Kommentar zu Bava Kamma 4:15

An ox that gores 4 or 5 oxen one after the other...

שור שנגח ד' וה' - and in all of them it (i.e., the ox) was innocuous and that it pays from his own funds.

[If] an ox has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: the owner shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If money remains, it will go to the [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If money still remains, it will go to the [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, according to Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Shimon says, “[If] an ox worth 200 gores an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets 100 and this one gets 100. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives 50. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives 50, and the first two receive 25.
This mishnah deals with the nature of the financial obligation of the owner of a harmless ox that has injured several oxen, without it ever becoming an attested danger. According to one opinion, the owner of the injured ox becomes new owner of the harmless ox, when the latter causes injury. The result of this ownership is that if the harmless ox causes further injury, the owner of the previously injured ox will have financial liability. The second opinion is that the owner the injured ox becomes a partner in the ownership of the injuring ox. In our mishnah we will see the manifestation of these two differing opinions.
First of all let us chart out two tables explaining the differences between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. In this chart all oxen were worth 200 before the injuries. The numbers are how much each owner of the injured oxen will collect.
Amount left to owner of injuring ox
First ox injured
Second ox
Third ox
Rabbi Meir
0
0
100
100
Rabbi Shimon
25
25
50
100
According to Rabbi Meir, the owners of the previously injured oxen are considered the new owners of the injuring ox and therefore are fully responsible for subsequent damages. Only if money remains from the value of the injuring ox can these owners recover money for their own injured oxen.
According to Rabbi Shimon the owners of the previously injured oxen are considered partners in the ownership of the injuring ox. When an ox damages one other ox, they are now partners and they each get 100. When it injures again, the owner of the currently injured ox is a partner who gets half, meaning 100 and the previous two owners become partners in an ox worth 100, and each gets 50. If the ox should injure a third time, the owner of the currently injured ox is a partner and receives half, meaning 100. The owner of the second injured ox is now a half partner in an ox worth 100 and he gets 50. The fifty that is left in the worth of the original ox is split evenly between the original owner and the owner of the first injured ox, who are partners in that 50.

We already explained in (tractate) kesuvos that a gold dinar is worth 25 silver dinarim and when the damagee too possession of the ox to recover the money, and it went out from under his hand and it damaged another, the next damagee collects complete half damages and if there is extra he will return to the previous one. And R. Shimon does not disagree since he took possession of it, he becomes with this a paid watchman and he's obligated in damges. And all these laws, they are for an innocuous ox that the principle in our hands is that he pays for the body, as we've explained. But if it was accustomed, we don't need any of this because he pays full damages uncapped. And the halakah is like R. Shimon.

ישלם – he (i.e., the owner) pays one-half of the damages caused, and to the last one [who suffered damage is paid] first. In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 36b), it establishes that our Mishnah deals with a the one who suffered damage grabbed hold of the ox causing damage to collect from him and became for him a paid bailee. But when it left under his hand and caused damage, the first one (i.e., the owner of the ox that was damaged) is liable for his damages. Therefore, the last [owner of an ox which suffered damage] is compensated one-half of his damages from the full amount.

ואם יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפניו – this is what he said: if there is surplus of his damages [caused] he should restore to the [owner of the ox who suffered damage] that was prior to him as, for example, that the half-damages of the first was a Maneh (100 zuz) and the half damages of the last was fifty and the ox was worth two-hundred. From the outset, when the ox gored the ox of the he first [owner] which was damaged, that half of his damages was a Maneh, the [owner of] the ox who was damaged received a Maneh, and the owners [received] a Maneh , when they captured the injured ox and it gored while under their control, the owners do not lose a Maneh that they had for it (i.e., the ox), for he was not guarding them, [properly] other than on the damaged ox which he had captured, and when it damaged a second [ox], and half of those damages was fifty, the [owner of the] first damaged ox lost from his Maneh – fifty , and he gives it to the [owner of the] second damaged [ox] and the surplus up until a Maneh he returns to him, and the owners take their own Maneh.

RABBI SHIMON SAYS: Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that the original owners and the victim become partners in ownership of the ox that attacked, and they are both liable in subsequent damages. How so? AN OX WORTH 200 WHO GORED...

