Comentario sobre Exodo 21:28

וכי יגח שור AND IF AN OX THRUST — This law applies to an ox as well to any other cattle, wild beast or fowl, but Scripture mentions the ox, because it speaks of what usually occurs (Bava Kamma 54b).

וכי יגח שור את איש, If an ox gore a man, etc. The apparently superfluous word את is explained in Sanhedrin 79. If Shimon intended to kill Reuven but killed Levi instead he is guilty of murder since he intended to murder someone. The words את איש mean any man, even one other than the target. This applies only if the original target had been a human being; if one intended to kill an animal and killed a human being instead, the killer is not culpable for murder (compare Sanhedrin 78).

סקול יסקל השור, according to the plain meaning the offending ox will be stoned to death.

וכי יגח שור את איש, “If an ox shall gore a man or a woman, etc.” the Torah employs the term נגח when speaking of an injury or death caused by an ox attacking a human being, whereas when describing two beasts fighting each other the word used is נגף, “pushed with the body” (compare verse 38). The Talmud Baba Kama 2 explains that seeing the fate of a human being is influenced by horoscopic influences as well as through supervision by celestial forces of his individual fate, the Torah uses an expression indicating intent, whereas when beasts fight each other, seeing that their individual fates are not subject to such celestial influences the Torah is content to describe what happened as a result as a mere unintentional push.

And a beast or bird. This is learned from a gezeirah shavah between the word שור (ox) in our verse, and the word שור in the section of Shabbos (Shemos 23:12) — as Rashi explains [below] on the verse of “an ox or a donkey” (v. 33).

V. 28. Es heißt hier nicht: שור איש, wie V. 35, denn das Gericht ergeht über das Tier selbst und begreift ebenso alle Tiere in sich, wie שורך וחמורך des Dekalogs (Dewarim 5, 14) nur exemplifikatorisch genannt und durch וכל בהמתך als solches erläutert ist. (מכילתא und B. K. 54 b). Indem aber die Hinrichtung des Tieres, selbst wenn es herrenlos ist, geboten ist, so kann diese Bestimmung nicht als ein Verfahren gegen den Eigentümer begriffen werden, sondern erscheint ebenso als ein vom göttlichen Gerichte dem menschlichen delegierter Auftrag zur Ausführung des מיד כל חיה אדרשנו (Bereschit 9, 5), wie das an einem Mörder durch Menschen zu vollziehende Todesurteil ebenfalls als eine solche partielle Delegation zur Ausführung des ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו אדרש את נפש האדם (das.) zu betrachten ist. Beiden liegt wohl, nach eben dieser Stelle, das gemeinschaftliche Motiv der im Bewusstsein der Menschen aufrecht zu haltenden göttlichen Dignität des leiblichen Daseins des Menschen zu Grunde.

סקול יסקל השור, “the (offending) ox must be stoned to death.” Rashi claims that from the words above we would not know that its flesh would be prohibited as food. This sounds very strange, seeing that it has not been killed by ritual slaughter, it is what is known as neveilah, and all animals that died other than by ritual slaughter are automatically forbidden to us as food. What did Rashi think that the words: “its meat must not be eaten” was needed for? It could be needed for a situation in which the ox in question had been ritually slaughtered after being convicted to die by stoning, before the decree could be carried out. In that event our verse insures that it will not allow the guilty party to circumvent the court’s decision, seeing that ritual slaughter could not be carried out on a dead animal. If you were to say that the prohibition here refers to the fetus found inside an animal that had been ritually slaughtered and was either close to be born, and comes out alive, or it had been carried for the full term of pregnancy and was dead, and the Torah decreed that ritual slaughter of the mother was not sufficient to permit this ben pekuah to be eaten, as is, it is considered as having died from natural causes and therefore cannot be eaten, the words לא יאכל, teach that it must not only not be eaten, but no other use may be made of it either.

וכי יגח שור את איש, “when an ox gores a man, etc. up until this point the Torah had listed a number of situations when a human being had inflicted pain or loss of life; now it turns to damages caused by animals under the control of human beings, or property owned by human beings and not secured against causing damage to his peers.

