Bava Kamma 44b — the Talmud in English

And still

you can raise a difficulty against Shmuel, who obligates [payment of] ransom when the ox pushed the wall, and the wall was what killed him: but

they are zerorot

[i.e., they are

because it did not kill him with its body, but rather the wall fell upon the person through the force of the ox and killed him, whereas the Torah obligated [payment of] ransom only in a manner analogous to goring—which is written in the passage—in which it acts with its body.

Said

he answered

Rav Mari son of Rav Kahana:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case

where it goes

the wall

from it itself

that is, the ox pushes the wall upon the person even at the time the wall is falling.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel

who obligates [payment of] ransom when it was unintentional, even though he is exempt from execution,

and a refutation of Rav

who exempts from ransom when it was unintentional!

For it was taught:

There is

an ox that kills a person that is

liable

for execution and for ransom; and there is one liable for ransom and exempt from execution; and there is one liable for execution and exempt from ransom; and there is one exempt from both of these,

and it proceeds to explain it.

How so?

An ox

accustomed

that killed a person

intentionally: it is liable for execution and for ransom.

An ox

accustomed

that killed a person

unintentionally: it is liable for ransom

in accordance with the words of Shmuel,

and exempt from execution.

An ox

innocuous

that killed

intentionally: it is liable for execution and exempt from ransom,

for the Torah did not obligate ransom for an innocuous ox.

An ox

innocuous

that killed

unintentionally: it is exempt from this

and from this,

from execution because it was unintentional, and from ransom because it is innocuous.

And

the law of

the damages

that the ox caused

unintentionally:

Rabbi Yehuda obligates

in payment of the damage,

and Rabbi Shimon exempts.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason

who obligates?

Because

Rabbi Yehuda derives

the law of payment for the ox’s damages

from

the payment of

its ransom; just as its ransom,

when it killed

unintentionally, it is

indeed

liable

for it, as we expound: “if ransom,”

also

payment for

damages likewise, when unintentional, is liable.

And Rabbi Shimon derives

the liability for payment of the damage

from

the liability for

the killing of the ox [the stoning of the ox].

the stoning of the ox].

Just as its killing,

when it is

unintentional, it is

indeed

exempt

from it,

so too

the liability for

damages,

when it is

unintentional, it is

indeed

exempt.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi Yehuda too should derive it from its killing

to exempt him from payment of damages when unintentional!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda holds:

One derives payments

of damages

from

ransom, which is also

a payment, but one does not derive payments from execution.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi Shimon too should derive it from its ransom

to obligate him in payment of damages when unintentional!? And we answer:

One derives

payment for damages, which is

the liability of the ox,

that is, the liability is for the act of its ox,

from

stoning, which is

the liability of the ox; to exclude ransom,

from which it is impossible to derive the law for damages, since

it is the liability of the owners,

that is, it comes for the atonement of the owners’ soul.

Мы учили в Мишне:

We learned in the Mishna:

[If he] intended to kill the animal and killed the person:

he is exempt:

And we infer:

This

means, if

he intended

the ox

to kill

a person

this one

whom, had it killed him, it would have been liable to him for stoning,

and it killed this one [

another],

the ox is liable

for stoning, for in all those cases detailed in the Mishna for exemption, the ox intended to kill someone for whose killing it would not have been liable to stoning.

And if so,

our Mishna [

our teaching]

is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: Even if it intended

the ox

to kill this one, and it killed that one, it is exempt

from stoning.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason?

Since

the verse says: “

The ox shall surely be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death,”

we learn, according to everyone:

just as the death of the owners, so is the death of the ox;

and therefore Rabbi Shimon, in accordance with his position, exempts the ox from stoning when it did not intend for the one whom it killed:

And because

just as the owners

are not liable—in Rabbi Shimon’s own view, in the Mishna in Sanhedrin 79a —

until he intends for him

whom he killed,

so too the ox

is not liable to stoning

until he intends for him

whom it killed, and not when it intended for another.

And we explain:

And from where do we know concerning the owners themselves—

according to Rabbi Shimon—that they are exempt?

Because

the verse says [Deuteronomy 19:11]: “When a man hates his fellow

and lies in wait for him and rises against him

and strikes him mortally and he dies … your eye shall not pity him, and you shall eradicate the blood of the innocent from Israel, and it will be good for you,” and we learn:

until he intends for him.

только если он намеревался убить именно его.

And the Rabbis—

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and impose execution upon a person who intended for one subject to liability and killed another—

this “

and lies in wait for him”

what do they do with it?

They say

they explained,

the academy of Rabbi Yannai:

The verse comes to teach:

to exclude one who throws a stone into a group [

into a group containing gentiles and Israelites, and an Israelite who is not subject to liability is killed; this is not considered as intending to kill an Israelite, and in such a case he is exempt even according to the Rabbis].

And we raise a difficulty: But

what are the circumstances [

in what situation was it necessary for the verse to exclude him]:

if you say that there are

in that group

nine gentiles and one Israelite among them, it follows that they are a majority of gentiles,

and without the verse he is exempt, since this is like one who intended for a gentile and killed the Israelite, who is exempt.

