Bava Kamma 4
שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שְׁוָרִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה, יְשַׁלֵּם לָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶם. וְאִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ מוֹתָר, יַחֲזִיר לְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וְאִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ מוֹתָר, יַחֲזִיר לְשֶׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו. וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִשְׂכָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה כְלוּם, זֶה נוֹטֵל מָנֶה וְזֶה נוֹטֵל מָנֶה. חָזַר וְנָגַח שׁוֹר אַחֵר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מָנֶה, וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו, זֶה נוֹטֵל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. חָזַר וְנָגַח שׁוֹר אַחֵר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מָנֶה, וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו, חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, וּשְׁנַיִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, דִּינַר זָהָב:
If an ox gored four or five oxen, one after the other, [and with all of them it were a tam, which pays from its body], it pays [a half-nezek] to the last of them [first. The Gemara explains the instance as one in which the nizak seized the ox of the mazik to collect from it, in which instance he becomes a shomer sachar (a hired watchman), so that when it leaves his hand and causes damage, the first nizak is liable for it, for which reason the last nizak receives a complete half-nezek.]; and if something remains, it reverts to the one (the nizak) before him; and if something remains (from that), it reverts to the one before him. And the very last (nizak) gains. These are the words of R. Meir. [This is what is meant: If something remains from the nezek, it reverts to the one before him. As when the half-nezek of the first were a hundred, and the half-nezek of the last, fifty, and the ox were worth two hundred. In the beginning, when this one's ox gored the ox of the first nizak, whose half-nezek was a hundred, the nizak owned a hundred in this ox, and its owner, a hundred. And when the nizak seized it and it gored under his hand, the owner should not lose his hundred in it, for the responsibility of guarding it was not his, but that of the nizak who seized it. And when it caused a half-nezek of fifty to the second (nizak), the first nizak loses fifty from his hundred, which he gives to the second nizak, and what is left, until a hundred, reverts to him, and the owner takes his hundred.] R. Shimon says: If an ox worth two hundred gored an ox worth two hundred and the carcass were worth nothing, the first takes a hundred and the second takes a hundred. If it afterwards gored an ox worth two hundred, the last (nizak) takes a hundred, and the one before [i.e., the preceding nizak] takes fifty zuz, and this one [the owner] takes fifty zuz. [For the first nizak owns half the ox, for which reason he pays half of its nezek. R. Shimon holds that the owner and the nizak are partners in the ox which causes damage and both are liable for its damages. How so? "If an ox worth two hundred, etc."] If it afterwards gored another ox worth two hundred, the last (nizak) takes one hundred, [a half from whoever it may be, for it pays from its body. So that it is found that the nizak before him, to whom half of it belonged, pays half of the hundred that the last one takes], and the one before him, fifty zuz, and the last two, a golden dinar (each), [twenty-five silver dinars (twenty-five zuz). The first two, the first nizak and the owner, each of whom owns a quarter (of the ox) — each pays a quarter of its damages.]
שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לְמִינוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, מוּעָד לְאָדָם וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לִבְהֵמָה, מוּעָד לִקְטַנִּים וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לִגְדוֹלִים, אֶת שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה מוּעָד לְשַׁבָּתוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לְחֹל. אָמַר לָהֶם, לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, לִימוֹת הַחֹל מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אֵימָתַי הוּא תָם. מִשֶּׁיַּחֲזֹר בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה יְמֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת:
If an ox were a muad to (animals of) its kind, and not a muad to (animals) not of its kind; a muad to men, and not a muad to beasts; a muad to small (animals) [i.e., calves], and not a muad to large — for what it is a muad to, it pays a full nezek, and for what it is not a muad to, it pays a half-nezek. They [his disciples] asked R. Yehudah: What [is the halachah] if it were a muad for Sabbaths but not for weekdays? [("a muad for Sabbaths":) Because it does not work then and its "mind" has free rein; or else, because it sees men in Sabbath finery, they appear strange to him, and he does not recognize them.] He answered: For Sabbaths, it pays a full nezek, and for weekdays, a half-nezek. When does he become a tam (again)? After desisting on three Sabbaths. [If, after being (confirmed as) a muad for Sabbaths, they pass before him oxen on three Sabbaths and he does not gore them, he reverts to his status of tam, after which, if he gores again, he pays only a half-nezek.]
שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל נָכְרִי, פָּטוּר. וְשֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:
If the ox of an Israelite gored an ox of hekdesh (Temple property), or if an ox of hekdesh gored the ox of an Israelite, he (the owner) is not liable, it being written (Exodus 21:35): "…the ox of his neighbor" — and not the ox of hekdesh." If the ox of an Israelite gored the ox of an idolator, he is not liable, [it being written (Habakkuk 3:6): "He arose and measured the land. He saw and he freed the nations." When He saw that the nations did not abide by the seven mitzvoth commanded unto the sons of Noah, He arose and "freed" their money to Israel. And (Deuteronomy 33:2): "He revealed from Mount Paran" — from the time he took the Torah around to the idolators and they would not accept it. ] And if the ox of an idolator gored the ox of an Israelite, whether a tam or a muad, he pays a full nezek.
שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, חַיָּב. וְשֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּקֵּחַ, פָּטוּר. שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח, בֵּית דִּין מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. נִתְפַּקַּח הַחֵרֵשׁ, נִשְׁתַּפָּה הַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהִגְדִּיל הַקָּטָן, חָזַר לְתַמּוּתוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא בְחֶזְקָתוֹ. שׁוֹר הָאִצְטָדִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) כִּי יִגַּח, וְלֹא שֶׁיַּגִּיחוּהוּ:
If the ox of a pikeach (a "knowing" person) gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, he (the owner) is liable. And if the ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor gored the ox of a pikeach, he is not liable. [For a caretaker is not assigned for a tam to collect from its body, it being metaltelin ("moveable"), and it is ruled in the Gemara (14b): "shaveh kesef" ("the equivalent of money") — We are hereby taught that beth-din deal only with bound property (this, in an instance of orphans)]. If the ox of a deaf-mute, and imbecile, or a minor gores, [i.e., if it is established as a "gorer"], beth-din assign a caretaker to them, [not to pay a half-nezek, but to make it a muad, so that if it gores again, it pays from the aliyah ("prime property"), and the nezek is collected from the land of the orphans], and they are forewarned (to guard the ox) in the presence of the caretaker. If the deaf-mute and the imbecile recovered their faculties and the minor came of age, it reverts to its status of tam. [He holds that a muad which leaves the authority of one owner for that of another reverts to its status of tam, different ownership changing the law vis-à-vis monition (of the owner)]. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi says: It retains its status. An ox bred for fighting is not put to death (for killing a man), it being written (Exodus 21:28): "And if an ox gore" (by itself), and not if it is made to gore.
שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הָאָדָם וָמֵת, מוּעָד, מְשַׁלֵּם כֹּפֶר, וְתָם, פָּטוּר מִן הַכֹּפֶר. וְזֶה וָזֶה חַיָּבִים מִיתָה. וְכֵן בְּבֵן וְכֵן בְּבַת. נָגַח עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה, נוֹתֵן שְׁלשִׁים סְלָעִים, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא יָפֶה מָנֶה וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָפֶה אֶלָּא דִּינָר אֶחָד:
If an ox gored a man and he died — a muad pays kofer (see Exodus 21:30), and a tam is exempt from kofer. [And even though it is killed the first time it gored (and killed), we find an instance of muad, as when it killed three non-Jews, or as when it killed three Israelites who were treifah (i.e., who had mortal organic injuries), an ox not being killed for (killing) a treifah, it having killed "a dead man," or as when it killed and ran off to the field after being testified against.] And both (tam and muad) are to be put to death. And thus with a [minor] male or female. [It is subject to stoning and kofer for them as for adults.] If it gored a bondsman or a bondswoman, he (the owner) gives thirty sela'im, whether they be worth a hundred or only one dinar.
שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְחַכֵּךְ בְּכֹתֶל וְנָפַל עַל הָאָדָם, נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לְנָכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִנְפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קְיָמָא, פָּטוּר:
If an ox were rubbing itself against a wall, and it fell upon a man (and killed him), [it is not put to death. And if it were a muad, as when it were a muad to rub against walls and cause them to fall upon men, and it rubbed itself upon a wall to relieve itself and overthrew it upon a man and he died, the ox is not put to death and the owner pays kofer. The ox is not put to death, it being written (Exodus 21:29): "The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall die" — As the death of the owner, so is the death of the ox. Just as the owner is not liable unless he killed with intent, so the ox is not liable unless it killed with intent. And the owner pays kofer, it being written (Ibid. 30): "If kofer." It could have been written: "Kofer shall be set for him." Why "if kofer"? To include non-intentional killing in kofer liability.] If it intended to kill a beast and killed a man, to kill an idolator and it killed a Jew, to kill a nefel (one of non-viable birth), and it killed a ben kayama (one with "life"), it is not put to death.
שׁוֹר הָאִשָּׁה, שׁוֹר הַיְתוֹמִים, שׁוֹר הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִים מִיתָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת, פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמִּיתָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם בְּעָלִים:
The ox of a woman, the ox of orphans, [who do not have a caretaker], and the ox of a caretaker [i.e., an ox belonging to orphans, which a caretaker is charged with guarding], a wild (i.e., ownerless) ox, an ox of hekdesh (Temple property), and an ox of a proselyte that died without heirs are to be put to death (if they killed a man). [For "ox" is written seven times in the section which speaks of goring a man — one for itself (i.e., the common instance) and six for these (other) oxen.] R. Yehudah says: A wild ox, an ox of hekdesh, and an ox of a proselyte who died are not put to death because they are ownerless. [R. Yehudah rules thus even if it gored and he then dedicated it to the Temple or if it gored, and then the proselyte died. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]
שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לְהִסָּקֵל וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְעָלָיו, אֵינוֹ מֻקְדָּשׁ. שְׁחָטוֹ, בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְעָלָיו, מֻקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ, בְּשָׂרוֹ מֻתָּר:
If an ox were taken out to be stoned, and its owner dedicated it (to the Temple), it is not dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden, [it being written (Exodus 21:28): "The ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten." From "the ox shall be stoned," do I not know that it is neveilah [carrion], which may not be eaten? Why need it be stated: "and its flesh shall not be eaten"? To teach that if he slaughtered it after its judgment (to be stoned), it is forbidden.] And if before its judgment were pronounced, its owner dedicated it, it is dedicated. [A (practical) difference — If he benefits from it, he is guilty of me'ilah (abuse of sacred property)]. And if he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted.
מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וּלְשׁוֹאֵל, לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וּלְשׂוֹכֵר, נִכְנְסוּ תַחַת הַבְּעָלִים, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. קְשָׁרוֹ בְעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵרָה, וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק, אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, תָּם חַיָּב וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו, וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין:
If he gave it (the ox) to an unpaid watcher, a borrower, a watchman for hire, or a hirer, they stand in place of the owner — a muad pays a full nezek, and a tam, a half-nezek. If its owner tied it with a rein and closed it in appropriately [with a door that could withstand a normal wind, this being "minimal" guarding], and it went out and caused damage, whether tam or muad, it is liable. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: A tam is liable; a muad is not liable [in point of its muad aspect, but its tam aspect remains in place, and it pays a half-nezek as a tam], it being written [in respect to muad] (Exodus 21:36): "and its owner did not guard it" [at all, then he is liable as a muad]; but this one was [somewhat] guarded. R. Eliezer says: It [a muad] has no "guarding" but a knife [i.e., He must slaughter it. There are three different views here: According to R. Meir, with minimal guarding, it is liable; with "prime" guarding, not liable. According to R. Yehudah, with minimal guarding, too, it is not liable in point of its muad aspect, but liable in point of its tam aspect, not being completely exempt) unless there is prime guarding. And according to R. Eliezer, with prime guarding, too, it is liable. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah. In any event, ab initio, it is a mitzvah to slaughter an ox that is a muad to remove (the possibility of) damage.]