| 20If a man strikes his non-Jewish bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and he or she dies under his hand, he or she must be avenged. |
|
כוְכִֽי־יַכֶּה֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּ֜וֹ א֤וֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ֙ בַּשֵּׁ֔בֶט וּמֵ֖ת תַּ֣חַת יָד֑וֹ נָקֹ֖ם יִנָּקֵֽם: |
| וְכִֽי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ - If a man strikes his bondman or bondwoman. The verse is speaking about a Canaanite bondman. Or perhaps it is speaking only about a Hebrew bondman? Scripture therefore states: “since he is his master’s property” – just as his property is acquired to him forever, so, too, this bondman is one who is acquired to him forever. Now, was not this case included in the general statement: “He who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death”? So why is it repeated here? Only because Scripture singled out the case of a Canaanite bondservant in order to apply to it the law of “one full day,” i.e., that if the bondservant did not die under the master’s hand but waited at least 24 hours before dying, the master is free of liability. |
|
וְכִֽי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ.
בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּעִבְרִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמָר כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא, מַה כַּסְפּוֹ קָנוּי לוֹ עוֹלָמִית, אַף עֶבֶד הַקָּנוּי לוֹ עוֹלָמִית; וַהֲרֵי הָיָה בִכְלַל מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת? אֶלָּא בָא הַכָּתוּב וְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַכְּלָל, לִהְיוֹת נָדוֹן בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, שֶׁאִם לֹא מֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ וְשָׁהָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת פָּטוּר (מכילתא):
|
| בַּשֵּׁבֶט - With a rod. Scripture is speaking of an implement capable of killing him. Or perhaps it applies even to an implement not capable of killing him? Scripture therefore states regarding a full-fledged Israelite: “if he struck him with a deadly fist-sized stone and he died, he…must be put to death” – and we may thus apply an a fortiori argument: If in the case of an Israelite, about whom the laws are more stringent regarding one who kills him, one is not liable for killing him unless he struck him with something capable of killing him, and on a part of the body susceptible to a lethal blow – a Canaanite bondservant, who in this respect is less stringent, all the more is this so. |
|
בַּשֵּׁבֶט.
כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמָר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאִם בְּאֶבֶן יָד אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בָּהּ הִכָּהוּ (במדבר ל"ה), וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר: מַה יִּשְׂרָאֵל חָמוּר אֵין חַיָּב עָלָיו אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִכָּהוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית וְעַל אֵבֶר שֶׁהוּא כְדֵי לָמוּת בְּהַכָּאָה זוֹ, עֶבֶד הַקַּל לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן (מכילתא):
|
| נָקֹם יִנָּקֵֽם - He must be avenged. This term refers to execution by the sword, for so Scripture says elsewhere: “I will bring against you (lit.) the sword that will avenge your disloyalty to the covenant.” |
|
נָקֹם יִנָּקֵֽם.
מִיתַת סַיִף, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר חֶרֶב נֹקֶמֶת נְקַם בְּרִית (ויקרא כ"ו):
|
| 21However, if the bondservant survives for at least one full day, he must not be avenged, since he is his master’s property. |
|
כאאַ֥ךְ אִם־י֛וֹם א֥וֹ יוֹמַ֖יִם יַֽעֲמֹ֑ד לֹ֣א יֻקַּ֔ם כִּ֥י כַסְפּ֖וֹ הֽוּא: |
| אַךְ אִם־יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַֽעֲמֹד לֹא יֻקַּם - (lit.) However, if he survives for one or two days, he must not be avenged. If when he remains alive for one day the master is free of the death penalty, when he remains alive for two days, is it not obvious? Rather, it is referring here to a day that resembles two days, and what is that? A 24-hour period. |
|
אַךְ אִם־יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַֽעֲמֹד לֹא יֻקַּם.
אִם עַל יוֹם אֶחָד הוּא פָּטוּר עַל יוֹמַיִם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא יוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְיוֹמַיִם, וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה מֵעֵת לְעֵת (מכילתא):
|
| לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הֽוּא - He must not be avenged, since he is his [master’s] property - The implication is that any other person who struck and killed him, even though he waited 24 hours before dying, is liable for the death penalty. |
|
לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הֽוּא.
הָא אַחֵר שֶׁהִכָּהוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁהָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת קֹדֶם שֶׁמֵּת, חַיָּב:
|
| 22If men are fighting and they accidentally collide with a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry though not causing her a fatal injury, then the guilty party must be fined when the woman’s husband sues him, and he must pay at the court’s discretion. |
|
כבוְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָֽצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵֽעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים: |
| וְכִֽי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים - If men are fighting - i.e., with each other, and one intended to hit the other but instead hit the woman. |
|
וְכִֽי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים.
זֶה עִם זֶה, וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה:
|
| וְנָגְפוּ - (lit.) And they strike. The term נְגִיפָה always means nothing other than “dashing against” or “striking,” as in: “so that your foot does not get dashed (תִּגֹּף) against a stone”; “when your feet have not yet been dashed (יִתְנַגְּפוּ) upon dark mountains”; וּלְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף “and as a stone to be dashed against.” |
|
וְנָגְפוּ.
אֵין נְגִיפָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן דְּחִיפָה וְהַכָּאָה, כְּמוֹ פֶּן תִּגֹּף בָּאֶבֶן רַגְלֶךָ (תהילים צ"א), בְּטֶרֶם יִתְנַגְּפוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם (ירמיהו י"ג) וּלְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף (ישעיהו ח'):
|
| וְלֹא יִֽהְיֶה אָסוֹן - (lit.) But there is no fatal injury - to the woman. |
|
וְלֹא יִֽהְיֶה אָסוֹן.
בָּאִשָּׁה:
|
| עָנוֹשׁ יֵֽעָנֵשׁ - [The guilty party] must be fined - by paying the value of the miscarried offspring to the husband of the stricken woman; i.e., we evaluate how much she would be worth if sold in the slave market and how much her price would increase because of her pregnancy. |
|
עָנוֹשׁ יֵֽעָנֵשׁ.
לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל; שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לִמָּכֵר בַּשּׁוּק לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּדָמֶיהָ בִּשְׁבִיל הֶרְיוֹנָהּ:
|
| עָנוֹשׁ יֵֽעָנֵשׁ - [The guilty party] must (lit.) be punished. This term means that money will be collected from him, as we find: “they must fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him 100 shekels of silver.” |
|
עָנוֹשׁ יֵֽעָנֵשׁ.
יִגְבּוּ מָמוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּמוֹ וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף (דברים כ"ב):
|
| כַּֽאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו וגו' - (lit.) When [the woman’s husband] places upon him…. means: “when the woman’s husband claims against him in court to place a fine upon him for this.” |
|
כַּֽאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו וגו'.
כְּשֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ הַבַּעַל בְּבֵית דִּין לְהָשִׁית עָלָיו עֹנֶשׁ עַל כָּךְ:
|
| וְנָתַן - And he must pay - i.e., the one who struck the woman must pay the value of the miscarried offspring. |
|
וְנָתַן.
הַמַּכֶּה דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת:
|
| בִּפְלִלִֽים - means “according to the ruling of the judges.” |
|
בִּפְלִלִֽים.
– עַל פִּי הַדַּיָּנִים (מכילתא):
|
| 23If, however, she suffers a fatal injury, you must exact the monetary compensation of a life for a life. |
|
כגוְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִֽהְיֶ֑ה וְנָֽתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ: |
| וְאִם־אָסוֹן יִֽהְיֶה - (lit.) If, however, there is a fatal injury - to the woman. |
|
וְאִם־אָסוֹן יִֽהְיֶה.
בָּאִשָּׁה:
|
| וְנָֽתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָֽפֶשׁ - You must exact (lit.) a life for a life. Our rabbis differ in the explanation of this: Some say that it means an actual life, but some say that it means monetary compensation and not an actual life, for one who intended to kill one person and inadvertently killed another is not liable to the death penalty, but pays the victim’s heirs his value according to how much he would be sold for in the slave market. |
|
וְנָֽתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָֽפֶשׁ.
רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חוֹלְקִים בַּדָּבָר, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מָמוֹן אֲבָל לֹא נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁהַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר מִמִּיתָה, וּמְשַׁלֵּם לְיוֹרְשָׁיו דָּמָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה נִמְכָּר בַּשּׁוּק (שם):
|
| 24Monetary compensation for an eye must be made for the loss of sight in an eye, of a tooth for a tooth, of a hand for a hand, and of a leg for a leg. |
|
כדעַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל: |
| עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן - (lit.) An eye for an eye. This means: If one blinded the eye of his fellow, he must pay him the value of his eye, i.e., how much his value has depreciated when being sold in the slave market as a result of losing his eye; and the same meaning applies to all the subsequent cases mentioned here. It does not, however, mean the actual removal of the assailant’s limb, as our rabbis explained in Chapter HaChovel. |
|
עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן.
סִמֵּא עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ כַּמָּה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו לִמְכֹּר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם; וְלֹא נְטִילַת אֵבֶר מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא דף פ"ג):
|
| 25Likewise, monetary compensation for the pain suffered for a burn must be made for a burn, that for a bleeding wound for a wound, and that for a bloodless bruise for a bruise. |
|
כהכְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה: |
| כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה - (lit.) A burn for a burn. כְּוִיָּה is a burn caused by fire. Up to now, in the previous verse, Scripture was speaking of injuries that cause depreciation in the victim’s market value, but now, in this verse, Scripture is speaking of injuries that do not cause depreciation in market value but only pain; e.g., if he burned him on his fingernails with a hot spit, we estimate how much a person of similar stature to the victim would agree to accept for undergoing such pain. |
|
כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה.
מִכְוַת אֵשׁ; וְעַד עַכְשָׁו דִּבֵּר בְּחַבָּלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּחַת דָּמִים, וְעַכְשָׁיו בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ פְּחַת דָּמִים אֶלָּא צַעַר, כְּגוֹן כְּוָאוֹ בִשְׁפוּד עַל צִפָּרְנָיו, אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה רוֹצֶה לִטֹּל לִהְיוֹת מִצְטַעֵר כָּךְ (בבא קמא פ"ג):
|
| פֶּצַע - A wound-
is a wound that draws blood, i.e., he wounded his flesh; “navredure” in Old French. The degree of payment, however, all depends on what kind of wound it is: If it caused depreciation in the victim’s market value, the assailant pays compensation of the damage; and if the victim is confined to bed, he pays him for his loss of work, medical costs, embarrassment, and pain.
Now, this part of the verse is apparently superfluous, but in Chapter HaChovel our rabbis explained it as teaching us that the assailant is liable to pay for the victim’s pain even where he must already pay him compensation for the damage – for although he gives him the value of his hand, we do not exempt him from paying for his pain by saying that since he “acquired” his hand, he may cut it off in any way he wishes; rather, we say: he ought to have cut it off through a drug by which the victim would not suffer so much pain, but this assailant instead cut it off with an iron instrument and caused him pain.
|
|
פֶּצַע.
הִיא מַכָּה הַמּוֹצִיאָה דָם, שֶׁפָּצַע אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ, נבר"ורא בְּלַעַז; הַכֹּל לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא – אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ פְּחַת דָּמִים, נוֹתֵן נֶזֶק, וְאִם נָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב, נוֹתֵן שֶׁבֶת וְרִפּוּי וּבֹשֶׁת וְצַעַר; וּמִקְרָא זֶה יָתֵר הוּא, וּבְהַחוֹבֵל דְּרָשׁוּהוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ לְחַיֵּב עַל הַצַּעַר אֲפִלּוּ בִמְקוֹם נֶזֶק – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי יָדוֹ, אֵין פּוֹטְרִים אוֹתוֹ מִן הַצַּעַר, לוֹמַר, הוֹאִיל וְקָנָה יָדוֹ יֵשׁ עָלָיו לְחָתְכָהּ בְּכָל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה, אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים, יֵשׁ לוֹ לְחָתְכָהּ בְּסַם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִצְטַעֵר כָּל כָּךְ, וְזֶה חֲתָכָהּ בְּבַרְזֶל וְצִעֲרוֹ:
|
| חַבּוּרָה - A bruise - is a wound where the blood collects beneath the skin and does not come out, but just turns the skin there red. The term חַבּוּרָה means “tache” in Old French (“spot”), as in: “or a leopard change its spots (חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו).” But Onkelos’ translation of חַבּוּרָה is מַשְׁקוֹפֵי, which connotes beating; “batedure” in Old French (“blow”). Similarly, Onkelos translates שְׁדוּפֹת קָדִים as שְׁקִיפָן קִדּוּם “beaten by the east wind”; and similarly the term עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף “upon the lintel”: it is so called because the door bangs upon it. |
|
חַבּוּרָה.
הִיא מַכָּה שֶׁהַדָּם נִצְרָר בָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּאֲדִים הַבָּשָׂר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, וּלְשׁוֹן חַבּוּרָה טק"א בְּלַעַז, כְּמוֹ וְנָמֵר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו (ירמיהו י"ג), וְתַרְגּוּמוֹ מַשְׁקוֹפֵי, לְשׁוֹן חֲבָטָה, בטדו"רא בְּלַעַז, וְכֵן שְׁדוּפוֹת קָדִים (בראשית מ"א), שְׁקִיפָן קִדּוּם – חֲבוּטוֹת בָּרוּחַ, וְכֵן עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהַדֶּלֶת נוֹקֵשׁ עָלָיו:
|
| 26If a person strikes the eye of his non-Jewish bondman or the eye of his non-Jewish bondwoman and ruins his eyesight, he must free him or her as compensation for the loss of his or her eye. |
|
כווְכִֽי־יַכֶּ֨ה אִ֜ישׁ אֶת־עֵ֥ין עַבְדּ֛וֹ אֽוֹ־אֶת־עֵ֥ין אֲמָת֖וֹ וְשִֽׁחֲתָ֑הּ לַֽחָפְשִׁ֥י יְשַׁלְּחֶ֖נּוּ תַּ֥חַת עֵינֽוֹ: |
| אֶת־עֵין עַבְדּוֹ - The eye of his bondman - i.e., his Canaanite bondservant, but a Hebrew bondservant does not go free with the loss of his tooth or eye, as we explained above on the words לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים. |
|
אֶת־עֵין עַבְדּוֹ.
כְּנַעֲנִי, אֲבָל עִבְרִי אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְשֵׁן וְעַיִן, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים:
|
| תַּחַת עֵינֽוֹ - As compensation for his eye. The same applies if he damages any of the 24 protruding limbs: i.e., ten fingers, ten toes, two ears, the nose, and the tip of the organ, which is the membrum. Why, then, does Scripture specify a tooth and an eye? The answer is that if only an eye were mentioned and not a tooth, I would have said that just as an eye is created with him from birth, so, too, any other tip of a limb to which this law applies must be one that is created with him from birth, and a tooth is not created with him and is therefore excluded. And if a tooth were mentioned and not an eye, I would have said that the law applies even to a baby tooth, which will be replaced if knocked out. It therefore also mentions an eye. |
|
תַּחַת עֵינֽוֹ.
וְכֵן בְּכ"ד רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים: אֶצְבְּעוֹת הַיָּדַיִם וְהָרַגְלַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי אָזְנַיִם, וְהַחֹטֶם, וְרֹאשׁ הַגְּוִיָּה שֶׁהוּא גִּיד הָאַמָּה. וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שֵׁן וְעַיִן? שֶׁאִם נֶאֱמַר עַיִן וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר שֵׁן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר מָה עַיִן שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ אַף כָּל שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ, וַהֲרֵי שֵׁן לֹא נִבְרָא עִמּוֹ; וְאִם נֶאֱמַר שֵׁן וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר עַיִן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר אֲפִלּוּ שֵׁן תִּינוֹק שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ חֲלִיפִין, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר עַיִן (מכילתא):
|
| 27If he knocks out the tooth of his bondman or the tooth of his bondwoman, he must free him or her as compensation for the loss of his or her tooth. |
|
כזוְאִם־שֵׁ֥ן עַבְדּ֛וֹ אוֹ־שֵׁ֥ן אֲמָת֖וֹ יַפִּ֑יל לַֽחָפְשִׁ֥י יְשַׁלְּחֶ֖נּוּ תַּ֥חַת שִׁנּֽוֹ: |
| 28If a work-bull gores a man or woman and the victim dies, the work-bull must be stoned; its meat may not be eaten. But the owner of the work-bull must be acquitted. |
|
כחוְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵֽאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי: |
| וְכִֽי־יִגַּח שׁוֹר - If a work-bull gores. The law of this verse applies to both a work-bull or to any other animal, beast, or bird, but Scripture typically speaks of a common occurrence. |
|
וְכִֽי־יִגַּח שׁוֹר.
אֶחָד שׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וָעוֹף, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהֹוֶה (בבא קמא נ"ד):
|
| וְלֹא יֵֽאָכֵל אֶת־בְּשָׂרוֹ - Its meat may not be eaten. From what is implied by that which it says: “the work-bull must be stoned,” do I not know that it is a carcass, not having been ritually slaughtered, and a carcass is forbidden to eat? Why then does Scripture state: “its meat may not be eaten”? To tell us that even if he slaughtered it correctly after it was sentenced to be stoned, it is still forbidden to eat. And from where do I know that it is forbidden even to derive any benefit from it? Because Scripture states: וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי (lit.) “and the owner of the work-bull is clean,” which can be understood in the same sense as when a man says to another: יָצָא פְּלוֹנִי נָקִי מִנְּכָסָיו “so-and-so was cleaned out of his possessions” and has no benefit whatsoever from them. This is its Midrashic explanation. But its straightforward meaning follows the literal sense: Since it says regarding a mu’ad (lit. “warned,” i.e., a repeat-offender): “its owner, too, will be put to death,” it was necessary to say regarding a tam (lit. “harmless,” i.e., a first-offender): “but the owner of the work-bull must be acquitted.” |
|
וְלֹא יֵֽאָכֵל אֶת־בְּשָׂרוֹ.
מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא נְבֵלָה וּנְבֵלָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה? אֶלָּא מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ? שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, בַּהֲנָאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמָר וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי, כְּאָדָם הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ יָצָא פְּלוֹנִי נָקִי מִנְּכָסָיו וְאֵין לוֹ בָהֶם הַנָּאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם, זֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ (בבא קמא מ"א). וּפְשׁוּטוֹ כְמַשְׁמָעוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּמּוּעָד וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת, הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר בַּתָּם וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי:
|
| 29However, if it was a work-bull that had gored on three previous occasions, and its owner had been warned in court but he did not guard it, and it then killed a man or a woman, the work-bull must be stoned. Its owner, too, will be put to death. |
|
כטוְאִ֡ם שׁוֹר֩ נַגָּ֨ח ה֜וּא מִתְּמֹ֣ל שִׁלְשֹׁ֗ם וְהוּעַ֤ד בִּבְעָלָיו֙ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְרֶ֔נּוּ וְהֵמִ֥ית אִ֖ישׁ א֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֑ה הַשּׁוֹר֙ יִסָּקֵ֔ל וְגַם־בְּעָלָ֖יו יוּמָֽת: |
| מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם - (lit.) Yesterday [and] the day before. Thus making three gorings in total. |
|
מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם.
הֲרֵי שָׁלֹשׁ נְגִיחוֹת (מכילתא):
|
| וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו - And its owner had been warned. This term denotes warning through witnesses (עֵדִים), as in: הָעֵד הֵעִד בָּנוּ הָאִישׁ “The man sternly warned us.” |
|
וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו.
לְשׁוֹן הַתְרָאָה בְעֵדִים, כְּמוֹ הָעֵד הֵעִד בָּנוּ הָאִישׁ (בראשית מ"ג):
|
| וְהֵמִית אִישׁ וגו' - And it killed a man… Since it says above: “if a work-bull gores,” I might have thought that this law applies only if it killed by goring. From where do I know that it also applies if it killed by biting, pushing, crushing, or kicking? Scripture therefore states: “and it killed” – in any manner. |
|
וְהֵמִית אִישׁ וגו'.
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִגַּח אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהֱמִיתוֹ בִנְגִיחָה, הֱמִיתוֹ בִנְשִׁיכָה, דְּחִיפָה, בְּעִיטָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהֵמִית:
|
| וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָֽת - Its owner, too, will be put to death - by a Heavenly act. I might think that the intention is to death by human act, i.e., by the court. Scripture therefore states elsewhere: “the assailant must be put to death; he is a murderer” – for his own act of murder you execute him, but you do not execute him for his work-bull’s act of murder. |
|
וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָֽת.
בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. יָכוֹל בִּידֵי אָדָם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה רוֹצֵחַ הוּא, עַל רְצִיחָתוֹ אַתָּה הוֹרְגוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה הוֹרְגוֹ עַל רְצִיחַת שׁוֹרוֹ (סנהדרין ט"ו):
|
| 30When the atonement fine is imposed on him, he must pay whatever sum is imposed on him by the court as ransom for his life. |
|
לאִם־כֹּ֖פֶר יוּשַׁ֣ת עָלָ֑יו וְנָתַן֙ פִּדְיֹ֣ן נַפְשׁ֔וֹ כְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁ֖ת עָלָֽיו: |
| אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו - (lit.) If an atonement fine is imposed on him. The word אִם here is not conditional, meaning “if,” but it is absolute, as in אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה “When you lend money”; here it means אֲשֶׁר, and the verse is thus saying: This is the law of the owner – that the court impose an atonement fine upon him. |
|
אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו.
"אִם" זֶה אֵינוֹ תָלוּי, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה" – לְשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר, זֶה מִשְׁפָּטוֹ שֶׁיָּשִׁיתוּ עָלָיו בֵּית דִּין כֹּפֶר:
|
| וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ - He must pay…ransom for his life. i.e., the value of the victim; this is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. But Rabbi Akiva says that it means the value of the damaging party. |
|
וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ.
דְּמֵי נִזָּק דִּבְרֵי רַ' יִשְׁמָעֵאל, רַ' עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר דְּמֵי מַזִּיק (מכילתא):
|
| 31If the work-bull gores and kills a boy or a girl, the owner must be dealt with according to the same law. |
|
לאאוֹ־בֵ֥ן יִגָּ֖ח אוֹ־בַ֣ת יִגָּ֑ח כַּמִּשְׁפָּ֥ט הַזֶּ֖ה יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לוֹ: |
| אוֹ־בֵן יִגָּח - If it gores (lit.) a son - i.e., a boy who is a minor. |
|
אוֹ־בֵן יִגָּח.
בֵּן שֶׁהוּא קָטָן:
|
| אוֹ־בַת - (lit.) Or a daughter - who is a minor. Since it says above: “and it killed a man or a woman,” I might have thought that one is liable only for the death of an adult. Scripture therefore states: “If it gores a boy…,” to make one liable for the killing of a minor just like for an adult. |
|
אוֹ־בַת.
שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה; לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה, יָכוֹל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח וְגוֹ', לְחַיֵּב עַל הַקְּטַנִּים כַּגְּדוֹלִים (שם):
|
| 32If the work-bull gores a non-Jewish bondman or bondwoman, the work-bull’s owner must pay a fixed fine of 30 silver shekels to his or her master and the work-bull must be stoned. |
|
לבאִם־עֶ֛בֶד יִגַּ֥ח הַשּׁ֖וֹר א֣וֹ אָמָ֑ה כֶּ֣סֶף | שְׁלשִׁ֣ים שְׁקָלִ֗ים יִתֵּן֙ לַֽאדֹנָ֔יו וְהַשּׁ֖וֹר יִסָּקֵֽל: |
| אִם־עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה - If [the work-bull gores] a bondman or bondwoman - i.e., Canaanite ones. |
|
אִם־עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה.
כְּנַעֲנִיִּים:
|
| שְׁלשִׁים שְׁקָלִים יִתֵּן - [Its owner] must pay 30 shekels. This is a special decree of the Torah, whether the bondservant be worth a thousand zuz or worth only one dinar. A shekel’s weight is the same as four golden dinars, which are together half an ounce according to the standard weight of Cologne. |
|
שְׁלשִׁים שְׁקָלִים יִתֵּן.
גְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב הוּא, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה אֶלֶף זוּז בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֶלָּא דִּינָר. וְהַשֶּׁקֶל מִשְׁקָלוֹ אַרְבָּעָה זְהוּבִים שֶׁהֵם חֲצִי אֻנְקִיָא לְמִשְׁקָל הַיָּשָׁר שֶׁל קוֹלוֹנְיָ"א:
|
| 33If a person removes the cover of a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and a work-bull or a donkey falls into it, |
|
לגוְכִֽי־יִפְתַּ֨ח אִ֜ישׁ בּ֗וֹר א֠וֹ כִּֽי־יִכְרֶ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ בֹּ֖ר וְלֹ֣א יְכַסֶּ֑נּוּ וְנָֽפַל־שָׁ֥מָּה שּׁ֖וֹר א֥וֹ חֲמֽוֹר: |
| וְכִֽי־יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר - (lit.) If a person opens a pit - i.e., it had been covered and he now uncovered it. |
|
וְכִֽי־יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר.
שֶׁהָיָה מְכֻסֶּה וְגִלָּהוּ:
|
| אוֹ כִּֽי־יִכְרֶה - Or digs a pit. Why does this need to be said? If for uncovering an existing pit he is liable for any consequent damage, then for actually digging one all the more so! Rather it is written so as to include one who digs a pit deeper after another has dug it first, that he alone is liable. |
|
אוֹ כִּֽי־יִכְרֶה.
לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אִם עַל הַפְּתִיחָה חַיָּב עַל הַכְּרִיָּה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא כוֹרֶה אַחַר כּוֹרֶה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב (בבא קמא נ"א):
|
| וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ - And does not cover it. Implied is that if he did cover it, he is exempt; and the verse is speaking of one who digs a pit in the public domain. |
|
וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ.
הָא אִם כִּסָּהוּ פָּטוּר; וּבְחוֹפֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב:
|
| שּׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמֽוֹר - A work-bull or a donkey. The same law applies regarding any animal or beast, for wherever Scripture says: “a work-bull and a donkey” we learn that it refers to all animals by means of an analogy (גְזֵרָה שָׁוָה) between the word שׁוֹר written there and the word שׁוֹר written in the section about the Sabbath, as it says: לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ “so that your work-bull and your donkey may rest” – just as the law of the Sabbath applies to any animal or beast just as to a work-bull, for it says elsewhere regarding that law: “any of your animals,” so too, here, the law applies equally to any domestic or wild animal as to a work-bull. The reason, however, that “a work-bull and a donkey” are stated here explicitly is merely to imply that one is liable only for damage to “a work-bull” falling into a pit, but not to people; to “a donkey,” but not to utensils. |
|
שּׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמֽוֹר.
הוּא הַדִּין לְכָל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר אָנוּ לְמֵדִין אוֹתוֹ שׁוֹר שׁוֹר מִשַּׁבָּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ (שמות כ"ג), מַה לְּהַלָּן כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה כְּשׁוֹר – שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְכָל בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ (דברים ה') – אַף כָּאן כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה כְּשׁוֹר, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר אֶלָּא שׁוֹר וְלֹא אָדָם, חֲמוֹר וְלֹא כֵלִים (בבא קמא נ"ג):
|
| 34the one responsible for making the pit must make restitution. He must restore the value of the animal to its owner, and the carcass remains its owner’s property. |
|
לדבַּ֤עַל הַבּוֹר֙ יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם כֶּ֖סֶף יָשִׁ֣יב לִבְעָלָ֑יו וְהַמֵּ֖ת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ: |
| בַּעַל הַבּוֹר - (lit.) The owner of the pit - i.e., he is deemed the owner of the hazard although the pit is not actually his; seeing as he made it in the public domain, Scripture regards him as its owner to be liable for the damages caused by it. |
|
בַּעַל הַבּוֹר.
בַּעַל הַתַּקָּלָה; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבּוֹר שֶׁלּוֹ – שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ בִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – עֲשָׂאוֹ הַכָּתוּב בְּעָלָיו לְהִתְחַיֵּב עָלָיו בִּנְזָקָיו:
|
| כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו - (lit.) He shall restore the money to its owner. The seemingly extra word יָשִׁיב is added to include anything of monetary value as being suitable for payment, even bran. |
|
כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו.
יָשִׁיב לְרַבּוֹת שְׁוֵה כֶסֶף וַאֲפִלּוּ סֻבִּין (שם ז'):
|
| וְהַמֵּת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ - (lit.) And the dead [animal] will belong to him - i.e., to the damaged party; we evaluate the carcass and he takes it as part-payment, and then the damaging party adds to its value the remaining payment for his damage. |
|
וְהַמֵּת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ.
לַנִּזָּק; שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּבֵלָה וְנוֹטְלָהּ בְּדָמִים וּמְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ הַמַּזִּיק עָלֶיהָ תַשְׁלוּמֵי נִזְקוֹ (בבא קמא י'):
|
| 35If one man’s work-bull attacks his fellow’s work-bull and the attacked work-bull dies, the owners must sell the live work-bull and divide the proceeds, and they must also divide the value of the carcass. |
|
להוְכִֽי־יִגֹּ֧ף שֽׁוֹר־אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־שׁ֥וֹר רֵעֵ֖הוּ וָמֵ֑ת וּמָ֨כְר֜וּ אֶת־הַשּׁ֤וֹר הַחַי֙ וְחָצ֣וּ אֶת־כַּסְפּ֔וֹ וְגַ֥ם אֶת־הַמֵּ֖ת יֶֽחֱצֽוּן: |
| וְכִֽי־יִגֹּף - means literally: if a work-bull thrusts. Whether it attacked with its horns, with its body, or with its feet, or it bit the victim with its teeth – these are all included in the term נְגִיפָה, for נְגִיפָה means nothing other than dealing a blow. |
|
וְכִֽי־יִגֹּף.
יִדְחֹף; בֵּין בְּקַרְנָיו, בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ, בֵּין בְּרַגְלוֹ, בֵּין שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ בְשִׁנָּיו, כֻּלָּן בִּכְלַל נְגִיפָה הֵם, שֶׁאֵין נְגִיפָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן מַכָּה:
|
| שֽׁוֹר־אִישׁ - means “the work-bull of a man.” |
|
שֽׁוֹר־אִישׁ.
שׁוֹר שֶׁל אִישׁ:
|
| וּמָכְרוּ אֶת־הַשּׁוֹר וגו' - They must sell the [live] work-bull…
The verse is speaking of where the two animals were equal in value: if one work-bull worth 200 zuz killed another work-bull worth 200 zuz, then whether the carcass of the dead animal is worth much or little, when one party takes half the value of the living animal and half that of the dead one, and the other likewise takes half the value of the living animal and half that of the dead one, the result is that each one suffers the loss of half the damage caused by the death of the animal. We thus learn that a tam (first-offender) pays for half the damage it causes, for from our case where the two bulls were equal in value you may infer that the same applies where they were not equal in value, that the law of the tam is to pay for half the damage it causes, no less and no more. Or perhaps Scripture is speaking even of where the two bulls were not equal in value when alive, that then too they should divide the value of both animals? This cannot be, for if you say so, sometimes the damaging party will end up with a great profit, if the carcass can be sold to non-Jews for a much greater sum than the value of the attacking bull – and it is untenable that Scripture say that the damaging party should profit! Or sometimes it would happen that the damaged party receives much more in compensation than the value of the entire damage, if half the value of the attacking bull is more than the entire value of the attacked bull – and if you say that this is so, it will be that the law of a tam (first-offender) is sometimes more stringent than that of a mu’ad (repeat-offender)! You must therefore agree that Scripture is speaking specifically of where the two bulls were equal in value, and it teaches you that a tam pays for half the damage, and from the case where they were equal in value you may infer what to do in a case where they were not equal in value, that regarding one who is to be paid half the damage done to his animal, we evaluate for him the carcass, and that which the animal has depreciated as a result of its death, he takes half of the depreciation together with the carcass and goes his way.
And why did the verse use this form of expression and not say simply: “he must pay for half of it”? It is in order to teach us that a tam pays for what it damages only up to its own value, and if it gored and then died, the damaged party takes only the carcass of the attacking bull, and if its value does not reach half the damage done to his animal, he loses out; similarly, if a bull worth a maneh gored a bull worth 500 zuz, the damaged party receives only the value of the attacking bull, for the action of a tam does not carry responsibility to make its owner liable to pay from his own best property.
|
|
וּמָכְרוּ אֶת־הַשּׁוֹר וגו'.
בְּשָׁוִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר – שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁהֵמִית שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם – בֵּין שֶׁהַנְּבֵלָה שָׁוָה הַרְבֵּה, בֵּין שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה מְעַט, כְּשֶׁנּוֹטֵל זֶה חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת וְזֶה חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, נִמְצָא כָל אֶחָד מַפְסִיד חֲצִי נֶזֶק שֶׁהִזִּיקָה הַמִּיתָה; לִמְּדָנוּ שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, שֶׁמִּן הַשָּׁוִין אַתָּה לָמֵד לְשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִין, כִּי דִּין הַתָּם לְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק – לֹא פָּחוֹת וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. אוֹ יָכוֹל אַף בְּשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִין בִּדְמֵיהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן חַיִּים אָמַר הַכָּתוּב יֶחֱצוּ אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם? אִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵן, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַמַּזִּיק מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַרְבֵּה, כְּשֶׁהַנְּבֵלָה שָׁוָה לִמָּכֵר לְנָכְרִים הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִדְּמֵי שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַכָּתוּב שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמַּזִּיק נִשְׂכָּר; אוֹ פְעָמִים שֶׁהַנִּזָּק נוֹטֵל הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִדְּמֵי נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם – שֶׁחֲצִי דְּמֵי שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק שָׁוִין יוֹתֵר מִכָּל דְּמֵי שׁוֹר הַנִּזָּק – וְאִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵן, הֲרֵי תָם חָמוּר מִמּוּעָד. עַל כָּרְחֲךָ לֹא דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בְּשָׁוִין, וְלִמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמִן הַשָּׁוִין תִּלְמֹד לְשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִין, שֶׁהַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּם חֲצִי נִזְקוֹ שָׁמִין לוֹ אֶת הַנְּבֵלָה, וּמַה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו בִּשְׁבִיל הַמִּיתָה, נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַפְּחָת וְהוֹלֵךְ. וְלָמָה אָמַר הַכָּתוּב בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה וְלֹא אָמַר יְשַׁלֵּם חֶצְיוֹ? לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאֵין הַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מִגּוּפוֹ, וְאִם נָגַח וּמֵת, אֵין נִּזָּק נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא הַנְּבֵלָה, וְאִם אֵינָהּ מַגַּעַת לַחֲצִי נִזְקוֹ יַפְסִיד; אוֹ שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה, שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז, אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא אֶת הַשּׁוֹר, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב הַתָּם לְחַיֵּב אֶת בְּעָלָיו לְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּה (בבא קמא ל"ג):
|
| 36However, if the work-bull was known to have gored on three previous occasions yet its owner did not guard it, he must pay the full value of a work-bull in compensation for the work-bull, and the carcass remains its owner’s property. |
|
לוא֣וֹ נוֹדַ֗ע כִּ֠י שׁ֣וֹר נַגָּ֥ח הוּא֙ מִתְּמ֣וֹל שִׁלְשֹׁ֔ם וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְרֶ֖נּוּ בְּעָלָ֑יו שַׁלֵּ֨ם יְשַׁלֵּ֥ם שׁוֹר֙ תַּ֣חַת הַשּׁ֔וֹר וְהַמֵּ֖ת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ: |
| אוֹ נוֹדַע - (lit.) Or it was known – means: or it was not a tam, but “it was known to be a goring work-bull” today and מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם - (lit.) “yesterday and the day before,” thus making three gorings in total. |
|
אוֹ נוֹדַע.
אוֹ לֹא הָיָה תָם, אֶלָּא נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא, הַיּוֹם וּמִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם הֲרֵי שָׁלֹשׁ נְגִיחוֹת:
|
| שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹר - (lit.) He must pay a work-bull - i.e., the full value of the damage. |
|
שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹר.
נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:
|
| וְהַמֵּת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ - (lit.) And the dead [animal] will belong to him - i.e., to the damaged party, and the damaging party must add payment to it so that the damaged party is fully compensated for the damage. |
|
וְהַמֵּת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ.
לַנִּזָּק; וְעָלָיו יַשְׁלִים הַמַּזִּיק עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּלֵּם נִזָּק כָּל נִזְקוֹ:
|
| 37If a person steals a work-bull, sheep, or goat and slaughters or sells it, he must repay five cattle in place of the work-bull and four sheep or goats in place of the sheep or goat. |
|
לזכִּ֤י יִגְנֹֽב־אִישׁ֙ שׁ֣וֹר אוֹ־שֶׂ֔ה וּטְבָח֖וֹ א֣וֹ מְכָר֑וֹ חֲמִשָּׁ֣ה בָקָ֗ר יְשַׁלֵּם֙ תַּ֣חַת הַשּׁ֔וֹר וְאַרְבַּע־צֹ֖אן תַּ֥חַת הַשֶּֽׂה: |
| חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר וגו' - Five cattle… Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said: “The Omnipresent has consideration for the dignity of His creatures: For stealing a work-bull, which walks by itself and thus the thief did not suffer embarrassment by carrying it on his shoulders, he pays five times its value, but for stealing a sheep, which he carried on his shoulders, he pays only four times its value, since he suffered embarrassment through it.” Rabbi Meir said: “Come and see how great is the significance of work: For stealing a work-bull, thereby disrupting it from its work and causing greater damage to the victim, he pays five times its value, but for stealing a sheep, which he did not disrupt from its work, he pays only four times its value.” |
|
חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר וגו'.
אָמַר רַ' יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי חָס הַמָּקוֹם עַל כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁל בְּרִיּוֹת – שׁוֹר שֶׁהוֹלֵךְ בְּרַגְלָיו וְלֹא נִתְבַּזָּה בּוֹ הַגַּנָּב לְנָשְׂאוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׂה שֶׁנּוֹשְֹׁאוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה הוֹאִיל וְנִתְבַּזָּה בוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָדוֹל כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל מְלָאכָה – שׁוֹר שֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׂה שֶׁלֹּא בִטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה (מכילתא, בבא קמא ע"ט):
|
| תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר תַּחַת הַשֶּֽׂה - In place of the work-bull…in place of the sheep or goat. Scripture repeated the words שׁוֹר and שֶׂה to tell us that this rule – to pay four or five times the animal’s value – applies only to a work-bull and a sheep. |
|
תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר תַּחַת הַשֶּֽׂה.
שְׁנָאָן הַכָּתוּב, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹר וְשֶׂה בִּלְבַד (בבא קמא ס"ז):
|