ושלפניו – that [ox] which was damaged first, he (i.e., the owner) takes fifty zuz and the owners [of the ox] who damaged take fifty zuz, for the [owner of the] one damaged first has the half [damages], therefore, he pays one-half the compensation of his damage.

חזר ונגח שור שוה מאתים – the [owner of the] last one takes a half Maneh from every one – for he is paid out of his own pocket and it is found that the one before him that was his one-half, he pays from his portion one-half a Maneh and takes the last one.

But the two first [owners] – the first owner [whose ox] was damaged and the owners, for each one of them had a quarter, each one of them pays one-quarter of his damages.

דינר זהב – which is twenty-five silver dinars.

An ox that is accustomed for it's species is not accustomed...

הועד לקטנים – to calves.

An ox which is an attested danger for [injuring] its own kind, and is not an attested danger for [injuring] that which is not its own kind; or an attested danger for [injuring] human beings and not an attested danger for [injuring] beasts; or an attested danger for [injuring] children and not an attested danger for [injuring] adults that for which it is an attested danger [its owner] pays full damages, and that for which it is not an attested danger [its owner] pays half damages.
They said in front of Rabbi Judah: “What if it is an attested danger on the Sabbath, and it is not an attested danger during the week?” He said to them: “For [injuries done on] Sabbaths [its owner] pays full damages and for [injuries done] during the week [its owner] pays half damages.” When will this ox be considered harmless? After it refrains from doing injury for three Sabbath days.
Our mishnah continues to discuss the meaning of the concepts of muad, an ox which is an attested danger, and tam, an ox which is considered harmless. We have already mentioned many times that a muad is an ox that has already injured three times (see chapter 2 mishnah 4). If it should damage again it’s owner will be obligated for full damages, and not half damages as is obligated the owner of a tam. Our current mishnah will clarify that an ox (or any animal) can be considered a muad for some types of injury and a tam for others.
The first section of the mishnah deals with an ox that is known to damage certain types of animals or people but not others. For instance it is known to damage other oxen, but not sheep, or people but not animals, or children but not adults. In each of these cases the ox can be treated as a muad for specific things but a tam for others. The reasoning is that since it is known to injure, for example children, its owner must be extra careful around children. However, around adults, the owner can be less concerned and therefore he will only be liable for half damages.
The second section of the mishnah discusses the idea that an ox might be known to damage on certain days. This is a somewhat more perplexing idea. After all, it seems logical that an ox might become more testy around other oxen and be less bothered by sheep. Section one’s distinctions are therefore logical. However, one might not imagine that an ox is smart enough to know the difference between days of the week. Nevertheless, Rabbi Judah concludes that if we have evidence that an ox is more likely to attack on the Sabbath it could become a muad just for that day. At the end of the mishnah we learn that in order for this ox to revert to tam status, it would have to refrain specifically from its muad behavior. Therefore a muad for the Sabbath would have to refrain from injuring on the Sabbath itself, and not just during the week.

We say that it was accustomed to 1 species but it's not accustomed to other species rather it is regarded as innocuous until it is accustomed. And as it says an ox that is accustomed to it's own species is not accustomed to a different species and thus the principle for all these halakos regarding an innocuous ox.

אמרו לפני ר' יהודה – his students asked of him.

And the words of R. Yehuda are correct.

Forewarned for Sabbaths – because he (i.e., the animal) is idle from work and it became overbearing; alternatively, because it sees human beings in their nice Shabbat clothing, they are considered in its eyes as known but he does not recognize them.

But he is not forewarned on weekdays, what is the law regarding this?

משיחזור בו שלשה שבתות – (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4). After it (i.e., the owner of the ox) was forewarned for Sabbaths, they brought before him (i.e., the animal) oxen on three Sabbaths and it did not gore, it returned to its being innocuous, and if it returned to being innocuous and it gored, it (i.e., the owner) only pays one-half damages.

When it happens that there is a case where a jew is judged with a canaanite, the principle of law between them is: if there is merit to our case according to their laws, we go by their laws, and we say to them this is your law... and if it's better for us to go by our laws, we should judge with our laws and we say to them this is our law. And don't wonder about this and it shouldn't be difficult in your eyes since that who does not have complete characteristics of people (implying characteristics of justice between man and his friend, which keeps together a group of people) in truth are not included in people, and what is to be said on this topic would require a speech for itself.

שור של ישראל שנגח שור של עובד כוכבים פטור – as it is written (Habbakuk 3:6): “When He stands, He makes the earth shake; When He glances, He makes nations tremble.” He saw the seven commandments that were commanded to the Sons of Noah. Since they did not fulfill them, He (i.e., God) stood and He released their money to Israel, and it states (Deuteronomy 33:2): “He appeared from Mount Paran [and approached from Ribeboth-kodesh},” He (i.e., God) revealed the money of the idolaters and permitted it [to the Jewish people]. “From Mount Paran”: from the time that he went around from one to the other offering the idolaters the Torah and they did not accept it.

An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple.
An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt.
And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.
Our mishnah deals with an ox owned by a Jew that gores either an ox that has been consecrated to the Temple in Jerusalem or an which belongs to a gentile.
The first clause of our mishnah is really a midrash halakhah on a verse from Exodus. Midrash can loosely be defined as exegesis, in this case deriving something from a verse in the Torah. Halakhah, is Jewish law, and therefore midrash halakhah is exegetically deriving a law from a verse, even when that law is not apparent from the simple sense of the verse. Many of the laws in the mishnah are actually derived through midrash from the Torah. However, the midrash, or scriptural derivation of the law, is not usually mentioned explicitly in the Mishnah. The Mishnah is a code organized topically and not organized according to the organization of the Torah, and therefore its connection with the Torah is usually less apparent. However, there are exceptions as we shall see in our mishnah.
Section one is a midrash on the word “his neighbor” in the verse “When a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies” (Exodus 21:35). The Rabbis learned that “his neighbor” comes to exclude an ox that doesn’t belong to his neighbor but belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem. A person can dedicate any of his property to the Temple. If the dedicated property was able to be offered as a sacrifice, i.e. a cow, a sheep, a goat, a dove, the priests in the Temple would do so. If not they would sell the property and use the proceeds for upkeep of the Temple. In our mishnah a person’s privately owned ox injured an ox that had already been dedicated to the Temple or vice versa. Since the Torah states “his neighbor” in these cases no damages are incurred.
Sections two and three deal with oxen of Israelites that injure oxen of gentiles and vice versa. According to the mishnah if an Israelite ox injured the ox of a gentile the Israelite is exempt. However, according to section three if a gentile ox injured an Israelite ox the gentile is obligated full damages, even if the ox was harmless, which usually means only half damages. Section two is probably also based on a midrash, exegetical derivation, of the word “his neighbor” in the aforementioned verse in Exodus. “His neighbor” only includes Jews and not gentiles. As far as section three is concerned according to Maimonides it is meant to encourage the gentiles to protect their oxen from causing damages.
When learning mishnayot that deal with Jewish-gentile relations, one should try not to compare the situation to most of today’s world, where Jews and gentiles get along quite well. In ancient times (and not so ancient times) Jews were persecuted by the non-Jews, their lands were often confiscated, and when they rebelled their Temple was destroyed. In such an atmosphere it is easy to understand why Jews did not consider the gentiles to be their neighbors.

An ox of a competent person that gores an ox of a deaf-mute or incompetent person....

ושל חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח שור של פקח פטור – for we don’t appoint an administrator/guardian for an innocuous ox to collect [damages] from his estate for they are movables, and we stated in the first chapter (Tractate Bava Kamma 14b) an equivalent amount of money teaches that the Jewish court does not need anything other than property from which debts may eventually be collected and we establish this for orphans.

[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated.
[If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt.
[If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.”
An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”
Our mishnah deals with oxen owned by deaf-mutes, insane people or minors that damage oxen owned by adults of sound-mind or are damaged by them. We should note that in the ancient world deaf-mutes were considered to be unintelligent, probably because they had no way of communicating with the outside world. We should remember that in those times the written word was much more scarce and almost all communication and learning was done orally. It is therefore, little surprise, that deaf-mutes were considered to lack intelligence. The three categories of people mentioned are therefore, according to the mishnah, all people who are not capable of fully knowing the consequences of their actions, and therefore cannot be held responsible for them. Thankfully, in the modern world we have developed sign language and other forms of communication (including e-mail and the internet) that have allowed us to learn that people who cannot speak verbally or hear are no less intelligent than those who can.
 Section one deals the ox of a person of sound senses that injures the ox of a deaf-mute, insane person or minor. In this case the owner is obligated the same way that s/he would be obligated if the ox injured any person’s ox.
 Section two deals with the ox of a deaf-mute, insane person or minor that gores another person’s ox. In this case the owner of the injuring ox is not liable. The mishnah considers these people not to be capable of protecting their oxen from injuring others, and therefore they are not liable.
 Section three continues to deal with the problem of oxen that belong to deaf-mutes, insane people or minors from injuring. Although these people are not responsible for their actions, this does not mean that the halakhah does not have the duty to protect the interests of others who are damaged by them. Therefore, the mishnah institutes a process by which the court appoints a guardian over the oxen of the aforementioned people. If the ox should henceforth damage three times, it will become an attested danger (muad) and the guardian will pay full damages from the estate of the deaf-mute, insane person or minor.
 In section three clauses c through e, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree concerning the case where the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor was declared by the court to be an attested danger (muad) and then the status of the owner changed to that of an adult person of sound senses. According to Rabbi Meir, the ox’s slate is cleaned and it returns to being a harmless ox (tam). If it should injure again its owner will only be obligated half damages. According to Rabbi Yose, the ox remains an attested danger and if it should injure again its owner will be obligated full damages.
 Section four deals with a stadium ox, what we might call a fighting bull. As is well known, the Romans entertained themselves by throwing slaves and other human beings into pits to fight animals to the death. (Indeed some still find this entertaining). In Exodus 21:28 we learn that oxen are obligated for death if they kill a person. Our mishnah is a midrash on the words, “When it will gore” that begins this verse. According to the midrash, or legal exposition, the verse deals with an ox that gores of its own will and not an ox that is put into the position where human beings are urging it to kill. In this case, the ox is innocent and I might add one should wonder whether those in the stadium aren’t the ones with innocent blood on their hands.

When it becomes accustomed to gore an ox of a deaf, deranged, or minor, to damage people, at that time we appoint to them stewards.

מעמידין להן אפוטרופוסים וכו' – if they (i.e., oxen) are known to be gorers, we appoint for them a guardian/administrator and not to pay one-half damage other than for forewarned oxen, for if it gores again, they pay from the most valuable property and they collect the damages from the land of orphans.

"A stadium"... An ox that people accustom it to do as follows: that this one sends his ox and this one sends his ox and they signal to them with a sound that they are familiar with so that they will try to over power the other ox to see which one of them will win over his friend. And this is not the nature of the ox, rather, the will of their owner. And many sinful people do this with many types of animals and birds.

חוזר לתמותו – for he (i.e., Rabbi Meir) holds that if it (i.e., the animal) left the domain of his masters an entered into the domain of other masters, he returns to his [former status] of innocuousness, for a different domain changes the law of its being “forewarned.”

שור האיצטדין – that is designated for goring and they (i.e., the oxen) are instructed in this.

An ox that gores a person and they die, if it's accustomed, pays etc....

מועד משלם כופר – and even though that in the first that he (i.e., the ox) gored, we kill it, we find him [now] to be forewarned, as in the example of one that killed three idolaters; alternatively, that it killed three Israelites, it is considered “torn” (as by another animal), for something that is “torn”, we don’t kill it as a man put to death is considered as dead; alternatively, someone who is [sentenced to be] killed and flees to the lake after they testified against him.

If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty.
So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter.
If it gored a male slave or a female slave its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.
Until now tractate Bava Kamma has mostly been concerned with an ox that kills or injures another ox. We learned that in such a case if the injuring ox was accounted harmless (tam) its owner will pay half damages and if it was an attested danger (muad) its owner will pay full damages. The Biblical verses which are concerned with this subject are Exodus 21:35-36.
The mishnah now moves to a related subject, that of an ox that kills a human being. The Biblical verses which are concerned with this subject are Exodus 21:28-32. According to these verses from Exodus if an ox kills a human being several things must happen. If it was a harmless ox, the ox is to be stoned and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from its meat. If the ox was a “goring ox” meaning it was an attested danger and its owners did not prevent it from killing again, on principal its owners deserve the death penalty, in addition to the death penalty to be meted out on the ox. However, the Torah allows for the owners to “ransom” their lives by paying a fine to the family of the person killed by the ox. The Torah emphasizes that the same is true if the ox killed a child. Finally, the Torah sets an established ransom-amount for an ox that kills a slave. Unlike a free person, for whom the Torah does not state the amount of the ransom, the owner of an ox that kills a slave will always pay 30 shekels. Finally the Torah emphasizes that even in this case the ox is still killed. We should note an ox killing a human being is the only instance in which the Torah allows for the paying of a ransom. If a person kills another person, the Torah demands the death penalty and does not allow the person to pay for his life. Money can never equal life and therefore no payment can compensate for its loss.
Mishnah five codifies some of these laws and mishnah six begins to deal with exceptional circumstances in which an ox kills a human being.
Mishnah five basically explains the verses from Exodus 21:28-32 which we discussed in the introduction. It may be somewhat puzzling to note how an ox that has killed can ever become an attested danger. After all, after it has killed once it is obligated for the death penalty and it should not have the opportunity to kill a second and third time, in order to become an attested danger. There should therefore never exist an ox that is an attested danger for killing. There are at least two possible answers to this question. Potentially the ox is an attested danger for goring, but has never killed a human being. It could become an attested danger by goring other animals and then later get the death penalty for killing a human. Second, it is possible that the ox killed other people without its being warned in the court. It cannot officially become an attested danger until witnesses testify against it in court. Therefore, although it may have killed several times, it is still a legally accounted harmless.
The rest of the mishnah is fairly straightforward. With regards to the monetary amounts in section three, it would help to translate them all into one unit of money, namely a dinar. A sela is four dinars, so 30 sela is 120 dinars. A maneh is worth 100 dinars. (In some versions of the mishnah it says 100 maneh, which would be 10,000 dinar.) The mishnah states that no matter how much the slave is worth the owner pays thirty sela. Whenever the Torah states a fixed amount as a fine, one must pay that amount whether or not the damage equaled the amount of the fine.

An ox that was accustomed to people, that many situations, from among them it gored 3 canaanites before it gored a jew.

וכן בבן וכן בבת – small male child and small female child, he is liable for stoning and ransom like for adults.

The idea they're saying is that he's exempt, ie exempt from the death penalty, rather he's obligated in restitution if he was accustomed to this deed. As if to say that he is accustomed to rub against walls so that they fall on people. And also all other cases like this.

שור שהיה מתחכך בכותל וכו' – is exempt from the death penalty, but if if was forewarned, as in the case that it was forewarned to rub itself against walls and to knock them over on humans, and it rubbed itself against the wall for its pleasure and it fell on a human being and he died, the ox is exempt from the death penalty but the owners pay the ransom. The ox is exempt from the death penalty, as it is written (Exodus 21:29): “[If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and is owner, though warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a man or a woman -] the ox shall be stoned, and its owner, too, shall be put to death.” As it is with the death of the owners, so too with the death of the ox. Just as the owners are not liable if they killed a person, until they killed him with intent, so too, the ox is not liable until it kills with intent. And the owners pay ransom, as it is written (Exodus 21:30): “If ransom is laid upon him, [he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life],” for the Torah could have stated

If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person;
or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man;
or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite;
or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant,
it is exempt [from death by stoning].
Mishnah six deals with several instances in which an ox that kills another Jewish human being but unintentionally. In section one the ox was only scratching its back and certainly had no intention to kill. In section two the ox did have intention to kill but its intention was to kill an animal. In section three the ox did have the intention to kill a human being, but its intention was directed at killing a gentile. According to the mishnah an ox that kills a gentile will not be judged in the same way as an ox that kills a Jew. (With regards to Jewish-gentile relations see the discussion on chapter four mishnah three.) In section four the ox did have intention to kill a Jewish human being, but that Jewish human being would not have been able to live. (According to the Rabbis understanding of medicine a child born after eight months could not survive). In all of these cases since the intention was to kill something for which the ox would not be liable for the death penalty the ox is exempt from the death penalty. In other words we judge the ox by its intention and not by its actions.

An ox of women, an ox of orphans...

ושור היתומים – that lack an administrator/guardian.

Introduction Our two mishnayot continue to deal with the ox that killed a human being. As we learned previously, according to Exodus 21:28 an ox that has killed a human being is to be put to death and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from its meat. Mishnah seven deals with an ox that is owned by someone other than an adult male, and the consequences its ownership might have on its sentence. Mishnah eight deals with the case where someone tried to either dedicate the ox to the Temple or to ritually slaughter the animal before it was killed for being a goring ox. As we shall see the effect of these actions are dependent on the time at which they were done.

(hazor s/b nizkor) It is mentioned by the Torah the word ox with regard to damages of the ox 7 times, 1 for it itself, and the other six is to include all of these things (that are listed here). And they are the ox of a women, the ox of an orphan etc...

ושור האפוטרופוס – it is the ox of orphans, but it is upon the guardian/administrator to guard it.

The ox of a woman, or the ox of orphans, or the ox of a guardian, or a wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says, “A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners.” Mishnah seven begins with a list of oxen owned by those other than adult Jewish males. Although for various reasons one might have thought that these oxen are not liable for the death penalty, the mishnah decrees otherwise. In all cases the ox is liable for the death penalty. In section two Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion expressed in section one. According to R. Judah if the ox does not have owners, the Torah does not demand that it be put to death. Rabbi Judah’s opinion is probably based on a midrash on Exodus 21:29, which describes the process of warning the goring ox’s owners, a process which lead to the ox being declared an attested danger. According to Rabbi Judah in order to fulfill the law mentioned in Ex. 21:28, namely killing the goring ox, one must be able to fulfill the law in verse 29, which would require the ox to have owners. In other words since one cannot warn the owners, as verse 29 states, one need not execute the ox, as verse 28 states. A note is required about the laws of inheritance for a proselyte. According to the Rabbis’ a proselyte does not “Biblically” inherit from anyone in his family that did not convert, but his inheritance is only ordained by the Rabbis themselves. Therefore, when a proselyte dies without children or a spouse, his property would have no “Biblical” inheritors. Since the requirement to stone the ox is a Biblical command, with regards to this law the ox is considered ownerless.

And the halakah is not like Rabbi Yehuda

הרי אלו חייבין – for seven “oxen” are written in the portion of goring a person (i.e., Exodus 21;28-30), one for itself and [the other] six for these six oxen.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think the Rabbis allowed a person to derive benefit from a goring ox if they slaughtered it before the court pronounced the sentence? Why shouldn’t the Rabbis be concerned that people will take advantage of this law and slaughter their goring oxen before the sentence is complete?

שור הקדש שור הגר שמת ואין לו יורשים. פטורים מן שמיתה – even if it gored and afterwards was dedicated to the Temple; it gored and afterwards the proselyte died, Rabbi Yehuda would declare it exempt [from the death penalty – as they have no owners). But thee Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

An ox that goes out to be stoned and it's consecrated

ואם שחטו אסור – [if he slaughtered it, he is prohibited from] eating it, as it is written (Exodus 21:28): “The ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, [but the owner of the ox is not to be punished].”From the plain meaning of the verse, it implies, as it is stated, “the ox shall be stoned” – don’t I know that it is considered as carrion and carrion is forbidden to be eaten? What then is to be learned here for the verse to say “and its flesh shall not be eaten”- but rather to say to you, that if he advanced to kill it after judgement had been passed upon it, it is forbidden.

If an ox goes out to be stoned, and its owners dedicated it to the Temple, it is not considered dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden.
But if before its sentence was complete its owner dedicated it, it is dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted.
Mishnah Eight deals with an owner of a goring ox who tried to “cheat the system” by either dedicating the ox to the Temple, and thereby getting credit for a sacrifice, or by ritually slaughtering the ox, and thereby getting food to eat and the leather from the hide. We learned in the aforementioned verses in Exodus that the ox must be executed and its meat is forbidden for use. Our mishnah tells us that this is so only if its sentence has already been pronounced by the court. If it has not, and a person should either dedicate it or slaughter it, the person’s actions are valid and either the Temple or the person himself may derive benefit from the ox.

The Torah is saying the ox should be stoned, and it's flesh shall not be eaten. And since it's decreed upon it to be stoned, how is it possible to eat it? rather it's necessary to say 'it should not be eaten' to prohibit benefit.

הקדישו בעליו מוקדש – and we learn from this that if he derived benefit from it, he has committed religious sacrilege.

Tied up with it's reigns or closed the door appropriately

ונעל בפניו כראוי – [locked it up before him] with a door that can withstand an ordinary wind, and that is identical with a lesser guarding.

