Cytowanie Komentarza do Wyjścia 21:27

The ox and the pit. Why are the four damagers listed in this particular order? Tosafot elaborates upon Rashi’s explanation.
Rashi (ד"ה השור והבור) explains: that in the order the four damagers were written in the Torah, the tanna arranged them in the Mishna.
Keren appears in Parashat Mishpatim 21, 28.
Bor appears in 21, 33.
Maveh and hever will soon be discussed in this Tosafot.
This is correct according to the one who says that the word shor in our Mishna is a reference to keren. There is another opinion that shor in our Mishna is referring to regel, which actually appears later in the Torah 22, 4, after bor.
And even though according to the one who says that when the tanna mentions shor, it means regel, it is not in the order of the parsha, since regel is mentioned in Shemot 22, 4, - “and he will send his animal”, which is after bor (21, 33), this does not present a problem, because in any case, the title “shor” appears earlier in the parsha (21, 28), which is discussing goring by keren. That reference to shor is sufficient reason to list shor first in our Mishna, even though the shor our Mishna is discussing is regel.
There is a dispute in the Gemara (3b) about maveh. Rav says that maveh refers to a person who damages. Shmuel holds that maveh means shain, an animal that damages by eating. How do these two opinions mesh with Rashi’s explanation that the Mishna follows the order of the Torah? If maveh is shain, there is no problem. Shain is mentioned in Shemot 22, 4, after bor Shemot 21, 33 and followed by aish (hever) in the next verse. However, Rav’s opinion that maveh means a person is problematic, as Tosafot now points out.
And according to the one who says maveh is a person, even though it is written much later in Parashat Emor (Vayikra 24, 18), - “and one who destroys the life of an animal must pay”, which is speaking of a person who damages an ox, the tanna did not feel the need to teach it in the order of the parsha, the hever (aish) before the maveh, because the maveh is so distant anyhow. the tanna therefore prefers to list maveh in the order it will appear in the Mishna later, when the Mishna discusses the different characteristics of the damagers by saying “this one does not appear to have the same characteristics as that one”. In that sentence maveh precedes hever (aish) and that is why the tanna listed ‘a person’ before ‘hever’ in the first sentence of the Mishna.
Rabbeinu Tam offers another solution to this difficulty, in line with the answer Tosafot said earlier when the question was raised, why is regel listed first? It appears in the Torah later. Tosafot answered that although regel is mentioned later the title shor appears earlier in keren. Rabbeinu Tam offers a similar solution to our present problem about listing a person before hever (aish).
And Rabbeinu Tam explained that the title “person” appears before aish in the parsha, when the Torah says (Shemot 21, 27) - “if a man will steal an ox”, and that is one of the primary damagers, as is taught in the Braita in the Gemara.¹ See שיטה מקובצת for various opinions who disagree with Rashi and Tosafot about the order that the tanna chose for our Mishna.

oder ihm flucht. Ex. 21, 27. Nach dem Talmud (l. c.) ist der Sohn nur dann des Todes schuldig, wenn der Vater zuvor seine Sünde (hier das Beiwohnen der ihm zur Ehe verbotenen Frau) bereut hat; im Nichtfalle ist er jedoch frei von Todesstrafe, weil dann der Vater אינו עושה מעשה עמך durch seine Taten beweist, dass er nicht „im Volke“ steht (בעמך Ex. 22, 27), sich nicht, gleich dem Volke, dem Gesetze unterordnet.

תחת עינו [HE SHALL LET HIM GO FREE] FOR HIS EYE’S SAKE — and similarly if he cuts off one of the twenty-four “tips of limbs” viz., the fingers, the toes, the two ears, the nose and the ראש הגויה, the membrum (cf. Mishnah Negaim 6:7). But why, since the precept is not applicable to eye and tooth alone but to twenty-four limbs, are both the eye and the tooth, mentioned? One would have stufficed! Because if only the eye were mentioned and not the tooth also, I might have said: What it the characteristic of the eye? It came into the world together with him! So, too, this law is applicable only to such limbs as came into the world together with him, but not to the tooth, for the tooth did not come into the world together with him. If, on the other hand, only the tooth had been mentioned and not the eye also, I might have said: the law applies even to a case when the master knocked out a child-slave’s tooth which grows again (more lit., which has a substitute) after a time. Therefore the eye is also mentioned to intimate that the law can be applied only when the master knocks out the tooth of his adult slave which, like the eye, does not grow again. (Kiddushin 24b).