention.

讜讗讻转讬 爪专讜专讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But still, is it not a case of pebbles? Is this case not analogous to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled from under the feet of an animal while it is walking, which is not considered damage caused directly by the ox, but rather, damage caused indirectly? Ransom is not imposed for such indirect killing. Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: It is a case where the wall gradually gave way under the pressure applied by the ox, and so while the ox was still pushing the wall it collapsed and killed the person.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜讘讻讜驻专 讜讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讜驻讟讜专 诪诪讬转讛 讜讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讻讜驻专 讜讬砖 驻讟讜专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav: There are cases where the ox is liable to be put to death and the owner is liable to pay ransom, and there are cases where the owner is liable to pay ransom but the ox is exempt from being put to death, and there are cases where the ox is liable to be put to death but the owner is exempt from paying ransom, and there are cases where they are exempt from this punishment and from that one.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讜注讚 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜讘讻讜驻专 诪讜注讚 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讜驻讟讜专 诪诪讬转讛 转诐 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪讻讜驻专 转诐 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛

How so? In a case where a forewarned ox kills a person intentionally, the ox is liable to be put to death and the owner is liable to pay ransom; if a forewarned ox kills unintentionally, the owner is liable to pay ransom but the ox is exempt from being put to death; if an innocuous ox kills intentionally, the ox is liable to be put to death but the owner is exempt from paying ransom; and if an innocuous ox kills unintentionally, they are exempt from this punishment and from that one. The baraita states explicitly that although a forewarned ox that kills a person unintentionally is exempt from being put to death, its owner is liable to pay ransom, in accordance with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, and in contrast with Rav鈥檚 opinion.

讜讛谞讝拽讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

The baraita adds: And for injuries caused by an ox unintentionally, from which the victim is not killed, Rabbi Yehuda deems the owner liable to pay for the injury and Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诇讬祝 诪讻讜驻专讜 诪讛 讻讜驻专讜 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 讛谞讝拽讬谉 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: He derives the halakha with regard to injury caused by the ox from the halakha with regard to its owner鈥檚 ransom payment. Just as with regard to its owner鈥檚 ransom payment he is liable even if the ox gores unintentionally, so too, with regard to injuries he is also liable even if it gores unintentionally.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬诇讬祝 诪拽讟诇讬讛 讚砖讜专 诪讛 拽讟诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 谞讝拽讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 驻讟讜专

And Rabbi Shimon derives his opinion from the halakha of the putting to death of an ox by the court: Just as with regard to its being put to death, if it kills a person unintentionally it is exempt, so too, if it causes injuries unintentionally its owner is exempt from payment.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪拽讟诇讬讛 讚谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪诪讬转讛

The Gemara questions the above explanation: And let Rabbi Yehuda also derive the halakha concerning an ox unintentionally causing injury from the halakha of its being put to death. The Gemara answers: In his opinion, we can derive a halakha with regard to payment for injury from the halakha of ransom, which is another halakha with regard to payment. But we cannot derive a halakha with regard to payment from a halakha concerning death.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪讻讜驻专讜 讚谞讬谉 讞讬讜讘讬讛 讚砖讜专 诪讞讬讜讘讬讛 讚砖讜专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讻讜驻专 讚讞讬讜讘讬讛 讚讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗

Conversely, the Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Shimon also derive the halakha here from the halakha concerning its owner鈥檚 ransom payment. The Gemara answers: We can derive a halakha with regard to the liability of an ox from a halakha with regard to the liability of an ox, to the exclusion of the payment of ransom, which is the liability of the owner. Compensation for injury is considered the ox鈥檚 liability, as it is the ox that caused the injury, whereas the ransom paid is for the owner鈥檚 atonement. Therefore, the halakha concerning injury cannot be derived from the halakha of ransom, as they are dissimilar.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 [讜讻讜壮] 驻讟讜专 讛讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讝讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讝讛 讞讬讬讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讝讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讝讛 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches that if an ox intended to kill another animal but killed a person, or if it intended to kill a person for whom it would not be liable to be put to death but killed a person for whom it would be liable, it is exempt. The Gemara infers: If the ox intended to kill this person, for whom it would be liable, but killed that person instead, it is still liable. Accordingly, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the ox intended to kill this person but killed that person, it is exempt.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讻诪讬转转 讘注诇讬诐 讻讱 诪讬转转 讛砖讜专 诪讛 讘注诇讬诐 注讚 讚诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讬讛 讗祝 砖讜专 谞诪讬 注讚 讚诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers that it is because the verse states: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29); the juxtaposition of the ox and its owner indicates that as the death of the owner, i.e., a person, for killing another person, so is the death of the ox for killing a person. In other words, the two halakhot are applied in the same circumstances. Specifically, just as the owner, i.e., a person, is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment unless he intends to kill the person whom he ultimately kills, so too, an ox is not put to death either, unless it intends to kill the one whom it ultimately kills.

