Talmud su Esodo 21:30

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..

HALAKHAH: “ “You stole my ox,” etc. to the end of the Chapter. ⁸⁹The entire Halakhah is also in Ketubot3:10, Notes 143–156. Rebbi Isaac asked, should one have to pay the value of the slave by his admission? But what is his problem? Are the entire thirty a fine⁸⁶Since the amount payable is the biblically fixed amount of 30 šeqalim, about a Roman pound of silver (Ex. 21:32), it has the status of a fine. or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, all the thirty are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “ ‘Your ox killed my slave’, but he says ‘he did not kill;’ ‘I am asking you to swear’ and he says ‘Amen’, he is not liable.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he killed a slave covered with boils. He said to him, but it says afterwards, “ ‘Your ox killed my son’, but he says ‘he did not kill;’ ‘I am asking you to swear’ and he says ‘Amen’, he is liable.⁹⁰This baraita is not found in any other source.” You could explain it if he was covered with boils, then he would not be liable! You cannot do this, as we have stated⁹¹Mishnah `Arakhin3:3, about a person killed by an ox known as goring. The entire sentence is not found in Ketubot; this seems to point to Ševuot as the primary source.: “If he killed a human, he has to pay his worth.” Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana<sup>92</sup>In Ketubot: R. Ḥaggai before R. Yose; probably dittography. Explain it following him who said, he shall pay redemption of his person; of the injured<sup>93</sup>Ex. 21:30. It is not clear whether “his” refers to the slain person or the owner of the dangerous ox (Bava qamma4:8 Note 108). In Ketubot one reads the verse as referring to the owner of the ox; then it is obvious that the money is a fine even though its amount is not biblically fixed. On the face of it, this reading might be preferred; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai ad Ex. 21:30. Rashi in `Arakhin points to Ex. 21:30 as the source of the Mishnah there; the addition of the sentence (Note 91) supports the reading here as correct and that in Ketubot as corrected lectio facilior. Even according to the reading here, the identification of the redemption money as weregilt defines it as a fine.. He said to him, if following him who said, he shall pay redemption of his person; of the injured, all is a fine