Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Keluaran 22:5

1. There are four primary causes of injury: the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and fire. 2. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, which are alive, like [that of] fire, which is not alive; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. 3. What they have in common is that it is their way to do injury and that you are responsible for caring over them; and if one of them did injury whoever [is responsible] for the injury must make restitution [to the damaged party] with the best of his land. The four causes of injury mentioned in the first clause mishnah are all derived from the Torah: the ox (Exodus 21:35-36), the pit (Exodus 21:33-34), the crop-destroying beast (Exodus 22:4) and fire (Exodus 22:5). The mishnah then raises a question generally asked in midrashic texts (texts that explain the Torah): why does the Torah need to mention all four types of injury? In other words, why couldn’t the Torah have mentioned one, two or three primary causes of injury, from which we would have learned the rest? The Rabbis believed that no law in the Torah was superfluous and therefore each must come to teach us something that we could not have learned from the other laws. The mishnah therefore explains that each “cause of injury” has its unique characteristic and therefore we would not have been able to derive the laws of the other causes of damages without all four examples in the Torah. Note how the mishnah is both dependent on, yet independent from the Torah. This is typical of Jewish oral Torah; it explains the Torah yet it can usually be understood on its own. Questions for further thought:  What type of injury does an ox cause? What therefore is the difference between an ox and a crop-destroying beast?  The Mishnah tells you things that you are obligated to watch and that if they are yours and they injure you will have to pay the damaged party. Is there anything you can already imagine for which a person will not be obligated if it causes damage? (We will learn the answers to these questions as we go on, but it is worthwhile to start thinking of them now).

ההבער – this is the fire/conflagration, for it went out and caused damage, as it is written (Exodus 22:5): “When a fire is started [and spreads to thorns], so that stacked, standing or growing grain is consumed.” And the derivative of fire is his rock and his knife and his burden that he placed them on the upper portion of his roof, and they fell with an ordinary wind and it caused damage that resembles fire where the wind leads it. But surely, our Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] did not consider a horn [of an animal] under the category of the chief actionable damages, because we are not speaking about other than damages which are when an animal whose owner stands forewarned (on account of three successive injuries) from their outset, meaning to say, that they pay full indemnity from their outset. But when they (the animals) are innocuous (i.e., one that did injury for the first time, or before warning had been given) it doesn’t speak of this.

Vieh und durch den Brand. Exod. 22, 5. Als תולדות von אש betrachtet man z. B. Steine, Messer und sonstige Gegenstände, die man auf das Dach gelegt und die durch einen gewöhnlich vorauszusetzenden Wind hinabgeworfen wurden und im Fallen Schaden angerichtet haben.

Omitted [the case of a] concealed [item] - it ought to have taught that a stringency of Ox and Pit with respect to Fire is that if an ox kicked a sack full of vessels, he is liable; or if a donkey carrying a sack full of grain fell into a pit, he is liable -- even though [the vessels] are concealed in the sack. This is not the case with Fire, as we derive [Bava Kamma 60a:11] from "or standing grain" [Exodus 22:5] that he is only liable for exposed [items].

If there was a goat tied to it ... he is liable - for the goat, since living creatures are also included [in the law of fire] by "or standing" [Exodus 22:5]. We do not exempt him [from payment] due to [the rule of] "he receives the greater [punishment]", since he is not liable to the death penalty on account of the [death of the] slave -- since he was not tied up, he should have escaped; therefore he is exempt from death and payment on [the slave's] account. But if the slave was tied up, he is exempt even for the goat and for the stack, since he is liable to the death penalty for the slave, as it is written: "this must be avenged" [Exodus 21:20]. "He receives the greater [punishment]" even if [the witnesses] did not warn him, so that he does not get executed; we have established that those who unwittingly [commit crimes that would cause them to be] liable to the death penalty are exempt [from monetary payments as well]. [Ketubot 34b:9] Regarding the goat, it makes no difference whether it is tied up or not; but once [the mishna] made the choice [of language] regarding the slave, it made the [parallel] choice [of language] regarding the goat. Another explanation is that the choice [of language] regarding the goat is also precise: if [the goat] is next to [the stack] he is exempt, since it should have escaped. This is what it is saying: if a slave was tied to it or if a goat was next to it, he is exempt. Even though it was explained at the end of the second chapter that "the ox is comparable to other property" [Bava Kamma 27a:11] and if one placed a coal on it and it burned, he is liable -- [that applies only] there, where he put it upon an ox, which was not expected to remove it. But here, [the goat] should have escaped.