Introduction Although we will learn only one mishnah today it really contains two distinct subjects. The first section deals with an ox owner who gives his ox to a guardian. Jewish law recognizes four different types of guardians (we will discuss their laws in detail when we learn tractate Bava Metzia): a borrower, an unpaid guardian, a paid guardian and a hirer. All four of these people receive an object from another person and they have varying degrees of responsibility to guard the object and varying rights to use the object. Our mishnah will teach us that when an owner turns over his ox to any of the four guardians, they now become responsible for any damage the ox will cause while under their protection. The second part of the mishnah deals with the duty an owner himself has to protect his ox from causing damage. Exodus 21:29 states: “If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, though warned, has failed to guard it...” (JPS translation). The sages in our mishnah will discuss the duty to guard a goring ox and the financial consequences of proper and improper guarding.

The word 'reigns' (moserah) is the rope or something similar that we tie it up with. And the halakah is like Rabbi Yehudah but is obligated to slaughter so that it removes the possibility to damage.

ומועד פטור – from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him, but the side of that it should die stands in his place, and he (i.e., the owner) pays half-damages like an innocuous ox, as it is written (Exodus 21:29): “[and its owner, though warned,] has failed to guard it,” regarding a forewarned ox. But if he had guarded it/watched it a little bit, he is exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning to him.

If one handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he pays half damages. Section one states quite clearly that any time an owner turns his ox over to another person who has agreed to watch the ox, that person will be responsible for any damages that the ox causes under his guardianship. The real point of this mishnah is that even an unpaid guardian, who neither gets use of the ox nor financial compensation for his guarding, still has liability for damages the ox will cause. In other words, clearly a borrower should be liable in such a case, since he gets the use of the ox and doesn’t even have to pay for it. A hirer also gets the use of the ox, even though he pays for it, so he too should be liable. A paid guardian, while not getting use of the ox, is receiving financial compensation for his guardianship and therefore it is reasonable for him to be liable for damages. However, an unpaid guardian does not receive anything in return and is in essence doing a favor for the owners. The mishnah therefore emphasizes that even so he is liable if the ox should cause damage.

רבי אליעזר אומר – there is no guarding for a forewarned ox other than a knife,

If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Its only guarding is the knife.” Section two deals with the obligation an owner has to guard his ox. According to Rabbi Meir, tying up an ox or locking it in a pen is evidently not enough protection to exempt one from damages the ox will cause. Therefore, even if the owner performed these acts, he will still be obligated for damages the ox will cause. According to Rabbi Judah, with protection such as tying it up or locking it in, the owner exempts himself from liability for damages caused by an ox that is an attested danger. There is something slightly perplexing with regards to Rabbi Judah’s statement. In the case that he describes an owner may be more obligated for an ox that is a tam, accounted harmless, than for an ox that is a muad, an attested danger. There are two possible answers to this point. First of all, the Torah mentions “guarding” only with regards to the muad, attested danger. Rabbi Judah may be reading the Torah literally. He therefore states that only with regards to the muad is guarding relevant. Guarding a tam will not exempt one from paying for its damages. Secondly, according to the Talmud’s reading of Rabbi Judah’s opinion, if he ties up the ox which is a muad or he locks it in although he will not be obligated for full damages, he will be obligated for half damages. In other words, according to the Talmud, Rabbi Judah does not hold the opinion that one could be more liable for a muad than for a tam. ] Rabbi Eliezer believes that the only way to guarantee that an ox which is an attested danger will not cause damage again is to slaughter the ox. In other words, even though he tied it up or locked it in, he is still obligated for full damages for the muad and half damages for the tam.

עד שישחטנו – until he slaughters it. But there three disputes in this matter. For Rabbi Meir, with lesser guarding, he is liable and with more prominent [guarding], he is exempt. For Rabbi Yehuda, with lesser guarding, he is also exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him. But he is liable on the side of “it shall die” that is in it, until he guards him with a more prominent level of guarding. And to Rabbi Eliezer, even with a more prominent guarding, he is also liable. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. But however, it is ab initio, a Mitzvah to slaughter the forewarned ox in order to remove the damages.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why should the unpaid guardian be liable if the ox causes damages?
• According to Rabbi Meir, locking the ox in or tying it up is not sufficient to exempt one from damages the ox might cause. What then must the owner do, according to Rabbi Meir, in order to properly guard the ox?
• What might be some modern equivalents to these laws?