Something in the Mishnah on today’s daf TB Baba Kama 41 doesn’t make sense and needs the Gemara explanation. “With regard to an ox that gored a person and the person died, if the ox was forewarned (muad-מוּעָד ) its owner pays ransom (kofer-כּוֹפֶר,[1]), but if it was innocuous (tam-תָם) he is exempt from paying the ransom. And both this forewarned ox and that innocuous ox are liable to be put to death for killing a person” (Sefaria.org translation)
After the ox gores something three times, its status
changes from a tam to a muad at the fourth goring. Now if every tam who gores and kills a person is put to death, how could an ox ever become a muad? “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?”
(Sefaria.org translation)
The
Gemara suggests no less than eight answers to solve this question. Some are
rejected immediately while others are entertained. All the quotes will come
from Sefaria.org translation. To differentiate my comments from the text, I shall italicize them.
1.
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. In other words, we have three cases of attempted murder.
2 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. The ox critically
wounded three people, but they did not
die immediately.
3.
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. The
Gemara
says that animals are qualitatively different than humans and just because the ox killed another animal doesn’t mean automatically that it will kill
human beings.
4. Rav Shimi
said: The mishna is discussing a case where
it killed three gentiles, for which the animal is not put to death. The Gemara rejects this answer as well
because the ox doesn’t differentiate between Jews and Gentiles.
5. Rabbi Shimon
ben Lakish said: The mishna is discussing a case where
it killed three people who had wounds that would have caused them to die within
twelve months [tereifa]. Since they were on the verge of dying
anyway, the ox is not put to death for killing them. Nevertheless, it is rendered
forewarned with regard to its future goring and killing of people. The Gemara rejects this answer as well.
6.
Rav Pappa
said: The mishna is discussing a case where
it killed a person and fled to the marsh, then killed again and
fled to the marsh, and then killed again and fled to the marsh, so the
court was not able kill it before it had killed three times, rendering it
forewarned. This can be described as a
hit and run murder.
7.
Rav Aḥa, son
of Rav Ika, said: The mishna is discussing a case where
the witnesses who had rendered the witnesses who testified to the three
incidents of goring as conspiring witnesses, resulting in the animal not
being put to death, were themselves subsequently proven to be conspiring
witnesses by other witnesses. Consequently, the testimonies of the
witnesses who testified about the incidents of goring were reinstated,
rendering the ox forewarned. The ox was
not put to death immediately because it’s case was tied up in litigation.
8. Ravina said: The mishna is discussing a case where the witnesses recognized the owner of the ox but did not recognize the ox itself. Therefore, with regard to the first incidents of goring, they testified that it was his ox that gored, but they did not testify with regard to the ox itself. That is why the ox was not put to death. Only afterward did they realize that this was the ox that had gored three times previously. The Gemara asks: If so, why is the ox rendered forewarned? What could the owner have done to prevent it from goring again, as he did not know which of his oxen had gored? The Gemara answers that it is rendered forewarned because the court effectively said to him: You have a habitually goring ox in your herd, so you must safeguard your entire herd.
I like Rav Pappa answer the best.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment