Bava Kamma 033

נושא: BK

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI

Red Line

Green Line

An ox gores a person to death: if [the ox] is 'vicious' [its owner] pays the compensation; if it is 'docile' [the owner] is excused [payment of] the compensation. In either case [the ox] must be put to death. The same applies to a boy or a girl. If it gores a manservant or a maidservant [the owner] must pay thirty selas regardless of whether [the servant] was worth one hundred talents or just one dinar.

1:
The provisions of our present mishnah are based upon the specific ruling of the Torah [Exodus 21:28-32]:

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. 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. If ransom is laid upon him, he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life. So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, [the owner] shall be dealt with according to the same rule. 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.

The text of the Torah clearly distinguishes between various situations:

was the offending ox 'docile' or was it 'vicious'?
must the owner pay a ransom or not?
what if the victim was a minor or a slave?

2:
The owner of the offending ox is required to pay the compensation (to the deceased's heirs) only if the ox has the status of 'vicious'. The Gemara [BK 41a] asks an obvious question: if an ox which kills a human being must be put to death even if it has the status of 'docile' how can the status of such an ox ever be 'upgraded' to 'vicious'? Several suggestions are put forward to explain this conundrum, some more reasonable some less reasonable:

Rabbah says: We are dealing here with a case where, it had been estimated that it might have killed three human beings [but had escaped before it could be apprehended]. Rav Ashi says … that we are dealing here with a case where the ox gored and endangered the lives of three human beings [who did not immediately die and therefore the ox was not previously killed]. Rav Zevid says: [The case is one] where it killed three animals [but not human beings]… Rav Shimi says: [The case is one] where it killed three non-Jews… Rabbi Shim'on ben-Lakish says: [The case is one] where it killed three people who had already been afflicted with some fatal organic disease… Rav Papa says: [The case is one where] the ox [on the first occasion] killed someone but escaped, killed again [before it could be caught] and escaped yet again…

This has not exhausted all the suggestions, but it does give an impression of the possibilities offered. None of the suggestions includes the possibility that the ox was declared 'vicious' because of some other offence involving violence.

3:
The 'slaves' referred to in our mishnah are what are called "Canaanite slaves". We have discussed this term before: see BK025. The 'value' of the slave was, of course, assessed according to the price that he or she might get in the slave market. To forestall a protracted ethical discussion let me remind us all that a Jew could only hold a Canaanite slave for one year: at the end of the year either the slave must agree to convert to Judaism or he must be sold to a non-Jew. So the provisions noted in our mishnah concerning a slave must have been very rare indeed.

In BK031 we learned of unfair discrimination between Jew and non-Jew regarding the right to claim damages. I noted that

The medieval commentators and codifiers did their best to re-interpret the ruling of our mishnah, as it were, because they recognized that the ruling "is undoubtedly against the principles of Jewish moral law."

Marty Berman writes:

I just want to point out that the Meiri as is his way, says that this law of disability for the gentile only applies to those who are not bound by the mores of religion – gidurim b'darkhei datot so it clearly doesn't apply to Christian or Moslem societies.

I respond:

We discussed this at some length when we studied Tractate Avodah Zarah. See, for example, AZ001.

Green Line

Concerning the same mishnah (BK031) Meir Stone writes:

One thing I love about this ruling is that it reminds us that although our Torah both oral and written is holy and wonderful yet we are not angels and we must always know that nothing that humans have a hand in is perfect… for this reason we should always try to judge the nations with as much compassion as possible (within reason !)… Yet I must wonder does this teaching speak badly of me:

Rav Yehudah stated in the name of Shmuel if someone drank a revi'it of wine he may not render legal decisions. Upon hearing this ruling Rav Nachman said: This statement is not excellent; for until I drink a revi'it of wine my mind is not clear enough to be able to render decisions… Rava said to Rav Nachman: Why did the master [Rav Nachman] speak this way?… Anyone who comments "This statement is beautiful," and "This is not beautiful" diminishes the honor of the Torah. Rav Nachman told him: I regret making the statement. [Eruvin 64a]

Woe is me! For the words of the Sages are my heart's desire yet I must say about our mishnah and a few more 'This statement is not excellent' As for the Romans who did not report this matter to their Government: the Rabbis had to be great people to make such a good impression on these pagans… Would they have acted such before they studied with our sages?

I respond:

For reasons that I will not go into I must put on record that in this message and many others he has sent me over the years Meir's Torah erudition puts all of us to shame!

Green Line