Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of an Ox that Kills a Person
Tort Law
Sources
A
§ With regard to Rabba’s statement that for an ox that killed a person unintentionally one is exempt from paying ransom, the Gemara relates that
when Rav Dimi came
from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that
Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
It would have been sufficient for the verse to state:
“A ransom
is laid on him.”
What
is the meaning when
the verse states: “If a ransom
is laid on him” (Exodus 21:30)? It is
to include
liability to pay
ransom
in a case where the ox killed
unintentionally…
Bava Kamma 43b:15-44b:4
Rava said: Actually,
it is a case
where
the animal
engaged in bestiality with her and killed her
in the process.
And as for the difficulty you
pose:
What
is the difference
to me
whether
it killed her with
its
horns,
and
what
is the difference
to me
whether
it killed her through bestiality,
the answer is that in that case of an animal killing with its
horn, its intention is to cause injury,
whereas in
this
case of killing through bestiality
its intention is to
achieve
its own pleasure.
…
Bava Kamma 41a:2-17
GEMARA:
The first clause of the mishna indicates that
the reason
the owner is exempt from paying compensation for the offspring when an ox unintentionally gores a pregnant woman is specifically
that it was intending to
gore
another
ox. By inference, if it
was intending to
gore
the woman,
the owner
pays compensation for
miscarried
offspring. Shall we say
that this
should be a conclusive refutation
of the opinion
of Rav Adda bar Ahava…
Bava Kamma 49a:3-5
§
Rabbi Keruspedai says
that
Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
With regard to
an ox that is stoned whose witnesses were rendered conspiring,anyone who takes possession
of the ox
acquires it,
as the owner of the ox relinquished his possession upon hearing that the animal is sentenced to die.
Keritot 24a:11
§
The Sages taught
in a
baraita
:
Stewards
are liable to
pay from
their
superior-quality
property for damage caused by forewarned oxen under their custody,
but they do not pay a ransom
if the oxen killed a person. The Gemara asks:
Who
is the
tanna
who
taught
that the purpose of
ransom
is
atonement
for the owner of the ox,
and
that therefore a minor orphan’s steward is exempt from liability to pay it, as
orphans are not subject to
the obligation of
atonement
since they are not morally responsible?…
Bava Kamma 40a:5-15
The Gemara quotes a related
halakha
.
The Sages taught:
In the case of
an innocuous ox that killed
a person
and
subsequently went and
caused damage,
the court
judges it
as a case of
capital law
and the ox is killed,
and
the court
does not judge it
as a case of
monetary law,
despite the damage that it caused. By contrast, in the case of
a forewarned
ox
that killed
a person
and
subsequently went and
caused damage,
the court
judges it
as a case of
monetary law…
Bava Kamma 90b:21-91a:4
The
tanna
then proceeds to discuss a different matter.
And an ox whose verdict was finalized,
that was sentenced to execution by stoning, and
that was intermingled with other ordinary oxen,
i.e., oxen that did not gore, the court
stones
all of
them. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are placed in a vaulted chamber.
The Gemara notes:
And it is taught
in a
baraita
: In the case of
a cow that killed
a person,
and thereafter calved, if
it was
before its verdict was finalized
that the cow
calved, its offspring is permitted…
Sanhedrin 80a:3-5
And Rava says: An ox
that is
a
tereifa
that killed
an individual is
liable
to be executed, like any animal that kills a person.
And an ox
belonging to
a person
who is
a
tereifa
that killed
an individual is
exempt. What is the reason
for this
halakha
? It is as
the verse states: “The ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death”
(Exodus 21:29). Based on the juxtaposition between the owner and his ox it is derived:
Anywhere that we
can
read concerning
the situation:
“And its owner shall…
Sanhedrin 78a:14-17
The Gemara asks:
And what do the Rabbis,
who deem the killer liable in that case and who therefore disagree with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion,
do with this
phrase:
“And he lay in wait for him”?
How do they interpret it? The Gemara answers that the Sages
of the school of Rabbi Yannai say
that this phrase
excludes
from liability
one who throws a stone into
an area where there are several people, some of whom are people for whom he would not be liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, e.g…
Bava Kamma 44b:12-15
Rather, Ravina says:
Emend the
baraita
and
say
that the distinction in the
baraita
is:
If before its verdict was finalized,
the cow
was impregnated and calved, its offspring is permitted. If before its verdict was finalized,
the cow
was impregnated and after its verdict was finalized it calved, its offspring is forbidden
because the legal status of
the fetus is
not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of
its mother’s thigh,
i.e., a part of its body…
Sanhedrin 80b:2
The
baraita
elucidates: The
stringency that applies to Ox as opposed to Pit
is
that
if
the ox
kills a Jew, the owner is liable to
pay a ransom
to the victim’s heirs.
And for
killing
a slave
the owner of the ox
is liable
to pay
thirty
sela
to the slave’s master. Furthermore, in such a case, once the court hears the evidence and the
verdict of
the ox
is complete
and the court rules that the ox must be killed, it is
prohibited to derive
any
benefit
from the ox…
Bava Kamma 9b:18
MISHNA:
In the case of
an ox that was intending to
gore
another
ox
but struck
a pregnant
woman, and her offspring,
i.e., the fetuses,
emerged
due to miscarriage, the owner of the ox is
exempt from
paying
compensation for
miscarried
offspring. But
in the case of
a person who was intending to
injure
another but struck
a pregnant
woman
instead,
and her offspring emerged
due to miscarriage,
he pays compensation for
miscarried
offspring.
Bava Kamma 48b:22
Reish Lakish says: In
the case where
a person
who was accused of killing another was intermingled with others,
everyone agrees that they are
all
exempt,
because one is not punished for a murder committed by others.
But here,
it is
with regard to an ox whose verdict
for goring a person to death
was not
yet
finalized, that was intermingled with other oxen whose verdict was
already
finalized,
that
they disagree. The Rabbis hold
that based on the juxtaposition between them (see Exodus 21:29)…
Sanhedrin 79b:13
Rather, here they disagree with regard to
the matter of
issuing the verdict for an ox in its absence. The Rabbis hold that the verdict for an ox can be issued only in its presence.
Therefore, the bailee is not exempt by returning it after the verdict,
as
the owner
could say to him: If you had returned
the ox
to me
before the verdict
I would have smuggled it to the marsh,
and the court would not have been able to sentence it to stoning.
Now you
have
let my ox be seized by
the court,
with whom I cannot engage in litigation.
Bava Kamma 45a:5
The Gemara suggests:
Come
and
hear
a solution based on the continuation of the above mishna: If
one caused the snake to bite
a person by bringing the fangs of the snake to the victim’s body, and the snake killed him,
Rabbi Yehuda deems
the one who instigated the attack
liable
to receive the death penalty
and the Rabbis exempt
him.
And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says
in explanation of the dispute: When you analyze the matter
you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda…
Bava Kamma 23b:8-11
§
The Sages taught:
With regard to salaried
laborers who came
into their employer’s courtyard
to claim their wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner’s ox gored them, or the homeowner’s dog bit them, and
a laborer
died,
the homeowner is
exempt. Others say
that he is liable, as salaried
laborers are allowed
to enter their employer’s property
to claim their wages from the homeowner.
Bava Kamma 33a:4
The Gemara answers:
No,
these are not the circumstances under discussion. This
halakha
is
necessary
only
with regard to a man who can
sometimes
be found
in town
and
sometimes
cannot be found
in town,
and
the laborers
called
to him
at the gate
of his courtyard,
and he said to them: Yes.
One
Sage,
referred to as the others,
holds
that the term
yes
in this context
indicates: Come in.
Therefore, he is liable for their death…
Bava Kamma 33a:6
Rabbi Akiva rejects this opinion:
No,
one could disagree and say the opposite:
I,
referring to the Torah,
am more stringent with regard to
the case of
a slave than
with regard to that of
a freeman; as
for
a freeman worth
one
sela
,
the ox’s owner
gives
only one
sela
,
and if he is worth
thirty
sela
he gives thirty. But
in the case of
a slave,
even if he was
worth
only one
sela
, he gives thirty
sela
…
Bava Kamma 42b:13-15
If the owner of an ox
conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower,
or
to a paid bailee, or to a renter,
and it caused damage while in their custody,
they enter
into the responsibilities and liabilities
in place of the owner.
Therefore, if it was
forewarned
the bailee
pays the full
cost of the
damage, and
if it was
innocuous he pays half
the cost of
the damage.
Bava Kamma 44b:22
If
a stadium [
ha’itztadin
] ox,
i.e., one that is trained to fight in a stadium, gores and kills a person, it
is not liable
to be put to
death, as it is stated:
“And
if an ox gores
a man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28). This is referring only to an ox that gores on its own initiative,
but not to
the case of an ox where others
induced it to gore.
Therefore, the owner of a stadium ox, which is trained to gore, is exempt from liability if it does.
GEMARA:
The Gemara comments:
This matter itself is difficult…
Bava Kamma 39a:6-9
Tort Law
דיני נזיקין
Laws of Damages from Animals
Laws of Damages from an Ox that Gored
Laws of an Ox that Kills a Person
Laws of Damages from a Pit
Laws of Damages from a Fire
Laws of Measures and Weights
Laws of Kidnapping
Laws of Robbery
Laws of Lost Objects
Injury Law
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