ולא יאכל את בשרו AND ITS FLESH SHALL NOT BE EATEN — From what is implied in the words “the ox shall surely be stoned” do I not know that it becomes carrion, and carrion of course is prohibited to be eaten? Why then is it stated, “and its flesh shall not be eaten”? It is to intimate that even if he slaughtered the animal according to regulation after sentence of stoning has been pronounced but before it had been carried out it is forbidden to be eaten. Whence may it be proved that under such circumstances it is prohibited to derive any other benefit from it? Scripture therefore states: “and the owner of the ox is נקי” — it is a phrase such as a man uses to his fellow: that man there has gone away “empty” (נקי) of all his property (he has nothing whatever left), and he has not the slightest benefit of it. This is how the Halachic Midrash explains it (Bava Kamma 41a). However, the real sense of ובעל השור נקי, is what it literally means: the owner of the ox shall be guiltless. Because Scripture says with reference to the מועד (an ox which inflicted injury three times in succession, and about which its owner must therefore be regarded as forewarned), (v. 29) “and his owner also shall be put to death”, it was forced to state with regard to the תם (a hitherto innocuous animal, having inflicted an injury for the first time) “the owner of the ox shall be guiltless”.

ולא יאכל את בשרו; not only may its meat not be eaten by a Jew, but not even by a gentile or a dog; it is completely forbidden to be enjoyed by anyone. This is in spite of the fact that normally, when the animal of a Jew has died of natural causes or has been found ritually unfit for consumption, the Torah permitted the meat of the carcass to be either sold to a gentile or given to him as a gift or to be fed to one’s dogs (Deuteronomy 14,21 and Exodus 22,30), such animals are permitted even after they had died through stoning. [seeing that had not killed a human being. Ed.] Our sages derive from this verse that after judgment had been handed down that the animal in question is to be stoned to death, slaughtering it ritually will not make it fit for consumption or other beneficial use to the owner. (Baba Kamma 61).

ומת, and he dies, this includes delayed death. As long as the death is attributable to the goring, the ox, i.e. his master, is liable. It is worthwhile to compare Rashi in Baba Kama 41 where the Talmud discusses the law of an ox goring and endangering the lives of three people none of whom died from the goring.

סקול יסקל השור ולא יאכל את בשרו, sobald die Tötung des Menschen durch den Ochsen vermittelst Zeugen erwiesen ist, ist er zum Steinigungstode zu verurteilen und darf statt dessen nicht zum Genusse getötet werden; hätte man dies selbst durch gehörige שחיטה getan, so dass er nun als בשר, als sonst zum Genusse erlaubtes "Fleisch" da läge, so darf gleichwohl sein Fleisch nicht genossen werden, שחטו אחר שנגמר דינו אסור. Ja, seine Tötung steht überhaupt im Dienste eines höhern, sittlichen Zweckes, diesem ist er verfallen und somit jeder Benutzung entzogen, er ist mit gefälltem Urteil אסור בהנאה (nach ר׳׳ת erst mit der Tötung, wenn auch durch שחיטה (siehe תוספו׳ B. K. 24 a und Sebachim 71 a). Ist ja, nach der rezipierten Ansicht des ר׳ אבהו אמר ר׳ אלעזר, überhaupt in den durch לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכל :אכילה ausgedrückten Verboten auch הנאה die Benutzung mit als verboten inbegriffen, so lange nicht anderweitig das Gesetz selbst, wie z. B. bei נכלה den Verkauf, oder wie bei טרפה, die Fütterung (Dewarim 14, 21 u. Schmot 22, 30], somit die Benutzung überhaupt ausdrücklich gestattet. Hier wird durch das beigefügte את, da es nicht ובשרו לא יאכל oder לא יאכל בשרו, sondern את בשרו heißt (siehe Bereschit 1, 1) das בשר in weitester Ausdehnung begriffen, und selbst עורו, die Haut ist zur Benutzung untersagt (B. K. 41 a u. b).

וכי יגח שור את איש, the expression: נגיחה is used when an ox gores a human being, whereas the expression: נגיפה is used when said ox gores another animal. The reason is that the fate of a human being is influenced by his mazzal, the astrological constellation of the stars when he has been born, and as a rule animals fear human beings (Genesis 9,2) so that even when they gore they take care not to inflict death. Animals do not enjoy this advantage and therefore being gored is generally fatal for them. (Compare Rashi on Talmud Baba Kamma folio 2)

ובעל השור נקי, as long as the offending animal had not been classified as a dangerous animal, putting an additional onus to guard it properly on its owner.

ולא יאכל את בשרו, and its meat may not be consumed. If the owner ate the meat he will receive 39 lashes. He is, however, not punished for enjoying the remains of the animal in other ways, such as the skin, etc., although any use of the remains of the animal is forbidden. This is the reason the Torah has not lumped all these various examples of injuries and fatal injuries together under a single heading.

נקי. Da Menschenverletzung nicht zur normalen Natur des Ochsen gehört, dieser Fall aber von einem solchen normalen Tiere (תם) spricht, bei welchem ein solches Stoßen eines Menschen als Abnormität nicht zu erwarten war, so ist auch der Eigentümer eines solchen Tieres in keiner Weise etwa wegen vernachlässigter Hut für schuldig zu halten. Gleichwohl ist die Bemerkung des Gesetzes nicht überflüssig, weil V. 35 für Vermögensbeschädigung durch abnormen Stoß eines normalen Tieres eine Präventiv-pön (קנס) im Betrage des halben Schadens (חצי נזק) statuiert ist, somit die Voraussetzung nahe lag, dass auch hier vielleicht חצי כופר, die Hälfte des V. 30 statuierten Sühnegeldes, aufzuerlegen wäre. Es war also auszusprechen, dass er in diesem Falle durchaus נקי, von keinerlei Zahlung zu betreffen sei. Es dürfte aber die Notwendigkeit dieser Bemerkung auch schon dadurch gegeben sein, weil doch in der Tat der Eigentümer durch den völligen und gänzlichen Verlust seines Tieres in Mitleidenschaft gezogen ist und daher auszusprechen war, dass außer diesem Verluste er nichts zu zahlen habe. Vielleicht liegt diese Betrachtung der Auffassung des שמעון בן זומא (B. K. 41 a) zu Grunde, nach welcher eben aus diesem Zusatz, ובעל השור נקי, der gänzliche Verlust des Tieres für den Eigentümer gefolgert wird: כאדם שאומר לחברו יצא איש פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום, welches dann in dem Sinne zu verstehen wäre, wie man von jemandem, der persönlich freigesprochen worden, jedoch das ganze Recht auf seine Güter eingebüßt, sagt: er ist frei aus seinen Gütern herausgegangen, und brauchte man somit nicht gerade anzunehmen, es habe בן זומא das נקי hier in dem Sinne wie: ונקתה לארץ תשב (Jes. 3, 26) נתתי לכם נקיון שנים (Amos 4,6) "der Eigentümer des Ochsen geht leer aus", verstehen müssen. —

סקול יסקל השור, “the offending ox is to be stoned to death. If you were to ask that if even an ox that did not have a history of goring people is subject to stoning, why did the Torah have to tell us that an ox with a history of goring has to be stoned? (verse 29) Answer: this is faulty logic; the reason why a hitherto tame ox is stoned is because no penalty of compensating the victim is imposed on the owner;I could think that seeing that the owner of an aggressive ox that has killed a human being would not have to be stoned. To make sure that we do not think so, the Torah added that the guilty ox has to be stoned in all such situations. You might also ask that how can it happen that an ox will gore people twice or even three times, i.e. become labeled: “an aggressive ox” מועד, if he had been stoned to death already after the first time he killed a human being? Answer: either such an ox had escaped after it gored the first time, or, that whereas we know the ox but did not know who its owner was so that we could have accused him of deliberate negligence.

ולא יאכל את בשרו, “and its flesh may not be eaten.” Is it not clear from the fact that this animal had to die through stoning that its flesh would be forbidden, seeing that only animals that have been killed by ritual slaughter may be eaten? The expression יאכל in the passive mode, always means that it is not only forbidden to be eaten by Jews but may neither be fed to dogs or sold to gentiles.

ובעל השור נקי, and the owner of that ox remained free of guilt as long as his ox had not displayed signs of being aggressive. (Rash’bam)