Before beginning a new Mishna, the rabbis finish their conversation regarding the punishment for an ox that gores an adult verses one that gores a child. Whether it is a man, woman, girl or boy, an ox is stoned if it kills a person. This is true whether or not the ox is mu'ad. And it is true even though children are not obligated to keep mitzvot and women are only obligated to keep a smaller number of mitzvot.
Our new Mishna teaches that an ox that kills accidentally is not liable. To illuminate this, the Mishna tells us of an ox that rubs its back on a wall and the wall falls on a person, killing them. It also describes an ox that intends to kill a Gentile who kills a Jew and an ox that intends to kill a non-viable fetus but kills a viable person.
The rabbis go straight to the questions that I asked myself: Is this like 'pit' where damages are caused because of the owner's negligence? Or is this like 'pebbles' where the damage is caused by an animal's indirect, unintentional action? One of the conversations that the rabbis share with us describes the guidelines for punishment if one throws a stone into a crowd that is made up of people who will create different consequences if killed.
For example, what if the crowd is half Jewish and half Gentile? What if the crowd is all Jewish except for one man who is Gentile and considered to be "fixed in his place". The legal status of anything that is fixed is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced. Even if there is one Gentile in a group of nine Jews, the Gentile is considered to be fixed. Uncertainty with capital law results in leniency. Again, we are reminded that these sorts of punishments were very unwanted and very rare.
Two more Mishnayot. The first teaches that an ox belonging to a woman, an orphan, a steward, a convert who died without heirs, a desert ox and an ox that was consecrated are all subject to death for killing a person. Rabbi Yehuda says that they are exempt since they have no owners.
The Gemara tells us that "ox" is said seven times in this Mishna - the first is meaningful and the others are superfluous. Rabbi Huna suggests that Rabbi Yehudi would have been even more lenient that what was mentioned in the Mishna. The Gemara teaches us that what is important is that the status of the ox at the time that the victim died is the same as the status of the ox when the owner of the ox stands on trial.
A final new Mishna before our daf ends: When an ox is leaving court to be stoned and its owner then concerts it, it is not considered to be consecrated. If the owner slaughters his ox at that time, the flesh cannot be eaten nor can anyone derive benefit from it. If the ox was mu'ad, the bailee pays the full costs of the damages. If the ox was tam, the bailee pays half of the cost of the damages.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment