Mishnah Bava Kamma, chapter 4

The ox of a woman, or the ox of orphans, or the ox of a guardian, or a wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says, “A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners.” Mishnah seven begins with a list of oxen owned by those other than adult Jewish males. Although for various reasons one might have thought that these oxen are not liable for the death penalty, the mishnah decrees otherwise. In all cases the ox is liable for the death penalty. In section two Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion expressed in section one. According to R. Judah if the ox does not have owners, the Torah does not demand that it be put to death. Rabbi Judah’s opinion is probably based on a midrash on Exodus 21:29, which describes the process of warning the goring ox’s owners, a process which lead to the ox being declared an attested danger. According to Rabbi Judah in order to fulfill the law mentioned in Ex. 21:28, namely killing the goring ox, one must be able to fulfill the law in verse 29, which would require the ox to have owners. In other words since one cannot warn the owners, as verse 29 states, one need not execute the ox, as verse 28 states. A note is required about the laws of inheritance for a proselyte. According to the Rabbis’ a proselyte does not “Biblically” inherit from anyone in his family that did not convert, but his inheritance is only ordained by the Rabbis themselves. Therefore, when a proselyte dies without children or a spouse, his property would have no “Biblical” inheritors. Since the requirement to stone the ox is a Biblical command, with regards to this law the ox is considered ownerless.

Questions for Further Thought: • Why do you think the Rabbis allowed a person to derive benefit from a goring ox if they slaughtered it before the court pronounced the sentence? Why shouldn’t the Rabbis be concerned that people will take advantage of this law and slaughter their goring oxen before the sentence is complete?

If one handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he pays half damages. Section one states quite clearly that any time an owner turns his ox over to another person who has agreed to watch the ox, that person will be responsible for any damages that the ox causes under his guardianship. The real point of this mishnah is that even an unpaid guardian, who neither gets use of the ox nor financial compensation for his guarding, still has liability for damages the ox will cause. In other words, clearly a borrower should be liable in such a case, since he gets the use of the ox and doesn’t even have to pay for it. A hirer also gets the use of the ox, even though he pays for it, so he too should be liable. A paid guardian, while not getting use of the ox, is receiving financial compensation for his guardianship and therefore it is reasonable for him to be liable for damages. However, an unpaid guardian does not receive anything in return and is in essence doing a favor for the owners. The mishnah therefore emphasizes that even so he is liable if the ox should cause damage.

If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Its only guarding is the knife.” Section two deals with the obligation an owner has to guard his ox. According to Rabbi Meir, tying up an ox or locking it in a pen is evidently not enough protection to exempt one from damages the ox will cause. Therefore, even if the owner performed these acts, he will still be obligated for damages the ox will cause. According to Rabbi Judah, with protection such as tying it up or locking it in, the owner exempts himself from liability for damages caused by an ox that is an attested danger. There is something slightly perplexing with regards to Rabbi Judah’s statement. In the case that he describes an owner may be more obligated for an ox that is a tam, accounted harmless, than for an ox that is a muad, an attested danger. There are two possible answers to this point. First of all, the Torah mentions “guarding” only with regards to the muad, attested danger. Rabbi Judah may be reading the Torah literally. He therefore states that only with regards to the muad is guarding relevant. Guarding a tam will not exempt one from paying for its damages. Secondly, according to the Talmud’s reading of Rabbi Judah’s opinion, if he ties up the ox which is a muad or he locks it in although he will not be obligated for full damages, he will be obligated for half damages. In other words, according to the Talmud, Rabbi Judah does not hold the opinion that one could be more liable for a muad than for a tam. ] Rabbi Eliezer believes that the only way to guarantee that an ox which is an attested danger will not cause damage again is to slaughter the ox. In other words, even though he tied it up or locked it in, he is still obligated for full damages for the muad and half damages for the tam.

Questions for Further Thought: • Why should the unpaid guardian be liable if the ox causes damages? • According to Rabbi Meir, locking the ox in or tying it up is not sufficient to exempt one from damages the ox might cause. What then must the owner do, according to Rabbi Meir, in order to properly guard the ox? • What might be some modern equivalents to these laws?