Halacha
הלכה א
שׁוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם בְּכָל מָקוֹם בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן בֵּין עֶבֶד בֵּין בֶּן חוֹרִין אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד הֲרֵי זֶה נִסְקָל. וְאִם הֵמִית אֶת הָעַכּוּ''ם פָּטוּר כְּדִינֵיהֶם:
כסף משנה
1.
Wherever1 I.e., in either a private domain or the public domain. an ox kills a [Jew],2 This law applies only when the animal kills intentionally, as stated in Halachot 9-10 (Kessef Mishneh). whether an adult or a child, whether a servant or a free man,3 The universality of this law is explicitly stated in Exodus 21:29-32: If it kills a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned.... This law also applies if it gores a boy or a girl. If it gores a servant... or a maid-servant... the ox should be stoned. whether the ox is tam4 Exodus 21:28 states that this penalty should be given to an ox that is tam, and the following verse speaks about a mu'ad. or mu'ad, [the ox] must be stoned to death.5 See The Guide for the Perplexed, Volume III, Chapter 40, which states that this sentence is not considered punishment to the animal that killed the person, but rather punishment for its owner, so that he will know to restrain his animals. Some of the laws of this chapter (e.g., Halachot 6 and 8) indicate, however, that the intent is to kill an animal that is prone to kill.If an ox kills a gentile, it is not executed, for this is their law.הלכה ב
אֶחָד שׁוֹר וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף שֶׁהֵמִיתוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִסְקָלִין. מַה בֵּין תָּם שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם לְמוּעָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם. שֶׁהַתָּם פָּטוּר מִן הַכֹּפֶר וְהַמּוּעָד חַיָּב בְּכֹפֶר וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מוּעָד לַהֲרֹג:
כסף משנה
2.
[Not only] an ox, but any other animal, beast or fowl that kills a human should be stoned to death.6 The verse mentions an ox because it speaks about situations that are most probable. What is the difference then between an ox that is tam killing a person, and that act being performed by an ox that is mu'ad? [The owner of] an ox that is tam is not liable for the atonement fine, while [the owner of] an ox that is mu'ad is liable,7 Exodus 21:28, which speaks about an ox that is tam, states: the owner will not be punished. The following verses, which speak about a mu'ad, state that the owner will pay an atonement fine. The nature of that fine is discussed in the following chapter. when his ox is mu'ad to kill.8 I.e., that the owner was warned three times that his ox killed (or came close to killing) an animal or a man, as mentioned in the following halachah.הלכה ג
וְהוֹאִיל וְכָל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הָאָדָם נִסְקָלִין הֵיאַךְ יִמָּצֵא מוּעָד לַהֲרֹג עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּמוּ בְּעָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּפֶר. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָרַג שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָרַג יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהַמּוּעָד לְעַכּוּ''ם הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג שְׁלֹשָׁה יִשְׂרָאֵל טְרֵפָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָרַג שָׁלֵם. אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג וּבָרַח וּבָרְבִיעִי נִתְפַּס. שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים חַיָּבִין בְּכֹפֶר עַד שֶׁיִּסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר. וְכֵן אִם סִכֵּן שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד לַהֲרִיגָה וּבְעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּפֶר. וְכֵן אִם הִכִּירוּ עֵדִים אֶת בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר וְלֹא הִכִּירוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר בְּפַעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וּבָרְבִיעִית רָאוּ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁהָרַג וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם זֶה הוּא הַשּׁוֹר שֶׁהָרַג בְּשָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת אוֹ אַחֵר הָיָה. הוֹאִיל וְהוּעֲדוּ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם בִּבְקָרָם שׁוֹר שֶׁהָרַג שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הָיָה לָהֶם לִשְׁמֹר כָּל בְּהֶמְתָּם וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְרוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּפֶר:
כסף משנה
3.