讜讘注诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗专讘 诇讜 讜拽诐 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the owner himself, from where do we derive that he is not liable unless he killed the one whom he intended to kill? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he lay in wait for him, and rose against him, and struck him mortally and he died鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:11). From the term 鈥渇or him,鈥 Rabbi Shimon derives that the killer is not liable unless he intends to kill him, i.e., the one whom he ultimately killed.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讗专讘 诇讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 驻专讟 诇讝讜专拽 讗讘谉 诇讙讜

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis, who deem the killer liable in that case and who therefore disagree with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, do with this phrase: 鈥淎nd he lay in wait for him鈥? How do they interpret it? The Gemara answers that the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say that this phrase excludes from liability one who throws a stone into an area where there are several people, some of whom are people for whom he would not be liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, e.g., gentiles, and a stone killed a person for whom he would receive court-imposed capital punishment.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谞讬讛诐 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讗 讙讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that there are nine gentiles in the crowd and one Jew among them, even without the verse derive the exemption from the fact that a majority of them are gentiles. Alternatively, even if half the people are gentiles and half are Jews, derive the exemption from the principle that when there is uncertainty concerning capital law, the halakha is to be lenient.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讙讜讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬 讜住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara answers: No, the verse is necessary in a case where there are nine Jews and one gentile. Although a majority of them are Jews, the thrower is exempt from liability because there is one gentile among them who is considered fixed in his place, and the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced; and when there is uncertainty concerning capital law the halakha is to be lenient. This is what the Rabbis derive from the phrase: 鈥淎nd he lay in wait for him.鈥

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 讛讗砖讛 讜砖讜专 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讜专 讛讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪讬转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讬转讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to an ox belonging to a woman, and similarly an ox belonging to orphans, and an ox belonging to orphans that is in the custody of their steward, and a desert ox, which is ownerless, and an ox that was consecrated to the Temple treasury, and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs, rendering the ox ownerless; all of these oxen are liable to be put to death for killing a person. Rabbi Yehuda says: A desert ox, a consecrated ox, and an ox belonging to a convert who died are exempt from being put to death, since they have no owners.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 砖讜专 砖讘注讛 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讜专 讛讗砖讛 砖讜专 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讜专 讛讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讬转讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In the passage discussing an ox that kills a person (Exodus 21:28鈥32), the Torah states: 鈥淎n ox,鈥 鈥渁n ox,鈥 repeating this word seven times, to include an additional six cases, in addition to the classic case of an ox goring and killing a person. They are: An ox belonging to a woman, an ox belonging to orphans, an ox belonging to orphans that is in the custody of a steward, a desert ox, a consecrated ox, and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs. Rabbi Yehuda says: A desert ox, a consecrated ox, and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs are all exempt from being put to death, since they have no owners.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛驻拽讬专

Rav Huna says: Rabbi Yehuda would deem the ox exempt even if it gored and killed and its owner ultimately consecrated it, or if it gored and he ultimately renounced his ownership over it, since at the time of the trial in court the ox does not have an owner.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 讜砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讜专 讛驻拽专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛驻拽讬专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: From where did Rav Huna derive this assertion? From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda teaches two cases, a desert ox and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs. What is the legal status of an ox belonging to a convert who died? Since he has no heirs it is considered to be an ownerless ox. Accordingly, the case of a desert ox is the same as the case of an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs, and it does not seem necessary for the baraita to state both cases. Rather, does it not teach us this: That even if the ox gored and he ultimately consecrated it, or, if it gored and he ultimately renounced ownership over it, it is exempt, just as in a case where a convert鈥檚 ox gores and subsequently the owner dies? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from the baraita that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛驻拽讬专 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘注诇讬讜 讜讛诪讬转 讜讙讜壮 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

This assertion is also taught in a baraita: Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said that even if it gored and he ultimately consecrated it, or if it gored and he ultimately renounced ownership over it, the ox is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd warning has been given [vehuad] to its ownerand it killed鈥he ox shall be stoned鈥 (Exodus 21:29). It is derived from here that the owner of the ox is exempt unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial is the same, i.e., that the ox has an owner.

讜讙诪专 讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讙诪专 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜讙诪专 讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require that the ox鈥檚 status be the same at the time of the verdict as well? And isn鈥檛 the phrase 鈥渢he ox shall be stoned鈥 also referring to the verdict? Rather, emend the statement and say that the owner of the ox is exempt unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial and at the time of the verdict are identical as one.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诇讬住拽诇 讜讛拽讚讬砖讜 讘注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讘注诇讬讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 诪讜转专

MISHNA: With regard to an ox that is leaving court to be stoned for killing a person and its owner then consecrated it, it is not considered consecrated, i.e., the consecration does not take effect, since deriving benefit from the ox is prohibited and the ox is therefore worthless. If one slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden to be eaten and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. But if its owner consecrated it before its verdict the ox is considered consecrated, and if he slaughtered it its flesh is permitted.

诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇砖讜讗诇 诇谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜诇砖讜讻专 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

If the owner of an ox conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, or to a paid bailee, or to a renter, and it caused damage while in their custody, they enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner. Therefore, if it was forewarned the bailee pays the full cost of the damage, and if it was innocuous he pays half the cost of the damage.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 砖讛诪讬转 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪讻专讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to an ox that killed a person, if its owner sold it before its verdict,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 44

砖讜专 讘讗讚诐 砖注砖讛 讘讜 拽讟谞讬诐 讻讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讻讙讚讜诇讬诐

then in the case of an ox killing a person, where the Torah renders small oxen like large ones with regard to this act, as a young calf that kills a person is killed just as an adult ox that kills a person, is it not logical that the Torah renders it liable for killing minors, i.e., a boy or a girl, just as for killing adults? Why is it necessary for the verse to teach this halakha?

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 转讗诪专 讘砖讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘谉 讬讙讞 讗讜 讘转 讬讙讞 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讻讙讚讜诇讬诐

The Gemara rejects this claim: No, this cannot be derived by logic alone. If you say that a person who kills a person is liable even when the victim is a minor, this may be due to the extra severity in the case of a human assailant, as he is liable to pay four types of indemnity for causing injury; pain, humiliation, medical costs, and loss of livelihood, in addition to payment for the actual damage. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to an ox, whose owner is not liable to pay these four types of indemnity? Clearly, this halakha cannot be derived merely through logical comparison between the two cases. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter,鈥 to render it liable for minors as well as adults.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讜注讚讬谉 讘转诐 诪谞讬谉

And I have derived this halakha only with regard to forewarned oxen; from where do I derive that in the case of an innocuous ox, it is killed if it kills a boy or a girl?

讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讜讘转 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讘谉 讜讘转 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

The baraita asks: Could this not be derived through logical inference? Since the Torah renders an ox liable to be killed for killing a man or a woman, and likewise renders it liable to be killed for killing a boy or a girl; then just as when it renders it liable to be killed for killing a man or a woman you do not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, as both are stoned, so too, when it renders an ox liable to be killed for killing a boy or a girl do not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.

讜注讜讚 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讛讜专注 讻讞诐 讘谞讝拽讬谉 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 讘谉 讜讘转 砖讬驻讛 讻讞诐 讘谞讝拽讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讛谉 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚

And furthermore, it can be inferred a fortiori: If with regard to a man or a woman, whose power is diminished with regard to damages because adults who cause damage are liable to pay, but nevertheless you do not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox that kills them; then with regard to a boy or girl, whose power is enhanced with regard to damages because they are not liable to pay for damage they cause, is it not logical that you should not differentiate between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox that kills them?

讗诪专转 讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讗诐 讛讞诪讬专 讘诪讜注讚 讛讞诪讜专 转讞诪讬专 讘转诐 讛拽诇

The baraita answers that you could say in response: But does one derive the halakha of a lenient matter from a stringent matter in order to be more stringent with regard to it? If the Torah is stringent with regard to the case of a forewarned ox, which is a stringent matter, rendering it liable to be killed for killing a minor, does that mean that you should be stringent with regard to an innocuous ox, which is a relatively lenient matter?

讜注讜讚 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪爪讜转 转讗诪专 讘讘谉 讜讘转 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪爪讜转

And furthermore, there is another reason to reject the earlier opinion: If you say that an innocuous ox is liable to be killed for killing a man or a woman, as they are obligated to observe the mitzvot, which gives them importance, does that mean that you should say the same with regard to a boy or a girl, who are exempt from the mitzvot?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘谉 讬讙讞 讗讜 讘转 讬讙讞 谞讙讬讞讛 讘转诐 谞讙讬讞讛 讘诪讜注讚 谞讙讬讞讛 诇诪讬转讛 谞讙讬讞讛 诇谞讝拽讬谉

Since this halakha could not have been derived through logic alone, the verse states: 鈥淲hether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter,鈥 stating the phrase 鈥渉as gored鈥 twice, to teach that it is referring both to the goring of an innocuous ox and to the goring of a forewarned ox, and both to goring that causes death and to goring that causes injury. In all these cases the owner of the ox is liable even if the ox gores a minor.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讛讬讛 诪转讞讻讱 讘讻讜转诇 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讛讗讚诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讙讜讬 讜讛专讙 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞驻诇讬诐 讜讛专讙 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: If an ox was rubbing against a wall, and as a result the wall fell on a person and killed him; or if the ox intended to kill another animal but killed a person; or if it intended to kill a gentile but killed a Jew; or intended to kill a non-viable baby but killed a viable person; in all these cases the ox is exempt from being killed.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻讟讜专 诪诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讜专讘 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛

GEMARA: Shmuel says: The ox is exempt from being put to death, since it did not intend to kill, but its owner is liable to pay ransom. And Rav says: They are exempt from this liability and from that liability.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 转诐 讛讜讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讘诪讜注讚 诇讬驻讜诇 注诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讘讜专讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讜注讚 诇讛转讞讻讱 注诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讻转诇讬诐

The Gemara asks about Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: And why is he liable to pay ransom? Isn鈥檛 the ox innocuous with regard to this action? The Gemara answers: As Rav says in a different context, it is referring to an ox that was forewarned with regard to falling on people in pits. Here too, it is referring to an ox that was forewarned with regard to rubbing against walls, causing them to fall on people.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讚讞讝讗 讬专讜拽讗 讜谞驻诇 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: If so, if it was forewarned with regard to this behavior, it clearly intended to kill the person and is therefore subject to being put to death, contrary to the ruling in the mishna. The Gemara explains: Granted there, in the case where the ox was forewarned with regard to falling on people in pits, it could be that it saw a vegetable on the edge of the pit and subsequently fell in, without any intention to kill. But here, where it rubbed against a wall, causing it to fall on a person, and was forewarned with regard to this behavior, what is there to say in its defense?

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪转讞讻讱 讘讻讜转诇 诇讛谞讗转讜 讜诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讘转专 讚谞驻诇 拽讗 诪转讞讻讱 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Here also the case is where it rubbed against the wall for its pleasure and not in order to kill. The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that it did not intend to kill? The Gemara answers: Because even after the wall fell it was still rubbing against it, which proves that this was its intention.

讜讗讻转讬 爪专讜专讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But still, is it not a case of pebbles? Is this case not analogous to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled from under the feet of an animal while it is walking, which is not considered damage caused directly by the ox, but rather, damage caused indirectly? Ransom is not imposed for such indirect killing. Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: It is a case where the wall gradually gave way under the pressure applied by the ox, and so while the ox was still pushing the wall it collapsed and killed the person.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜讘讻讜驻专 讜讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讜驻讟讜专 诪诪讬转讛 讜讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讻讜驻专 讜讬砖 驻讟讜专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav: There are cases where the ox is liable to be put to death and the owner is liable to pay ransom, and there are cases where the owner is liable to pay ransom but the ox is exempt from being put to death, and there are cases where the ox is liable to be put to death but the owner is exempt from paying ransom, and there are cases where they are exempt from this punishment and from that one.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讜注讚 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜讘讻讜驻专 诪讜注讚 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讜驻讟讜专 诪诪讬转讛 转诐 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讬转讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪讻讜驻专 转诐 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛

How so? In a case where a forewarned ox kills a person intentionally, the ox is liable to be put to death and the owner is liable to pay ransom; if a forewarned ox kills unintentionally, the owner is liable to pay ransom but the ox is exempt from being put to death; if an innocuous ox kills intentionally, the ox is liable to be put to death but the owner is exempt from paying ransom; and if an innocuous ox kills unintentionally, they are exempt from this punishment and from that one. The baraita states explicitly that although a forewarned ox that kills a person unintentionally is exempt from being put to death, its owner is liable to pay ransom, in accordance with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, and in contrast with Rav鈥檚 opinion.

