Save "A Goring Ox
"

(כח) וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃ (כט) וְאִ֡ם שׁוֹר֩ נַגָּ֨ח ה֜וּא מִתְּמֹ֣ל שִׁלְשֹׁ֗ם וְהוּעַ֤ד בִּבְעָלָיו֙ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְרֶ֔נּוּ וְהֵמִ֥ית אִ֖ישׁ א֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֑ה הַשּׁוֹר֙ יִסָּקֵ֔ל וְגַם־בְּעָלָ֖יו יוּמָֽת׃ (ל) אִם־כֹּ֖פֶר יוּשַׁ֣ת עָלָ֑יו וְנָתַן֙ פִּדְיֹ֣ן נַפְשׁ֔וֹ כְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁ֖ת עָלָֽיו׃ (לא) אוֹ־בֵ֥ן יִגָּ֖ח אוֹ־בַ֣ת יִגָּ֑ח כַּמִּשְׁפָּ֥ט הַזֶּ֖ה יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לּֽוֹ׃ (לב) אִם־עֶ֛בֶד יִגַּ֥ח הַשּׁ֖וֹר א֣וֹ אָמָ֑ה כֶּ֣סֶף ׀ שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שְׁקָלִ֗ים יִתֵּן֙ לַֽאדֹנָ֔יו וְהַשּׁ֖וֹר יִסָּקֵֽל׃ {ס} (לג) וְכִֽי־יִפְתַּ֨ח אִ֜ישׁ בּ֗וֹר א֠וֹ כִּֽי־יִכְרֶ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ בֹּ֖ר וְלֹ֣א יְכַסֶּ֑נּוּ וְנָֽפַל־שָׁ֥מָּה שּׁ֖וֹר א֥וֹ חֲמֽוֹר׃ (לד) בַּ֤עַל הַבּוֹר֙ יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם כֶּ֖סֶף יָשִׁ֣יב לִבְעָלָ֑יו וְהַמֵּ֖ת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ׃ {ס} (לה) וְכִֽי־יִגֹּ֧ף שֽׁוֹר־אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־שׁ֥וֹר רֵעֵ֖הוּ וָמֵ֑ת וּמָ֨כְר֜וּ אֶת־הַשּׁ֤וֹר הַחַי֙ וְחָצ֣וּ אֶת־כַּסְפּ֔וֹ וְגַ֥ם אֶת־הַמֵּ֖ת יֶֽחֱצֽוּן׃ (לו) א֣וֹ נוֹדַ֗ע כִּ֠י שׁ֣וֹר נַגָּ֥ח הוּא֙ מִתְּמ֣וֹל שִׁלְשֹׁ֔ם וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְרֶ֖נּוּ בְּעָלָ֑יו שַׁלֵּ֨ם יְשַׁלֵּ֥ם שׁוֹר֙ תַּ֣חַת הַשּׁ֔וֹר וְהַמֵּ֖ת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ׃ {ס}

(28) When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be punished. (29) If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, though warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a man or a woman—the ox shall be stoned and its owner, too, shall be put to death. (30) If ransom is laid upon him, he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life. (31) So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, [the owner] shall be dealt with according to the same rule. (32) But if the ox gores a slave, male or female, he shall pay thirty shekels of silver to the master, and the ox shall be stoned. (33) When a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it, (34) the one responsible for the pit must make restitution; he shall pay the price to the owner, but shall keep the dead animal. (35) When a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide its price; they shall also divide the dead animal. (36) If, however, it is known that the ox was in the habit of goring, and its owner has failed to guard it, he must restore ox for ox, but shall keep the dead animal.

Notice the separation between animal victims and humans. Why does the text do this?

(א) אַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין, הַשּׁוֹר וְהַבּוֹר וְהַמַּבְעֶה וְהַהֶבְעֵר. לֹא הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר כַּהֲרֵי הַמַּבְעֶה, וְלֹא הֲרֵי הַמַּבְעֶה כַּהֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר. וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן רוּחַ חַיִּים, כַּהֲרֵי הָאֵשׁ, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה, שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק, כַּהֲרֵי הַבּוֹר, שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַזִּיק וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ. וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק, חָב הַמַּזִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ:

There are four categories of damages: the ox, the pit, the grazer, and the fire. The [characteristics of] the ox are not like the [characteristics of] the grazer, and the [characteristics of] the grazer are not like the [characteristics of] the ox. Nor are either of these (ox, grazer), which have a living spirit in them, like the [characteristics of] the fire that doesn’t have a living spirit within it. Nor are any of these (ox, fire, grazer), which move and do damage, like the pit, which doesn’t move but does do damage. What is common among them is that they do damage and the responsibility for them is upon you, and when they do damage, you are required to pay restitution for the best of the land.

What are the four categories?

What kind of damage do they bring about?

What does it mean to be responsible for the damages they invoke?

What does it mean to pay restitution for the best of the land? Why are we required to do so?

How does this relate to our parsha?

(ד) אֵיזֶה הוּא תָם, וְאֵיזֶה הוּא מוּעָד. מוּעָד, כֹּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים. וְתָם, מִשֶּׁיַּחֲזֹר בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד, שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְתָם, כֹּל שֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵחַ:

(4) Which type of ox is deemed "tam" innocent and which is deemed "mu'ad" forewarned? An ox is deemed forewarned in any case where witnesses testified about it that it gored on three different days. And it reverts back to its previous innocuous status from when it reverses its behavior and refrains from goring for three consecutive days; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: It is deemed forewarned in any case where witnesses testified that it gored three times, regardless of the number of days on which this behavior occurred. And it reverts back to its previous innocuous status in any case where children pet it and play with it and it does not gore them.

Important terms:
Tam means innocuous, for an animal not suspect to causing damage to others/property (or having proven that he can contain himself in three such instances that would have been provocative before). Status can be regained (if an animal was previously considered Mu’ad).
Mu’ad means forewarned, or that an ox has, on three different days, proven that he cannot control himself and is physically volatile (has done damage). The forewarned means the owner knows in advance that his animal is likely to cause damage, and therefore liable to pay full damages. The first three times it gores, the owner is only liable to pay half of the damages. If the ox gores a 4th time, and the owner was notified of the first three times, the owner must pay in full.

What is the difference between tam and mu’ad?

What does the mishna mean “three days” or “three times”? Why might this be put in place?

Who is responsible for the goring ox? What is the responsibility they must take?

How is this related to Exodus 21:28-32?

Can we compare a criminal animal to a criminal person? Why or why not?

Why does this matter to us today?

גמ׳ וכי מאחר דמתם קטלינן ליה מועד היכי משכחת לה אמר רבה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאמדוהו לשלשה בני אדם רב אשי אמר אומדנא לאו כלום הוא אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שסיכן לשלשה בני אדם
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But since we kill the ox for killing a person when it is still considered innocuous, how can you find a case of a forewarned ox killing a person? Rabba said: Here we are dealing with a case where in three instances of attacking people, the court assessed that had the people not escaped, the ox would certainly have killed them. Therefore, despite the fact that the ox did not kill anyone, it now has the status of a forewarned ox. Rav Ashi said: Such an assessment is not worth anything. Since the ox did not actually kill them, it is not rendered forewarned even if it intended to kill. Rather, here we are dealing with a case where it endangered the lives of three people by goring them, and they all died only after the third goring. Therefore, the ox had not been put to death.

What question is the gemara trying to answer here?
What does this text add to our understanding of the goring ox?

Does this text explain why there is a difference between the two kinds of oxen (forewarned v. innocuous)

רב זביד אמר כגון שהרג שלשה בהמות
Rav Zevid said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed three animals, which is sufficient to render the ox forewarned but for which it is not put to death.

Rabbi Zevid offers a seemingly more logical explanation, this one changing the damages from human to animal. How does it change the circumstances?

(ג) שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל נָכְרִי, פָּטוּר. וְשֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:

(3) With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored a consecrated ox, and conversely, a consecrated ox that gored a non-sacred ox, i.e., an ox owned by a Jew, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation, as it is stated: “And if one man’s ox hurts the ox of another” (Exodus 21:35). It is derived from the phrase “the ox of another” that one is liable only if it is a non-sacred ox, but not if it is a consecrated ox, which belongs to the Temple treasury, regardless of whether the latter was the ox that gored or the ox that was gored. With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability. But with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, regardless of whether the goring ox was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage.

This is only to tell us that the mishna is seemingly arbitrary in how it creates these divisions in terms of what is liable and what is not. And the inequity of the disparity doesn't likely sit well with non-Jews.

(ו) אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג, בֵּין מֵזִיד, בֵּין עֵר, בֵּין יָשֵׁן. סִמֵּא אֶת עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ וְשִׁבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:

(6) The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned. Therefore, whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether he was awake while he caused the damage or asleep, whether he blinded another’s eye or broke vessels, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

Why is a human considered a “habitual damager”? (always held liable for damages)

Does this mean we as humans are fatally flawed? Why or why not?

Why does the mishna first mention animals, and then mention humans?

What can we learn about ourselves and the responsibility we must take based on these texts?

Halakhah L’ma-aseh
1. If you live near me and I live near you, we make claims on each other. This is so. No matter how we feel about each other. Whether I like you or not, whether I choose to care about you or not - these things are of no consequence. Your presence alone demands things of me and my presence demands things of you. - The Observant Life, pp. 713
2. Just as God's presence in our lives demands a response from us, so too does our presence in the live of each others. And while this demand is a claim that emanates from every individual, those who stand directly before us have a greater claim than those who dwell at a greater remove. In the presence of the other we cannot argue that we did not know. - The Observant Life, p. 713
5. The ability of neighbors to restrict another's behavior is based on three distinct rights: (1) the right to protect one's financial investment, (2) the right to preserve the nature and culture of the neighborhood in which one has settled, (3) the right to find aesthetic enjoyment in one's own home and one's own property. - The Observant Life, pp. 715-716

Resources used:

https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-shemot/parashat-mishpatim/goring-ox

https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/learning-from-a-gored-ox/

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-172

rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/source-sheets/tol-parashot/mishpatim.pdf