Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Exodo 21:36

מן העליה – from the best of his property, and even if the goring is not worth the measure of the damage of the “warned” animal (as it is written (Exodus 21:36): “[and its owner has failed to guard it] he must restore ox for ox”, but it is not written there “that from the body of the goring animal, he will be paid.”

If they would grasp My fortress (אוֹ), lit., or they would grasp My fortress,) an expression of ‘if.’ Comp. “(Ex. 21:36) If (אוֹ) it was known that he was a goring ox.” If My people grasp My fortress, i.e., My Torah, that they seek no other fortress but My fortress, then they shall grant Me peace, to calm My thoughts and My ire which trouble Me because I do not avenge Myself upon My adversaries, and I will, indeed, take revenge from them.

או אל המזוזה, “or against the doorpost;” Rashi comments on this that the Torah draws a parallel between “door” and “doorpost;” both are upright. What Rashi means is that the doorpost is compared to the door only in respect of their both being upright. The definitive aspect of this procedure is found in Deuteronomy 15,17, where the Torah stipulates that the ear of the person who is going to have it pierced is to be adjacent to the door at that time. This is proved by the Jerusalem Targum which translates the word או in our verse as meaning אשר, “which is;” there are similar constructions to this, as in 21,36 או נודע כי שור נגח הוא, where the word או also means אשר, i.e. “an ox which is known to be aggressive.” The author quotes more examples. In our verse here, Rashi prefers an allegorical explanation based on the Mechilta, i.e. the ear which had heard G-d say at Mount Sinai: ”do not steal,” and which had heard G-d say: “the Children of Israel are My slaves,” needs to be reminded of this by being pierced after having opted to ignore both of these statements by G-d. Our author corrects the reference to “do not steal” from the Ten Commandments, as that commandment speaks of stealing persons, i.e. kidnapping. Therefore the version found in Leviticus 19,11 is preferred as there the Torah speaks of the theft of objects. Also, the prohibition in the Ten Commandments carries a death penalty as opposed to the version of theft discussed in Leviticus. In that version the ordinary penalty is to make restitution of twice the value of the stolen objects; if the thief is unable to come up with the money, then he [his labour, Ed.] is sold by the court to someone willing to buy him and to abide by the Torah’s rules concerning how to treat him. The reason why Rashi chose the prohibition of stealing when he had so many others to choose from, is because the thief displayed greater fear of the Lord than many other kinds of sinners, as he committed his sin in secret when insulting G-d by being more afraid of the police seeing him than of G-d seeing what he did. Moreover, the Jewish servant choosing to continue serving his master in spite of living with a non Jewish mate and raising non Jewish children, has demonstrated that he does not care what G-d had said nor what G-d’s servant, his master, has said. Hence his deliberately “faulty” hearing is being punished.

Rather - for the following reason it was necessary to state [the additional proof-texts]: one might have said that Scripture only differentiates between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox -- in that regarding an innocuous ox it is written "they shall divide its price" [Exodus 21:35] and regarding a forewarned one it is written "that person must restore ox for ox" [Exodus 21:36], which means that he must pay full damages -- that refers only to a case where a detached horn was used; if, for example, the animal held the horn between its teeth and gored with it. [Only] in that case would the innocuous ox not pay whole damages, because this is not its usual behavior, and it was not the owners' responsibility to protect against such a thing.

An ox [that is in the category of] disqualified consecrated [animals] - which had been redeemed [for profane use] and then fell into a pit -- the owner of the pit is exempt, as scripture states: "the one responsible for the pit must make restitution... but keeping the dead animal." [Exodus 21:34] This excludes this case where the dead animal does not [fully] belong to him -- even though it had been redeemed, if it dies, it is forbidden to feed it to the dogs, as is stated in Bekhorot [Bekhorot 15a:20]: "you may slaughter it" [Deuteronomy 12:15] -- but not shear it; "flesh" -- but not its milk; "you may eat" -- but not the dogs. That verse was dealing with disqualified consecrated [animals]. But, [on the other hand,] if an ox gored it, [as opposed to it falling into a pit, the owner of the ox] is liable, since scripture states "a neighbor's ox" [Exodus 21:35] -- even though it was [a disqualified consecrated animal that was] redeemed, it is [still] called "a neighbor's ox", and even though it states regarding Ox that "he shall keep the dead animal," [Exodus 21:36] [which ought to make the outcome like the case of a disqualified consecrated animal falling into a pit], we later on [Bava Kamma 10b:14] will establish that that refers to the owners attending to the carcass [and not that the carcass is free to be used for all purposes like shearing, milking, etc.]

And concluded with goring - "or if it is known that the ox was a goring ox" [Exodus 21:36]. It is not written that "the ox was in the habit of hurting" but rather "goring".