Kommentar zu Schemot 21:30

אם כפר יושת עליו WHEN THERE BE SET ON HIM A RANSOM — This אם is not conditional (i. e. it does not mean “if” the heirs feel inclined to set on him a ransom) but it has the same meaning as in (Exodus 22:24) “When (אם) thou lendest money” where it has the meaning of אשר, “when” (for it is a duty to lend money to the poor and it is not optional). It is the law regarding him that the court should set on him a ransom.

IF THERE BE LAID ON HIM A RANSOM, THEN HE SHALL GIVE FOR THE REDEMPTION OF HIS LIFE WHATSOEVER IS LAID UPON HIM. Since the redemption is a form of atonement¹⁷⁸“An atonement for the owner whose ox killed a man” (Rashi Makkoth 2 b). as are the offerings, and if the owner does not desire it we cannot force him to come before the court to impose the ransom on him, and even if the court ordered him to pay it, we cannot seize his goods as security, therefore He said: “if.”

אם כופר יושת עליו, if witnesses testify in a manner that enables the court to apply the laws of compensation as a means of atonement.

פדיון נפשו. His soul's ransom. There is a dispute in Baba Kama 40 as to what determines the amount of compensation. Some hold that we evaluate the worth of the victim that has died, others that the basis of the compensation is the value of the offending animal. According to the opinion that we determine the amount of compensation based on the value of the ox which gored, it would appear that where the ox in question was owned by more than one individual each one has to pay the full amount of compensation seeing there is no death sentence by a human tribunal which would override the laws of financial compensation. According to the opinion that the basis of the compensation is the value of the victim, the offenders would only have to share the monetary value of the victim between them. In view of this, the question Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov whether both owners have to pay compensation seems out of place, seeing this is a much older Tannaitic argument. Clearly, we cannot assume that the question mentioned in the Talmud is based on the assumption that the value of the offending ox is the basis of the compensation [which everyone agrees serves as atonement not as restitution, Ed.]. In the following scenario an ox worth 200 shekel has gored a human being whose market value as a slave would have been 50 shekel. If the ox was owned by more than one party, and the basis of compensation is the value (maximum) of the offending ox, each owner pays 50 shekels. No allowance is made for the fact that there are two owners who could have shared the damage of 50 shekels that had been inflicted. The problem Rabbi Nachman submitted to Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov was based on the assumption of the Chachamim that the value of the victim serves as the basis of the compensation. It appears that Maimonides also understood the problem in this way for he ruled in chapter 11 of his Hilchot Nizkey Mamon that monetary compensation is based on estimating the value of the slain person (or animal); if two people owned the offending animal, each partner has to pay compensation equivalent to the total value of the victim. The reason Maimonides takes the stricter view is because we have a doubt as to whose opinion is correct, and when matters of compensation for a life taken is involved we always accept the stricter view when in doubt.

אם כופר יושת עליו, “If monetary atonement be assessed against him, etc.” The introductory word “if” presents a problem; what is “iffy” about this? The matter is similar to the atonement for sins obtained through the offering of a sin offering for instance. When such an offering has been legislated by the Torah, the court does not send enforcers to see to it that the party obligated to offer it does so. If he does not, he will not attain atonement. Similarly, in the case of the owner of the ox. If he fails to pay the assessment he remains out of grace with his Creator, but the court does not check if he has in fact made the payment decreed by the court. This is why the Torah prefaces the legislation with the word אם.

אם כופר יושת עליו, “if a ransom payment has been imposed upon him,” the word אם in this instance is not a conditional word, i.e. “may be yes maybe no,” but describes the duty of the court to assess such financial damages. The word אם therefore means either “when,” or as “soon as.” The wordכופר means atonement wherever it appears. Payment of the fine constitutes atonement for the owner. The atonement is similar to that achieved by presenting a sin-offering where the owner paid for the animal in question. The principal atonement is a matter for heaven; the owner is not forced to appear before a court in order to be assessed damages, nor, after damages have ben assessed and he has failed to pay them is his property seized to enforce the court’s judgment (compare Ritva on Makkot 2).

The word אם here. . . You might ask: At the end of Parshas Yisro, Rashi cited R. Yishmael’s statement that there are three cases of אם in the Torah that are not conditional. This was on the verse, “ אם (When) you build a stone Altar for Me.” And this verse, “ אם (When) an atonement fine. . .” is not included among them. The answer is: Although this verse, too, is not conditional in the sense that it is indeed obligatory, [like the three cases of R. Yishmael], nevertheless, it is conditional in the sense that it depends on an external factor — if an ox gores someone and kills him, only then is one liable for an atonement fine. But if not, one is not liable. Therefore it was omitted. (Re’m)

(Exodus 21:30) "When kofer is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul": the value of the victim. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: the value of the killer (i.e., the owner of the ox). And thus do we find that redemption is not given for those who are put to death. In all places, those who are liable to death at the hands of man are not redeemed, as it is written (Leviticus 27:24) "Any cherem that is devoted from a man (going out to be executed) shall not be redeemed, (for) he is going to be put to death" (and has no valuation). But here "he shall give the redemption of his soul." R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heaven, as it is written (Numbers 30:12) "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their number, then each man shall give the ransom of his soul to the L rd, etc.", and (II Kings 12:5) "each man, the money for the valuation of his soul," and (Mishlei 13:8) "A man's wealth may redeem his soul," and (Daniel 4:24) "But, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you. Redeem your soul through charity," and (Job 33:23-24) "If there will be for him but a single defending angel from a thousand to declare a man's uprightness for him, then He will be gracious to him and He will say: Redeem him from descending to the grave I have found kofer for Him!" We find that certain consecrated objects can be redeemed and others cannot be redeemed; certain things that may not be eaten may be redeemed; things from which benefit may not be derived may not be redeemed. The nations of the world cannot be redeemed, as it is written (Psalms 49:8) "A man cannot redeem his brother; he cannot give his kofer to G d. Too costly is their soul's redemption and unattainable forever." Beloved is Israel for whose souls the Holy One Blessed be He has given the nations as kofer, as it is written (Isaiah 43:3) "I gave Egypt as kofer for you." Why? (Ibid. 4) "Because you were honored in My eyes, you were honored and I loved you, and I placed a man in your place and nations in place of your souls."

V. 30. אם כפר.Stände der Satz apodiktisch, so gelte die Pflicht zum Sühnegeld nur für den im vorangehenden Verse besprochenen Fall, in welchem das Tier hingerichtet wird: es soll ihm jedoch ein Sühnegeld aufgelegt werden etc. etc. Indem es aber konditional ausgedrückt ist, so geht die Pflicht über diesen Fall hinaus und tritt in allen jenen Fällen ein, "wann" das Gericht ein solches Sühnegeld aufzulegen hat, auch in Fällen, wo das Tier nicht hingerichtet wird, z. B. es habe ein Tier treffen wollen und den Menschen getroffen: אם כופר לרבות כופר שלא בכוונה (B. B. 43 b).

אם כופר יושת עליו, in the event that the heirs of the person who had been gored to death are willing to accept a financial settlement for their father having been killed;

ונתן פדיון נפשו HE SHALL GIVE THE RANSOM OF HIS SOUL — the value of the injured person; this is the view of R. Ishmael, R. Akiba, however, says that it means the value of the person who caused the injury (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:30).

ונתן פדיון נפשו ככל אשר יושת עליו, “and he is to pay a redemption for his life in accordance with what has been assessed against him.” This teaches that if the owner of the goring ox has paid the judgment he is no longer subject to death at the hands of G’d. We base this also on Job 33,24: “redeem him from descending to the Pit, for I have obtained his ransom.” This is the law whenever someone is guilty of death at the hands of G’d such as this individual who has not committed murder or even manslaughter, but has merely been the indirect cause of death of a human being through his negligence. When a person has killed with his own hands, (directly) there is no provision for his guilt being wiped out through a ransom payment. This is what the Torah meant in Leviticus 27,29 אך כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה מות יומת, “but any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed, he shall be put to death.”

Should the avenger of the victim have succeeded in killing the owner of the offending animal before the latter had a chance to make the compensatory payment, I believe the avenger is guilty of murder. The Torah law covering the avenger is applicable only if the killer had killed by his own hand, not when his property was the instrument causing the death.

ככל אשר יושת עליו, “the owner must pay whatever is imposed upon him.” The reason that the Torah does not apply the principle that we do not accept financial compensation for killing human beings, is that that this rule applies only if the human being in question has personally committed such an act. [The reason that this verse begins with the word: “if”, is that most people would spurn such an offer by the party who was responsible for their father’s death.”

The word אם, “if” here, does not belong to the list that the author had made when this word is not an option. (Compare Exodus 20,22)