讜讛谞讝拽讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

The baraita adds: And for injuries caused by an ox unintentionally, from which the victim is not killed, Rabbi Yehuda deems the owner liable to pay for the injury and Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诇讬祝 诪讻讜驻专讜 诪讛 讻讜驻专讜 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 讛谞讝拽讬谉 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: He derives the halakha with regard to injury caused by the ox from the halakha with regard to its owner鈥檚 ransom payment. Just as with regard to its owner鈥檚 ransom payment he is liable even if the ox gores unintentionally, so too, with regard to injuries he is also liable even if it gores unintentionally.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬诇讬祝 诪拽讟诇讬讛 讚砖讜专 诪讛 拽讟诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 谞讝拽讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 驻讟讜专

And Rabbi Shimon derives his opinion from the halakha of the putting to death of an ox by the court: Just as with regard to its being put to death, if it kills a person unintentionally it is exempt, so too, if it causes injuries unintentionally its owner is exempt from payment.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪拽讟诇讬讛 讚谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪诪讬转讛

The Gemara questions the above explanation: And let Rabbi Yehuda also derive the halakha concerning an ox unintentionally causing injury from the halakha of its being put to death. The Gemara answers: In his opinion, we can derive a halakha with regard to payment for injury from the halakha of ransom, which is another halakha with regard to payment. But we cannot derive a halakha with regard to payment from a halakha concerning death.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪讻讜驻专讜 讚谞讬谉 讞讬讜讘讬讛 讚砖讜专 诪讞讬讜讘讬讛 讚砖讜专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讻讜驻专 讚讞讬讜讘讬讛 讚讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗

Conversely, the Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Shimon also derive the halakha here from the halakha concerning its owner鈥檚 ransom payment. The Gemara answers: We can derive a halakha with regard to the liability of an ox from a halakha with regard to the liability of an ox, to the exclusion of the payment of ransom, which is the liability of the owner. Compensation for injury is considered the ox鈥檚 liability, as it is the ox that caused the injury, whereas the ransom paid is for the owner鈥檚 atonement. Therefore, the halakha concerning injury cannot be derived from the halakha of ransom, as they are dissimilar.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 [讜讻讜壮] 驻讟讜专 讛讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讝讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讝讛 讞讬讬讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讝讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讝讛 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches that if an ox intended to kill another animal but killed a person, or if it intended to kill a person for whom it would not be liable to be put to death but killed a person for whom it would be liable, it is exempt. The Gemara infers: If the ox intended to kill this person, for whom it would be liable, but killed that person instead, it is still liable. Accordingly, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the ox intended to kill this person but killed that person, it is exempt.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讻诪讬转转 讘注诇讬诐 讻讱 诪讬转转 讛砖讜专 诪讛 讘注诇讬诐 注讚 讚诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讬讛 讗祝 砖讜专 谞诪讬 注讚 讚诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers that it is because the verse states: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29); the juxtaposition of the ox and its owner indicates that as the death of the owner, i.e., a person, for killing another person, so is the death of the ox for killing a person. In other words, the two halakhot are applied in the same circumstances. Specifically, just as the owner, i.e., a person, is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment unless he intends to kill the person whom he ultimately kills, so too, an ox is not put to death either, unless it intends to kill the one whom it ultimately kills.

讜讘注诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗专讘 诇讜 讜拽诐 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the owner himself, from where do we derive that he is not liable unless he killed the one whom he intended to kill? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he lay in wait for him, and rose against him, and struck him mortally and he died鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:11). From the term 鈥渇or him,鈥 Rabbi Shimon derives that the killer is not liable unless he intends to kill him, i.e., the one whom he ultimately killed.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讗专讘 诇讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 驻专讟 诇讝讜专拽 讗讘谉 诇讙讜

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis, who deem the killer liable in that case and who therefore disagree with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, do with this phrase: 鈥淎nd he lay in wait for him鈥? How do they interpret it? The Gemara answers that the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say that this phrase excludes from liability one who throws a stone into an area where there are several people, some of whom are people for whom he would not be liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, e.g., gentiles, and a stone killed a person for whom he would receive court-imposed capital punishment.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谞讬讛诐 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讗 讙讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that there are nine gentiles in the crowd and one Jew among them, even without the verse derive the exemption from the fact that a majority of them are gentiles. Alternatively, even if half the people are gentiles and half are Jews, derive the exemption from the principle that when there is uncertainty concerning capital law, the halakha is to be lenient.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讙讜讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬 讜住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara answers: No, the verse is necessary in a case where there are nine Jews and one gentile. Although a majority of them are Jews, the thrower is exempt from liability because there is one gentile among them who is considered fixed in his place, and the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced; and when there is uncertainty concerning capital law the halakha is to be lenient. This is what the Rabbis derive from the phrase: 鈥淎nd he lay in wait for him.鈥

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 讛讗砖讛 讜砖讜专 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讜专 讛讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪讬转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讬转讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to an ox belonging to a woman, and similarly an ox belonging to orphans, and an ox belonging to orphans that is in the custody of their steward, and a desert ox, which is ownerless, and an ox that was consecrated to the Temple treasury, and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs, rendering the ox ownerless; all of these oxen are liable to be put to death for killing a person. Rabbi Yehuda says: A desert ox, a consecrated ox, and an ox belonging to a convert who died are exempt from being put to death, since they have no owners.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 砖讜专 砖讘注讛 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讜专 讛讗砖讛 砖讜专 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讜专 讛讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 砖讜专 讛讛拽讚砖 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讬转讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In the passage discussing an ox that kills a person (Exodus 21:28鈥32), the Torah states: 鈥淎n ox,鈥 鈥渁n ox,鈥 repeating this word seven times, to include an additional six cases, in addition to the classic case of an ox goring and killing a person. They are: An ox belonging to a woman, an ox belonging to orphans, an ox belonging to orphans that is in the custody of a steward, a desert ox, a consecrated ox, and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs. Rabbi Yehuda says: A desert ox, a consecrated ox, and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs are all exempt from being put to death, since they have no owners.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛驻拽讬专

Rav Huna says: Rabbi Yehuda would deem the ox exempt even if it gored and killed and its owner ultimately consecrated it, or if it gored and he ultimately renounced his ownership over it, since at the time of the trial in court the ox does not have an owner.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 讜砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讜专 讛驻拽专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜专 讛诪讚讘专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜专 讛讙专 砖诪转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛驻拽讬专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: From where did Rav Huna derive this assertion? From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda teaches two cases, a desert ox and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs. What is the legal status of an ox belonging to a convert who died? Since he has no heirs it is considered to be an ownerless ox. Accordingly, the case of a desert ox is the same as the case of an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs, and it does not seem necessary for the baraita to state both cases. Rather, does it not teach us this: That even if the ox gored and he ultimately consecrated it, or, if it gored and he ultimately renounced ownership over it, it is exempt, just as in a case where a convert鈥檚 ox gores and subsequently the owner dies? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from the baraita that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖 谞讙讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛驻拽讬专 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘注诇讬讜 讜讛诪讬转 讜讙讜壮 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

This assertion is also taught in a baraita: Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said that even if it gored and he ultimately consecrated it, or if it gored and he ultimately renounced ownership over it, the ox is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd warning has been given [vehuad] to its ownerand it killed鈥he ox shall be stoned鈥 (Exodus 21:29). It is derived from here that the owner of the ox is exempt unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial is the same, i.e., that the ox has an owner.

讜讙诪专 讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讙诪专 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪讬转讛 讜讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜讙诪专 讚讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require that the ox鈥檚 status be the same at the time of the verdict as well? And isn鈥檛 the phrase 鈥渢he ox shall be stoned鈥 also referring to the verdict? Rather, emend the statement and say that the owner of the ox is exempt unless the ox鈥檚 status as the owner鈥檚 property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner鈥檚 standing trial and at the time of the verdict are identical as one.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诇讬住拽诇 讜讛拽讚讬砖讜 讘注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜拽讚砖 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讘注诇讬讜 诪讜拽讚砖 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讘砖专讜 诪讜转专

MISHNA: With regard to an ox that is leaving court to be stoned for killing a person and its owner then consecrated it, it is not considered consecrated, i.e., the consecration does not take effect, since deriving benefit from the ox is prohibited and the ox is therefore worthless. If one slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden to be eaten and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. But if its owner consecrated it before its verdict the ox is considered consecrated, and if he slaughtered it its flesh is permitted.

诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇砖讜讗诇 诇谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜诇砖讜讻专 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

If the owner of an ox conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, or to a paid bailee, or to a renter, and it caused damage while in their custody, they enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner. Therefore, if it was forewarned the bailee pays the full cost of the damage, and if it was innocuous he pays half the cost of the damage.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 砖讛诪讬转 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪讻专讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to an ox that killed a person, if its owner sold it before its verdict,

Scroll To Top