Êxodo 21:28 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Jerusalem Talmud Orlah, Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim & Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

MISHNAH: There are four main categories of damages¹Most rules of payment for damages may be derived from the examples of damages treated in Ex. 21–22, as explained in the Halakhah.: The bull²An agressive bull goring with his horns; Ex. 21:28–32;35–36., and the pit³A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex. 21:33–34., and the devourer⁴Damage caused by an animal other than goring: feeding (“the tooth”) and trampling (“the foot”), Ex. 22:4. The Aramaic root בעי is found in Pseudo-Jonathan to Num. 22:2 as translation of Hebrew לחך “to devour”. The unusual expression מַבְעֶה is used to subsume two legal terms under one., and the setting on fire⁵Ex. 22:5.. The bull is not like the devourer, nor the devourer like the bull⁶Since goring, trampling, and devouring are all ascribed to the same animal, the question arises why the bull has to be mentioned in two different categories both in the Mishnah and in the biblical text. The details are given only in the Babli: An animal which gores is intent on causing damage; therefore the rules are different for known agressive or generally not agressive animals since these require different levels of supervision. But the rules for damage caused by feeding and trampling are the same for all animals.; neither of them who are alive is like the pit⁷It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched. which is not alive, nor either of them which move in causing damage is like the fire⁷It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched. which does not move in causing damage. The common theme of them is that they are usually causing damage and you are obligated to watch them, and if damage was caused the person causing the damage is obligated to pay the damages in best quality land⁸If the person causing the damage cannot pay, the person collecting damages can foreclose the culprit’s land with the highest value per unit of surface area. As biblical law, this applies to damages caused by unattended animals, Ex. 22:4..

Is it subject to a declaration of notoriety in a matter extraneous to its body¹⁸The verse makes a clear distinction between “harmless” cattle, which are not known to gore humans, and “notorious” cattle which have a history of such attacks. If a “harmless” animal kills a human, it must be killed (Ex.21:28). If a “notorious” animal kills, it must be stoned and the owners have to pay weregilt (Ex. 21:29–30). Since there is a difference in legal status, the notoriety of an animal must be based on a judicial finding. Now these rules apply to all attacks which are classified as “horn”, i. e., those enumerated in Mishnah 1:4. The question is whether the rules extend to damages caused by “tooth” and “foot”; e. g., whether an animal can be declared dangerous because it has a way to send pebbles flying wherever it walks, which would make its owner liable for full damages in all cases.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one accepts. Rebbi Illa said, one does not accept. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with him: An ox which rubs itself against a wall¹⁹If the animal pushed against the wall the way it would push an unfriendly other animal, that clearly would be a “hit” as defined by Mishnah 1:4 and be classified as “horn”, or, in the language of the baraita, “by its body”. But here it is assumed that the animal rubs to free itself from fleas or otherwise for its comfort, not in any agressive way. Cf. Mishnah 4:7 (Tosephta 4:5); Babli 44a. which fell on a human and killed him is obligated for weregilt but free from death²⁰This does not agree with any case of “horn”; cf. Note 18.. Does there exist weregilt for a harmless animal²¹Since weregilt is only required for killings by notorious animals, the baraita accepts that declarations of notoriety are possible for behavior not classified as “horn”.? But it does not disagree with Rebbi Illa²²Since an animal causing death of a human has to be killed, whether harmless or notorious, it is clear that the statement of the baraita cannot be derived from the rules of “horn”. But then the previous argument about weregilt does not apply.. Why is it free from death if it was notorious to destroy walls? When it destroyed it, no human was there²³Even if the animal attacked the wall as if it were a hostile animal, and the incident has to be classified as “horn”, it cannot be killed if its attack only weakened the wall which collapsed at some later time, when the attacking animal already had stopped pushing.
Also in the Babli, 18b, the question is decided in R. Illa’s sense..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing²⁰Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox²¹The Babli, Pesaḥim 24b, explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex.21:28,29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct; this is derived from Ex. 21:28, cf. Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said (Deut. 22:9): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled²²Cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6.. For ‘orlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written²³Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ‘orlah fruit., a prohibition to eat is written²⁴Last two words of Lev. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לא יאכל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., a prohibition to remove it is not written²⁵Transgression of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable..