Bava Kamma 030

1:
Our present mishnah seeks to establish a certain general rule which may be described as follows: an ox can have the status of 'vicious' in certain situations while continuing to have the status of 'docile' in all other situations.

2:
The examples given by our mishnah describe several different possibilities:

• an ox may be prone to attack other oxen while being quite harmless regarding all other animals;
• an ox might be prone to attack human beings while it is docile regarding animals;
• an ox might be prone to attack small animals (such as calves) while never attacking fully grown bulls and cows;
• an ox might even be prone to attack its victims at certain times only while being quite harmless at other times.

3:
In all such cases, cases where an ox is only dangerous in certain situations or at certain times, when those conditions are fulfilled it is considered to be 'vicious' and pays full damages. When those conditions are absent the ox enjoys the status of 'docile'; so if it does attack it pays only half-damages.

4:
One phrase in the Hebrew text of our mishnah leaves room for interpretation: it could refer to "small animals" but the phrase could equally refer to children. Of course, either possibility results in the same situation: the ox is dangerous to one kind of 'victim' while being innocuous towards another kind. It makes no matter whether the difference is between calves and bulls or between children and adults.

5:
In the second part of our mishnah some students of Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai asked a relevant question: is it possible that the same ox could be dangerous at certain times of the day or on certain days of the week and docile at other times and on other days? His reply is "yes!"

6:
Of course, we moderns might lift an eyebrow or two at the idea that an ox could be 'vicious' on Shabbat but 'docile' for the rest of the week. But this is because we forget what the ox meant to the agricultural society of Eretz-Israel in the time of the sages. The ox minimally served as a tractor serves today; but its usefulness could even approach the uses of a modern combine harvester! The ox was used to plough fields, dig furrows, turn millstones – and there must have been many other uses for the ubiquitous ox. When we bear this in mind we can better appreciate the explanation of Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro concerning an ox which is 'vicious' only on Shabbat:

Rabbi Ovadya also offers another possible explanation:

7:
The last clause of our mishnah clarifies when an ox which is 'vicious' only on Saturdays can regain its status as 'docile' on this day. If its owner has been warned in court that he must keep it under restraint on Shabbat it is, of course, 'vicious'. However, if it lets other oxen (or people, or animals) pass by peacefully on three sabbaths and it does not gore it has returned to being 'docile'. That means, of course, that having regained its status of 'docile' if it does attack again on Shabbat its owner only pays half-damages.

8:
The Hebrew text of the first clause of our mishnah as it stands reads: "An ox that is 'vicious' regarding its own species and is not so for any other species … [such an ox] pays full damages to those regarding whom it is 'vicious' and to those regarding whom it is not 'vicious' it pays half damages." However, the Gemara [BK 37a] concludes that we should not read "and [is not so…]" When we strike out the word 'and' we reach a slightly different meaning: "An ox that is 'vicious' regarding its own species is not so for any other species… [Such an ox] pays full damages…"

Regarding the previous mishnah, Bava Kamma 4:1, Jim Feldman writes:

While I have always found Bava Kamma thought provoking, this discussion of the "docile" ox goring four or five leaves me utterly dumbfounded. To bring this into a more modern context, my driving record has earned me the "docile" rating from my insurance company, but should I bounce off of 4 or 5 parked cars in sequence, I owe all 4 or 5 for their full loss. If I total them, I have to pay for them and then I or my insurance company can get what scrap value may still reside in their "carcasses." This tractate's last-smashed-gets-paid ruling is unfair and unfounded.

I respond:

The laws of the Torah, as expounded by the sages at great length and in great detail, apply only to "the ox". That the owner of an attacking ox might have to compensate the owners of the ox's victims at a lower rate than the loss they have sustained applies only to an ox which fulfills the very improbable conditions set out in the mishnah. (See my response to Ronen Lautman in BK029.) Jim's comparison with automobile insurance is quite unfounded! If he bounces his car off of four or five parked cars in sequence of course he must pay full damages to all the other owners, each according to the loss sustained. What Jim has forgotten is that a man or woman (the careless driver) is not an ox! We have learned on at least two occasions so far (BK006, BK010, and in particular BK014) that a human being is always considered to be 'vicious' and therefore must always pay full compensation for any damage or injury inflicted. The order of compensation is the order in which the damage was inflicted, the first victim being compensated first of all.