Alternatively,

even if there was not a majority of gentiles there, but

half

gentiles

and half

Israelites, this too does not require a verse to exclude, for

a doubt concerning lives is treated leniently.

And if so, in what situation was it necessary for the verse to exclude him!?

And we answer:

It is not necessary

for the verse to exclude him except in a case such as

where there are

in the group

nine Israelites and one gentile!

And the verse comes to inform us:

even though they are a majority of Israelites,

and there would be room to consider him as though he intended for an Israelite—in any event he is exempt, for

since there is one gentile among them, it is

a minority

fixed,

and every

minority

fixed

is considered as though there were here not a minority and a majority but

as though it were half and half, and

therefore he is exempt, for

a doubt concerning lives is treated leniently.

Mishna:

The ox belonging to a woman

that gored a person and killed him.

And

the ox belonging to orphans [

that is, the ox belonging to minors] who have no guardian.

And

the ox belonging to a guardian,

that is, the ox belonging to minor orphans who have a guardian.

The ox belonging to the wilderness [

an ownerless ox].

The ox belonging to consecrated property.

an ownerless ox]. The ox of consecrated property.

The ox of a convert who died and has no heirs,

which is ownerless.

All these [cases] when they gored a person and killed him,

these

oxen

are liable to death.

Rabbi Judah says: An ox of the wilderness, an ox of consecrated property,

and

the ox of a convert who died are exempt from death, because they have no owners.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

“Ox”

“ox”

seven.

The word “ox” appears seven times in the Torah’s section concerning an ox that killed a person, and died—why?

One [mention] was written for its own sake, and the other six [come]

to include:

a.

the woman’s ox;

b.

the orphans’ ox;

c.

the guardian’s ox;

d.

the ox of the wilderness;

e.

the ox

of consecrated property;

and.

the ox of a convert who died and has no heirs,

for all these are liable to death when they kill a person.

Rabbi Judah says: An ox of the wilderness, an ox of consecrated property,

and

the ox of a convert who died and has no heirs are exempt from death, because they have no owners.

Rav Huna said: Rabbi Judah would exempt

these,

even

if

it gored

when it was in the possession of an ordinary person,

and ultimately

before its verdict was completed,

he consecrated it; and even if

it

gored

in the possession of owners,

and ultimately

before its verdict was completed,

he declared it ownerless, or the convert died;

and the reason will be explained below.

And we explain:

From where?

From where did Rav Huna learn this regarding Rabbi Judah’s view?

Since it teaches

in the beraita, in Rabbi Judah’s statement,

two

oxen, although he could have included them as one—for it teaches:

a.

the ox of the wilderness;

b.

and the ox of a convert who died and has no heirs.

But

“the ox of a convert who died”

what is it?

That is to say: what is the reason for its exemption? Is it not because

since it has no heirs, it is an ownerless ox?

If so,

“the ox of the wilderness” is identical to “the ox of a convert who died and has no heirs”,

so why were two oxen—one and the same—written!?

Rather, does it not teach us this: that even if it gored and ultimately was consecrated, or gored and ultimately was declared ownerless, it is exempt?

That is to say: for this reason the beraita added the ox of a convert who died, to teach us that even if it gored while it was under the convert’s ownership and afterward the convert died, it is exempt; and it follows that we also learn that if it gored and afterward was consecrated, it is exempt.

Conclude from it!

or

It was likewise taught: Rabbi Judah said, furthermore: Even if it gored and ultimately was consecrated,

or

gored and ultimately

was declared ownerless, it is exempt, as it is stated [Exodus 21:29]: “And if it is an ox that has been goring from yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner was warned but did not guard it, and it killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death.” And we interpret from what the verse says:

“And its owner was warned and it killed, etc.”

until the death and the standing in judgment are simultaneous.

And we challenge the wording of the beraita: “until the death and the standing in judgment are simultaneous”:

that the killing and the appearance in court must coincide.

But

is it so

that

the final judgment

for stoning

is not required

to be simultaneous, such that the beraita mentioned only the standing in judgment!?

But

“the ox shall be stoned”

refers to the final judgment!

Rather, say: until the death, the standing in judgment, and the final judgment are simultaneous.

Mishna:

An ox that is going out to be stoned,

that is, its verdict was completed that it should be stoned because it killed a person,

and its owners consecrated it, it is not consecrated,

since the ox became forbidden for benefit once its verdict was completed,

and objects forbidden for benefit are not in a person’s possession to consecrate them. And if

he slaughtered it

after its verdict was completed that it should be stoned, then

its flesh is forbidden

for eating and for benefit.

And if, before its verdict was completed:

Its owners consecrated it—

it is consecrated

until its verdict is completed and they stone it, and the practical consequence is that if a person derives benefit from it in the interim, he has committed misuse.

And if he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted.

And the Mishna explains an additional law:

They handed it over

the owners handed over the ox, before it gored,

to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower,

[or to a borrower],

to a paid bailee, or to a renter:

They entered

they

in place of the owners,

that is, they become liable for damages like the owners. And if

it was confirmed

the ox,

it pays full damages, and

if

it was a tam

it

pays half-damages.

liable to pay half-damages.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: an ox that killed: