Talmud zu Schemot 21:28

In a baraita²⁶The baraita as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels Pesaḥim 28c, Avodah Zarah 45b. In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19; quoted in Babli Pesaḥim22b, Qiddušin 56b, Baba Qama 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be the rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to Ex. 21:28: וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food²⁷As carcass meat.? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced²⁸This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Yoḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse..

In a baraita⁴¹The baraita as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels in Orlah and Avodah Zarah 5:12 (Note 155). In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19; quoted in Babli 22b, Qiddušin 56b, Bava Qamma 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be he rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to Ex.21:28: וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said⁴²Ex. 21:28.: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food⁴³As carcass meat.? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced⁴⁴This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Joḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse..

MISHNAH: A bull which gored a human who then died, if it is notorious [the owner] pays weregilt⁶⁶Ex. 21:30., if tame he is not liable for weregilt; in both cases they have to be killed⁶⁷Ex. 21:28,29.. The same holds for a son or a daughter⁶⁸There is no difference whether the victim was adult or underage. The statement is only necessary since the verse, Ex. 21:31, stresses that the same rules apply to underage as to adult victims.. It it gored a male or female slave, [the owner] pays 30 tetradrachmas⁶⁹Ex. 21:32., whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold⁷⁰This reading is also found in some Babli mss., Alfasi, and the Naples print of the Mishnah. In other texts: “one (silver) denar”. denar.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated⁷¹Babli 41b; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 10 (Horovitz-Rabin p. 283); Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai21:28, Midrash Tannaïm(Midrash Haggadol Ex. 21:28, ed. Margaliut p. 484.): “But the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place⁷³As the formulation of the Babli makes explicit, since any damages caused by a tame animal are paid from its body and a bull which killed a human is stoned and its carcass forbidden for usufruct, there is nothing from which either damages or fine might be paid.? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human⁷⁴The bull was attacking another animal when a human intervened and was killed. In that case, the bull is not condemned to be stoned and is not forbidden for usufruct., etc.⁷⁵A list of similar situations as given later in the paragraph. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself⁷⁶Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it⁷⁷As stated in Mishnah 9, the bull’s meat becomes forbidden only when it is stoned. If the owners slaughter it immediately after the attack, before the court had time to intervene, the meat is valuable and its proceeds are available to cover damages.. But some want to say, from what⁷⁸Reading מִן “from” instead of מאן “who” (I. Lewy). we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel⁴⁰It is stressed in Ex. 21:1 that the laws of that Chapter is before them; it applies only to intra-Israelite lawsuits. An application to suits involving Gentiles is illegitimate (Sifry Deut. 16; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 1). Gentile law does not recognize payment for half the damages., still birth but killed a viable [child]⁷⁹Killing a fetus or a newborn which is not viable is forbidden but not prosecutable as murder; the same holds for killing a ṭerepha, a terminally ill person., he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”⁷²Ex. 21:28.’⁷⁶Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,⁸⁰Ex. 21:30.” the verse speaks of the notorious⁸¹Therefore, the notion of weregilt is not applicable to the tame bull; the exemption needs no verse.. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned⁸²Ex. 21:29. This verse imposes weregilt for the killing of a free person by a notorious bull.,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.⁸³Ex. 21:32. This verse imposes a fine for the killing of a slave.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious⁸⁴Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull.. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned⁷²Ex. 21:28.”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”⁸⁴Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull..

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something⁸⁵A baraita. from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them⁸⁶Ex. 21:28 discusses the tame bull which kills a human. Verses 29–32 deal with the notorious bull which is killing. Verses 35–36 then deal with both kinds of bulls as damaging goods.. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave⁸⁷Since the payment for killed slaves is not treated as weregilt but as payment of damages to the owner for the loss of his slave, might it not be trated as part of the rules for payment of damages?; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said⁸⁸A different but parallel argument is in the Babli, 42b., everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother)⁸⁹It seems that one has ro read: “a male or female slave”. the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for fetuses⁹⁰There is an obvious lacuna here which is filled by E: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: “but the owner of the bull is free,” free from paying for fetuses.
The scribe’s error was induced by the repetition of the same text. For the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah, cf. Note 71.
The payment for fetuses refers to Ex. 21:22: If quarelling people unintentionally hit a pregnant woman who then has a miscarriage, they have to indemnify her husband. The argument in the text presupposes the statement later in the text: “ ‘people’ but not bulls.” (cf. Midrash Haggadol to Ex. 21:22) This exempts the owner of a notorious bull from payment if it causes a miscarriage. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the owner of a tame bull should pay. Why should R. Eleazar b. Azariah have to mention it?. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹²It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹²It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “If people quarrel⁹³Ex. 21:22.”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹²It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “When they quarrel⁹³Ex. 21:22.,” “when they brawl⁹⁴Ex. 21:18, specifying the payments due for intentionally inflicted injuries.”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl⁹⁵There is missing the corresponding rhetorical question “and fight the same as quarrel”? It is in E. The arguments are used to impose the payments mentioned in Ex. 21:18 for intentional injuries on the unintentional injuries mentioned in 21:22, and vice-versa (Nazir 9:5, Notes 183–184; Sanhedrin 9:3, 27a l. 58; Midrash Haggadol21:22).? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this⁹⁶Which of the two contradictory arguments is to be accepted? Neither.? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

MISHNAH: If one dedicates a bull which is led out to be stoned, it is not dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is forbidden¹²¹Ex. 21:28 reads in part: “The bull shall be stoned; its meat shall not be eaten.” If the bull is killed by stoning, it is not ritually slaughtered and automatically its meat is forbidden as carcass meat. The specific mention of the prohibition of the meat is interpreted to mean that it becomes forbidden the moment sentence is pronounced. If the owner wants to save something of the value of the bull, he has to slaughter it immediately after it killed [Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 10; dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 21:28, p. 178; Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 2:1 (28c l. 34), ‘Orlah 3:1 Note 26; Babli Pesaḥim22b].. If its owner dedicated it before sentence was pronounced, it is dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is permitted.