The first Mishna on daf TB Bava Kama 44 articulates the disagreement between the tana kama and Rabbi Yehuda. The tana kama makes no distinction between an ox that has an owner and an ox that is ownerless. If any kind of ox kills a person, the ox is put to death. On the other hand, Rabbi Yehuda holds that an ownerless ox is not put to death. “With regard to an ox belonging to a woman, and similarly an ox belonging to orphans, and an ox belonging to orphans that is in the custody of their steward, and a desert ox, which is ownerless, and an ox that was consecrated to the Temple treasury, and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs, rendering the ox ownerless; all of these oxen are liable to be put to death for killing a person. Rabbi Yehuda says: A desert ox, a consecrated ox, and an ox belonging to a convert who died are exempt from being put to death, since they have no owners.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Rishonim wonder why the Mishna has to
include a woman in this list since the verse the Torah equates men and women
when comes to damages. Consequently, even without this Mishna we would assume
that the woman who owns the ox that killed would be liable for all damages
including the putting the ox to death. We have to answer the question why
should what should be included in the Mishna’s list.
One possible
answer is that the verse dealing in this case emphasizes men as opposed to other
verses where the male language just means human beings. Consequently, we might
draw the wrong conclusion. Rashi learns it from the phrase “the (male) owner of
the ox, ba’al hashor-בּעל השור),
meaning specifically only men. Tosefot learns this idea that limits the owner
of the ox to an adult man from “וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אִ֛ישׁ” because the verse
explicitly says man, אִ֛ישׁ. The Meiri explains that women are not
knowledgeable in the guarding of an ox. One might draw the conclusion therefore
their responsibilities concerning a going ox are limited.
No comments:
Post a Comment