Comentario sobre Exodo 21:36

או נודע means, OR it was not a תם but IT IS KNOWN THAT THE OX WAS WONT TO THRUST to-day yesterday and the day before yesterday — thus you have the three acts of goring required to make it a שלם ישלם שור (Bava Kamma 23b)

OR IF IT BE KNOWN THAT THE OX WAS WONT TO GORE IN TIME PAST, AND ITS OWNER HATH NOT KEPT IT IN, HE SHALL SURELY PAY AN OX FOR AN OX. It is known that if a Tam¹⁹³A Tam is an animal which has not injured, or killed [an animal] more than three times and whose owner has not been warned that it is dangerous and must be guarded. For whatever damages a Tam does, its owner pays only half the loss. The Tam is distinguished from a Muad, an animal which has killed or injured at least four times, and whose owner has been warned that it is dangerous and must be guarded. For whatever damage it does, the owner must pay in full. too is properly guarded by its owner, but through an accident it so happened that it went out and caused damage, the owner is certainly not liable.¹⁹⁴But if so, the question arises why the Torah mentions the guarding of the animal only in the case of the Muad, (see Note above) since the same law applies to a Tam as well. Ramban proceeds to remove this difficulty. Thus the reason why He states only with reference to a Muad,¹⁹³A Tam is an animal which has not injured, or killed [an animal] more than three times and whose owner has not been warned that it is dangerous and must be guarded. For whatever damages a Tam does, its owner pays only half the loss. The Tam is distinguished from a Muad, an animal which has killed or injured at least four times, and whose owner has been warned that it is dangerous and must be guarded. For whatever damage it does, the owner must pay in full. and its owner hath not kept it in, [when the same principle would apply to a Tam as well] is, according to that Sage in the Talmud¹⁹⁵Baba Kamma 45b. See in my Hebrew commentary p. 426, that the reference is to Rabbi Meir. who says that a Muad needs better guarding than a Tam, as follows: Scripture states that if the ox was wont to gore and warning had been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in and guarded it better in view of its dangerous nature, so that it went out and caused damage, the owner must pay the full damage. According to the opinion of that Sage¹⁹⁶This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (ibid.). who holds that the degree of guarding necessary for both Tam and Muad¹⁹³A Tam is an animal which has not injured, or killed [an animal] more than three times and whose owner has not been warned that it is dangerous and must be guarded. For whatever damages a Tam does, its owner pays only half the loss. The Tam is distinguished from a Muad, an animal which has killed or injured at least four times, and whose owner has been warned that it is dangerous and must be guarded. For whatever damage it does, the owner must pay in full. is alike, the meaning of the verse is as follows: If it be known to the owner that the ox was wont to gore and now too [i.e., at the fourth time] he hath not kept it in, he is liable to pay the full damage on account of his grave negligence.

ולא ישמרנו, and he did not supervise it adequately, etc. The correct interpretation of this verse follows what we learned in Baba Kama 46. Rabbi Eliezer is on record that the only adequate supervision of an aggressive ox such as the one mentioned in our verse is the knife, i.e. it has to be slaughtered. Rabbah elaborated: "why does the Torah speak of 'if he will not guard it,' because there is no longer any point in guarding it." If the ox had to be slaughtered what is the point of speaking of supervision?" Abbaye answered Rabbah that if one were to accept Rabbah's argument what is the meaning of "he did not cover it" in verse 33? [clearly if the pit had been covered nobody would have fallen into it. Ed.] So far the Talmud. I believe that Rabbah's point is well taken. There is obviously a difference between the situation involving the pit and that of the ox which had gored repeatedly. In the case of the pit, the Torah uses the future tense, it speaks of an event which has not happened as yet; Also the description of the victims is worded in the future. In the case of the ox which had gored repeatedly the Torah commences by telling us of the past history of that ox. The Torah suddenly switches to the future tense by saying ולא ישמרנו. Actually, the Torah should have written ולא שמרו, "and he did not guard it." Rabbah did not bother to answer Abbaye in the Talmud. According to the view of Rabbi Yehudah that even relatively minor supervision of such an ox is adequate in order to exonerate the owner if the ox gored again, the Torah must be understood thus: ולא ישמרנו, "if he did not guard it at all." It is worthwile to study the Talmud at the end of the chapter on folio 46.

Or it was not a תם . Rashi does not explain או (or) as meaning אם (if), because then it would be written with an adjunctive vav, as ואם (and if). This resolves the Re’m’s question: why does Rashi not explain the verse as “if”, as Rashi did on the verse, “If ( או ) his sin becomes known to him” (Vayikra 3:23)? [The Re’m claimed] that “if” would have explained the verse very well, and Rashi would not have had to insert the word “ אלא ,” [in order to give meaning to the verse]. The Re’m left the matter unresolved. The Re’m also objects: Rashi himself, on the verse of “If ( או ) his sin becomes known to him,” explains that או is like אם , as in: “If ( או ) it was known that it was a goring ox.” This contradicts what Rashi says here! This matter is unresolved.

V. 36. Siehe zu V. 29. – ולא ישמרנו בעליו, beim שור תם, V. 35, steht diese Bedingung nicht. Die Präventivpön ist dort somit unbedingt auferlegt, ihr wird mit שמירה פחותה, mit gewöhnlicher Hut nicht entgangen, sie ist eben auferlegt, um שמירה מעולה, um eine auch ungewöhnlichen Umständen, שאינם מצוים, begegnende Hut zu veranlassen. Die Verantwortung für שור המועד, welchem das Stoßen zur Natur, somit zur bekannten und vorauszusetzenden Kraftäußerung geworden, fließt aus dem Rechtsbegriff. Sie ist bedingt durch vernachlässigte ולא ישמרנו בעליו :שמירה. Sollte dies auch wie bei תם mehr als gewöhnliche Hut, שמירה מעולה, bedeuten, es hätte der Text davon schweigen dürfen, und stillschweigend wäre sodann die Ersatzpflicht für מועד ebenso unbedingt wie für תם ausgesprochen. Die ausdrückliche Bestimmung: ולא ישמרנו kann daher מועד nur auf den einfachen Rechtsboden versetzen wollen, der nur eine gewöhnlich vorauszusetzenden Umständen genügende Vorsicht, שמירה פחותה, fordert und nur bei Abgang dieser gewöhnlichen Hut zum Ersatz verpflichtet. Es wird dies B. K. 45 b nach dem Interpretationskanon: אין רבוי אחר רבוי אלא למעט "die sonst unnötige Wiederholung einer Begriffserweiterung beabsichtigt nur dessen Beschränkung", erläutert. Das: ולא ישמרנו, supponiert den gänzlichen Mangel an שמירה. Ein normal gehüteter Ochse fällt somit nicht unter die Bestimmung, שמור הוא זה, es fehlt bei ihm die Voraussetzung, dass לא ישמרנו בעליו (das.) — Es wird (das.) die Frage behandelt, ob צד תמות במקומה עומדת, .d. h. ob der Stoß eines normal gehüteten מועד, bei welchem also die Ersatzschuld wegfällt, nicht gleichwohl der schon für תם statuierten Pön der Schadenhälfte unterliegt. תוספו׳ und ראש adoptieren die Ansicht ר׳ אדא בר אהבה's, dass diese Ersatzpflicht zur Hälfte auch beim מועד bei שמירה פחותה wie beim תם bleibe. רמב׳׳ם jedoch adoptiert die Ansicht רב's, dass mit שמירה פחותה ein מועד völlig von Ersatzpflicht frei werde. Das Auffallende, dass nach dieser letzteren Ansicht sodann מועד leichter als תם vom Gesetze behandelt erscheint, dürfte durch die Erwägung schwinden, dass der Ersatz der Schadenhälfte nur Präventivpön, קנס, ist und als solche nur מלתא דשכיחא, nur normale Vorgänge im Auge hat, der מועד-Zustand aber an sich ein seltener Ausnahmefall ist, dass aber ferner מועד, dessen Ersatzpflicht auf dem Rechtsboden steht, gar keiner Präventivpön bedarf. Die rechtliche Folge, zum Ersatz des ganzen Schadens und zwar als Rechtsschuld verpflichtet zu werden, die gar keiner auf Zeugen basierter richterlichen Kognition bedarf, ist ein hinlänglicher und viel mächtigerer Sporn für den Eigentümer, sein stößiges Tier hinlänglich zu hüten, als eine Präventivpön des halben Schadens, zu deren Leistung der Beschädiger nur auf Grund von Zeugen provozierten gerichtlichen Erkenntnisses verpflichtet ist, ihr aber durch einfaches Selbstangeben entgeht (siehe zu Kap. 22, 8 אשר ירשעון אלהי׳).

., “and he had not secured it;” actually we could have learned this by simple logic. If an owner of an ox that had gored must bear half the cost of the loss of its victim if the offending animal had had a reputation for aggressiveness and its master had not secured it, he surely must be liable for the whole damage! Why do we need the words: “and he had not secured it?” Therefore we learn that this word speaks another type of guarding that ox; he has to also muzzle such an ox so that it cannot become guilty of causing damage with its mouth, by either biting, or grazing in other people’s fields. An alternate explanation why the words: ולא ישמרנו are needed; logic does not suffice to impose penalties. Perhaps someone could come up with another aspect nullifying our logic. Therefore penalties have to be spelled out. Still another interpretation: the penalty applies even if the offending ox had been looked after on behalf of its owner by someone who did not charge the owner a fee for this.

.מועד HE SHALL SURELY PAY AN OX [FOR THE OX] — i. e. the full damage.

AND THE DEAD BEAST SHALL BELONG TO HIM — “to the one who suffered the damage, and the one who caused the damage adds to it until he completes the amount, so that the one who was damaged will have been paid for his entire loss.” This is Rashi’s language, and is in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis.¹⁹⁷Ibid., 10b. And if so, it is proper that we explain the verse as follows: he shall surely pay ox for ox “with” the dead beast which shall, belong to him. Similarly, and Joseph was in Egypt,¹⁹⁸Above, 1:5. means: “with” Joseph who was in Egypt [they were seventy souls]. Likewise, I cannot endure iniquity ‘va’atzarah’¹⁹⁹Isaiah 1:13. [literally: “and the solemn assembly”] means with the solemn assembly, similar to that which He said, I hate robbery ‘b’olah’ — “with” a burnt-offering.²⁰⁰Ibid., 61:8.
According to the simple meaning of Scripture it is possible to explain the expression, and the dead shall belong to him — to the one who caused the damage, the verse thus stating: he shall surely pay ox for ox, but he may keep the carcass, so that in making monetary compensation he can turn it over to the one who suffered the damage as part payment. Thus according to both interpretations the law is alike — the owner of the dead animal attends to the carcass, and its value is determined as at the time of its death,²⁰¹If its value decreases after the time of its death, he must bear that loss alone (Baba Kamma 34 b). to be taken by him as part payment, according to the words of our Rabbis.²⁰¹If its value decreases after the time of its death, he must bear that loss alone (Baba Kamma 34 b).

To the damaged party. You might object: Rashi already explained this above (v. 34). An answer is: This verse is the primary source for the law that the owner has to look after the carcass, [thus Rashi mentioned it again here]. An alternative answer is: Since [this law is stricter than that of the תם , and] the damager pays in full, we might mistakenly think that he must also look after the carcass. Therefore Rashi explained that the carcass belongs to the damaged party.

ישלם שור, he shall pay an ox. Although the Talmud in Baba Kama 4 states that an ox which is a מועד, whose owner has been put on notice that his ox is agressive, will have to make restitution by paying the victim from the best quality of the fields the owner posesses, this rule is limited to situations when the owner of the aggressive ox owned property of a quality superior to that of the owner of the victim. If not,-using our verse as a guide,- he may be allowed to use the ox itself as payment. The statement in the Talmud may only mean that the owner of the aggressive ox must not use earth which is inferior to that owned by the victim's owner as a means of payment.

An dem Ausdruck des Tertes: וכי יגף שור איש את שור רעהו lehrt die Tradition den großen Satz: שור רעהו ולא שור של הקדש. (B. K. 6 b) und entwickelt תוספו׳ das., dass nicht nur für Beschädigung von Heiligtümern durch vernachlässigte Hut von Tieren und sonst schadenbringendem Eigentum, sondern selbst für die direkte Beschädigung von Heiligtümern durch den Menschen selbst alle und jede Ersatzpflicht wegfällt, נזקין להדיוט ואין נזקין לגבוה, Beschädigung profanen Eigentums ist zu ersetzen/i, nicht aber Gott heiliger Güter. Sei es nun, dass damit dem Beschädiger gesagt werde, nicht Gott, sondern dir hast du zerstört, was du zerstört; sei es, dass Gott keine irdische Hand gehoben haben will zur Vertretung Seines Gutes; sei es, dass materiell ersetzende Wiederherstellung das eigentliche Wesen des Verhrechens, die Vergreifung an der Idee, die das gestörte Objekt als Träger vergegenwärtigt, verwischen würde: immer steht das Faktum fest, dass unter dem Regime dieses Gesetzes jemand die heilige Bundeslade zertrümmert, den heiligen Vorhang zerrissen, die Tempelgeräte zerstört, den ganzen Tempelschatz vernichtet haben konnte, ohne auf Erden einen Richter zu finden, der ihn auch nur zum Ersatz eines Pfennigs zu verhalten befugt gewesen wäre. Dieses Faktum steht aber gewiss als völliges Unikum im Kreise der Gesetzgebungen auf Erden, und können wir die Bemerkung nicht unterdrücken, wie denn doch schon dieses eine, so völlig einzige Faktum die sprechendste Signatur an dieser Gesetzgebung ist, dass wir an ihr kein menschlich Werk, geschweige denn ein Produkt hierarchischer Priesterbestrebungen, wohin man so gerne das jüdische Gesetz zu verweisen geneigt wäre, vor Augen haben. Priester, Hierarchen, hätten gewiss einem solchen Sakrilegium den Kainsstempel des schreiendsten Verbrechens aufgedrückt und den weltlichen Arm in allererster Linie zum Wächter und Rächer ihrer Schätze bestellt. Nur bei profanierender Verwendung von Heiligtümern, und zwar in erhöhtem Maße bei irrtümlicher, מעילה, tritt eine Ersatzpflicht ein, die wir zu dem betreffenden Gesetze (Wajikra 5, 16) zu betrachten haben werden. — Beschädigung des Altars und des Tempelgebäudes — נותץ אבן אחד מן ההיכל ומן המזבת ומן העזרות — ist durch einfaches, mit מלקות belegtes Verbot untersagt (ספרי פ׳ ראה). Unvorsätzliche, ja mutwillige, aber der gesetzlichen Verwarnung entbehrende Beschädigung auch dieser ist somit ebenso straflos als ersatzfrei, während selbst unvorsätzliche Beschädigung eines Privatgebäudes unbedingt zu vollem Ersatze verpflichtet. Auch in anderen zivilrechtlichen Bestimmungen stehen Heiligtümer im Nachteil, so in Beziehung auf אונאה, Übervorteilung, ,שומריך Hutverantwortlichkeit, und תשלומי כפל וד׳ וה׳, (B.M. 56a).

והמת יהיה לו AND THE DEAD SHALL BELONG TO HIM — to the claimant (Bava Kamma 23b) as part of this full payment. In addition to it the defendant has to complete the amount until the claimant has been paid for his entire loss.