Since every animal, beast or fowl that kills a human being should be stoned to death, how is it possible to find an animal that is mu'ad to kill, so that its owner will be liable to pay an atonement fine?9 I.e., the animal should seemingly have been executed after he killed one human being. How was it possible for him to kill three? It killed three gentiles,10 In which case it is not obligated to be executed, as stated in Halachah 1. and then it killed a Jew. For an ox that is mu'ad [to kill] a gentile, is also mu'ad for a Jew.11 The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that although Bava Kama 41a, the source for this halachah, mentions this resolution (and the following one), according to the commonly accepted version of the Talmud, it appears that these hypotheses are rejected. The Maggid Mishneh explains that most likely the Rambam possessed a different version of this Talmudic passage. Alternatively, it killed three Jews who were classified as t'refot,12 The word t'refah refers to an infirmity that will cause the person (or animal) possessing it to die within a year. Since the person will die anyway, the ox is not executed for killing him (Bava Kama, loc. cit.). and then killed a healthy person. [Other possible situations are the following:] [On three occasions,] it killed a person and then fled, and it was captured on the fourth occasion. [We must say that it was captured, because] the owners are not obligated to pay an atonement fine unless the ox is executed.13 There are exceptions to this principle, as reflected in Halachot 9 and 10. It mortally wounded three individuals at the same time [and they and the fourth person the ox gored all died at the time]. It killed three animals.14 In Chapter 6, Halachah 8, the Rambam states that an ox that is mu'ad with regard to a human is not mu'ad with regard to an animal. From that, we can derive that an animal that is mu'ad with regard to an animal is not mu'ad with regard to a human.This does not necessarily represent a contradiction to this halachah. For there, the Rambam is speaking about causing damage, and here we are speaking about causing death (Kessef Mishneh). In all these instances, it is deemed as mu'ad to kill, and the owner is liable to pay an atonement fine. There is also another instance. On three occasions [one of the oxen belonging to a person killed a human]; on each of these occasions, the witnesses recognized the owner, but did not recognize the ox. On the fourth occasion, they saw an ox that killed a person [and were able to recognize it afterwards]. They did not, however, know if this was the same ox that had killed [people] on the three previous occasions or not.[In this instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay an atonement fine. The rationale is that] since the owner was warned that he had an ox in his herd that had killed [people] on three occasions, he should have guarded all his oxen [more carefully]. Since he did not, he must pay the atonement fine.הלכה ד
זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כא כט) "וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁחִיּוּב מִיתָה זוֹ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם וְאִם נָתַן כֹּפֶר הַנֶּהֱרָג מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכֹּפֶר כַּפָּרָה מְמַשְׁכְּנִין מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בְּכֹפֶר בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ:
כסף משנה
4.
The Oral Tradition interprets the Torah's statement [Exodus 21:29]: "And its owner shall also be put to death," as implying death by the hand of God [and not execution by a mortal court]. If [the owner] pays an atonement fine for the person killed, he is pardoned. Although the obligation of the atonement fine is for [the owner's spiritual] pardon,15 And it is not a monetary obligation imposed by civil law. the property of a person who is obligated to pay an atonement fine is forcefully expropriated, [even] against his will.16 With regard to a sin offering or a guilt offering that also comes for the purpose of atonement, we do not find an obligation to expropriate the sacrifice from the person's property. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that since the atonement fine is paid to a colleague, and not offered in the Temple, people might view its obligation more laxly. See Lechem Mishneh.הלכה ה
שׁוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁהָרַג. כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם מְשַׁלֵּם כֹּפֶר שָׁלֵם שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן צָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה גְּמוּרָה:
כסף משנה
5.
When an ox belonging to two partners kills [a man], each of [the partners] must pay an entire atonement fine. For each requires a full measure of atonement.17 This is a reflection of the concept that this fine is not recompense for the person's death, but rather a means for the person who caused his death to attain atonement.הלכה ו
אֵין גּוֹמְרִין דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹר אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי בְּעָלָיו אִם הָיוּ לוֹ בְּעָלִים. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ בְּעָלִים כְּגוֹן שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר וְשׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְשׁוֹר שֶׁל גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין אִם הֵמִית הֲרֵי זֶה נִסְקָל וְגוֹמְרִין דִּינוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּעָלִים. וְכֵן שׁוֹר הָאִשָּׁה וְשׁוֹר הַיְתוֹמִים וְשׁוֹר הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפְּסִים שֶׁהֵמִיתוּ נִסְקָלִין. וְאֵין הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפְּסִים מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּפֶר שֶׁהַכֹּפֶר כַּפָּרָה הוּא וְאֵין הַקְּטַנִּים וְהַחֵרְשִׁים וְהַשּׁוֹטִים בְּנֵי חִיּוּב כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ צְרִיכִין כַּפָּרָה:
כסף משנה
6.
If an ox is owned by a person, the adjudication of the ox must be concluded in its owner's presence. If the ox does not have an owner - e.g., a wild ox, an ox that was consecrated, an ox belonging to a convert who died without leaving any heirs - it should be executed [if it kills a human], and its judgment is concluded despite the fact that it lacks an owner. Similarly, an ox belonging to a woman, a minor,18 For whom a guardian was not appointed. or a guardian19 The intent is an ox belonging to a minor, deaf mute or mentally incompetent person that was entrusted to a guardian for safekeeping. is stoned [if it kills a human]. The guardians are not required to pay the atonement fine,20 In contrast to the damages an ox in their care causes, for which they are required to reimburse the party whose property was damaged, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4. for that fine is [as implied by its name] for the purpose of atonement. Minors, deaf mutes and mental incompetents are not men of responsibility who require atonement.21 All of these individuals are considered to be mentally incompetent and are not held responsible for any aspect of their conduct.הלכה ז
שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַשּׁוֹר שֶׁל אָדָם טְרֵפָה אֵינוֹ נִסְקָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא כט) "וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת" כְּמִיתַת הַבְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁבְּעָלָיו כְּמֵת הֵם חֲשׁוּבִים וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין מִיתָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
7.
When an ox that is a t'refah or an ox belonging to a person who is t'refah kills a human, the ox is not executed.22 The Ra'avad writes that if an ox kills a person in the presence of a court, it is executed. The leniency applies only when it kills in the presence of witnesses.The Ra'avad's statement is based on a comparison to a human being. When a human being who is t'refah kills another human in the presence of witnesses, he cannot be executed, because there is no way that the witnesses can be disqualified through the laws of hazamah. When, however, he kills in the presence of a court, there is no need for the testimony of witnesses, and the court is charged to obliterate the evil from your midst. (See Hilchot Rotzeach 2:9.)The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this equation, because he maintains that the obligation to obliterate evil applies with regard to a man who performs an evil act and not to an ox. [This is derived from Exodus 21:29:] "And its owner shall also be put to death." [This is interpreted to mean] that a parallel is established between the owner and the ox being put to death. Since the owner is [already] considered as if he is dead and need not be put to death [by God], so too, the ox is not held liable.הלכה ח
הַמְשַׁסֶּה כֶּלֶב בַּחֲבֵרוֹ וַהֲרָגוֹ אֵין הַכֶּלֶב נִסְקָל. וְכֵן אִם גֵּרָה בּוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה וַהֲרָגוּהוּ. אֲבָל אִם שִׁסָּה בּוֹ נָחָשׁ וַאֲפִלּוּ הִשִּׁיכוֹ בּוֹ וַהֲרָגוֹ הַנָּחָשׁ נִסְקָל. שֶׁאֶרֶס הַנָּחָשׁ שֶׁמֵּמִית מֵעַצְמוֹ מְקִיאוֹ לְפִיכָךְ זֶה הָאָדָם שֶׁהִשִּׁיךְ בּוֹ נָחָשׁ פָּטוּר מִמִּיתַת בֵּית דִּין:
כסף משנה
8.
When a person sets a dog upon a colleague, and [the dog] kills him, the dog is not stoned to death. The same law applies if he sets another animal or beast upon him.23 The rationale is that the animal is not considered to have killed as a result of its own tendency, but in response to prompting by the other person. If, however, he sets a snake upon him, even if he actually places the snake's mouth on the other person, the snake is stoned to death. [The rationale is that] the snake releases the lethal venom on its own volition. For this reason, the person who sets the snake upon a colleague is not liable to be executed by [an earthly] court.הלכה ט
אֵין הַבְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת אִם הֵמִיתָה עַד שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּנָה לְהַזִּיק לְמִי שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת עָלָיו סְקִילָה. אֲבָל שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם. נִתְכַּוִּן לְעַכּוּ''ם וְהָרַג לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. נִתְכַּוֵּן לִנְפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קַיָּמָא. פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּיתָה. וְאִם הָיָה מוּעָד הַבְּעָלִים חַיָּבִין בְּכֹפֶר. אוֹ בִּקְנָס אִם הֵמִית עֶבֶד. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָרַג בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָה הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מוּעָד לָזֶה:
כסף משנה
9.
An animal that kills [a person] is not stoned to death unless it had the intent to kill a person for whom it would be executed.24 If, however, it intended to kill one Israelite, and instead it killed another, it is executed (Maggid Mishneh). There is a debate among our Sages (Bava Kama 44b) regarding both a human and an ox who kills with such an intent. With regard to a human, the Rambam rules that the killer is not liable for execution (see Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 4), while with regard to an ox, he rules that it should be executed. See the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Rotzeach. If, however, an ox intended to kill an animal and instead killed a human being, it intended to kill a gentile and instead killed a Jew, or it intended to gore a stillborn child and instead killed an ordinary child, [the ox] is not executed.25 Our Sages (ibid.) derive this law from the parallel established between the owner and the ox being put to death mentioned in Halachah 6. Since a human being would not be executed for killing in such a manner, the animal is also not executed. If [the ox] was mu'ad, the owners are liable to pay the atonement fine or the fine paid for killing a servant. [This applies] even [if the ox] killed unintentionally. [The owners are held responsible] because [the ox] is mu'ad [to kill].הלכה י
הָיָה מוּעָד לִפּל עַל בְּנֵי הָאָדָם בְּבוֹרוֹת וְרָאָה יָרָק בַּבּוֹר וְנָפַל לַבּוֹר בִּשְׁבִיל הַיָּרָק וְהָיָה שָׁם אָדָם וּמֵת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מוּעָד לְהִתְחַכֵּךְ בַּכְּתָלִים וּלְהַפִּיל עַל בְּנֵי אָדָם וְנִתְחַכֵּךְ בַּכֹּתֶל לַהֲנָאָתוֹ וְנָפַל עַל אָדָם וּמֵת מֵחֲמַת חִכּוּכוֹ. הַשּׁוֹר פָּטוּר מִמִּיתָה לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהָמִית וְהַבְּעָלִים חַיָּבִין בְּכֹפֶר שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד לִפּל בְּבוֹרוֹת עַל בְּנֵי אָדָם אוֹ לְהַפִּיל עֲלֵיהֶם הַכְּתָלִים. וְהֵיאַךְ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁנִּתְחַכֵּךְ לַהֲנָאָתוֹ. כְּשֶׁנִּתְחַכֵּךְ לְאַחַר שֶׁהִפִּיל וְהֵמִית:
כסף משנה
10.
[The owner of an ox is liable to pay an atonement fine in the following instances. An ox] was mu'ad to leap on people in pits. It saw a vegetable in a pit, leapt into the pit, [and fell] on a person there and killed him. It was mu'ad to rub itself against walls and knock them over onto people, and it rubbed itself against a wall for its own benefit, and caused the wall to fall on a person and kill him. [In both these instances,] the ox is not liable to be executed, because it did not intend to kill. The owners are, nevertheless, liable for the atonement fine, because the ox is mu'ad to leap into pits on people or to knock walls over onto them.26 And the owners should therefore have watched it to prevent this from happening. How can we know whether any animal is rubbing itself against a wall for its own benefit? If it continues rubbing itself after it knocks the wall down and kills.הלכה יא
אֵין הַבְּעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּפֶר עַד שֶׁתָּמִית בְּהֶמְתָּן חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּתָן. אֲבָל אִם הֵמִית בִּרְשׁוּת הַמַּזִּיק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּסְקִילָה הַבְּעָלִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַכֹּפֶר. כֵּיצַד. הַנִּכְנָס לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ נִכְנַס לִתְבֹּעַ שְׂכָרוֹ אוֹ חוֹבוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וּמֵת. הַשּׁוֹר בִּסְקִילָה וְהַבְּעָלִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַכֹּפֶר. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לִכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ:
כסף משנה
11.
The owners are not liable to pay the atonement fine unless their animal kills [the person] outside their property. If, however, [their animal] kills [a person] in a domain belonging to [the owner of the animal], the owner is not liable for the atonement fine,27 See Chapter 1, Halachah 7. although the animal is stoned to death. What is implied? If a person enters a courtyard belonging to a person without his permission28 If the owner grants his consent, he is liable for the atonement fine if his ox kills the visitor. - even if he enters to demand payment for wages or a debt [owed to him]29 The Maggid Mishneh and others note that Bava Kama 33a appears to present a difficulty to the Rambam's ruling. Several resolutions are, however, offered. - and an ox belonging to the owner of the courtyard gores him and kills him, the ox should be stoned to death. The owner is, however, free from the atonement fine, because [the deceased] did not have permission to enter his property without his consent.הלכה יב
עָמַד בַּפֶּתַח וְקָרָא לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְאָמַר לוֹ הֵן. וְנִכְנַס וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים פְּטוּרִין. שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁמַע הֵן אֶלָּא עֲמֹד בִּמְקוֹמְךָ עַד שֶׁאֲדַבֵּר עִמְּךָ:
כסף משנה
12.
[The owner is not required to pay an atonement fine in the following situation. A person] stood at the entrance and called to the owner, and the latter said: "Yes." [The guest] entered and he was gored by an ox belonging to the owner. The owner is not liable. For "yes" does [not necessarily] mean [more than] "Stand where you are, until I [come] to speak to you."הלכה יג
בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּזָּק וְדָרְסָה עַל גַּבֵּי תִּינוֹק דֶּרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ וַהֲרָגַתְהוּ הַבְּעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּפֶר שֶׁהָרֶגֶל מוּעֶדֶת לְהַזִּיק בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ וּבִרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק חַיָּב אַף עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהַמּוּעָד שֶׁהֵמִית בְּכַוָּנָה נִסְקָל וְהַבְּעָלִים חַיָּבִין בְּכֹפֶר וְאִם הֵמִית שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּיתָה וְהַבְּעָלִים חַיָּבִין בְּכֹפֶר. וְתָם שֶׁהֵמִית שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּיתָה וּמִן הַכֹּפֶר. וְאִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהָמִית נִסְקָל וְהַבְּעָלִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַכֹּפֶר וְכֵן מִקְּנָס שֶׁל עֶבֶד:
כסף משנה
13.
When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and kills a child by treading on it as it proceeds, the owner [of the animal] must pay an atonement fine. [The rationale is that an animal is considered to be] mu'ad to tread on things as it proceeds, and in the domain of another person [the owner of animal] is liable for the damages it causes by eating or treading, as explained.30 Chapter 1, Halachot 5,7. Thus, one can conclude: When an animal that is mu'ad kills intentionally, it should be stoned to death, and the owners must pay the atonement fine. If it killed unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, but the owners must pay the atonement fine. When [an animal that is] tam kills unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, nor must the owners pay the atonement fine. If it intended to kill, it should be stoned to death. The owners, however, are not liable for the atonement fine or for the fine paid for killing a servant.הלכה יד
נִרְאֶה לִי שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַתָּם שֶׁהֵמִית בְּכַוָּנָה עֶבֶד אוֹ שִׁפְחָה פָּטוּר מִן הַקְּנָס שֶׁהוּא שְׁלֹשִׁים סֶלַע הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. אִם הֵמִית שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי דְּמֵי הָעֶבֶד אוֹ חֲצִי דְּמֵי הַשִּׁפְחָה מִגּוּפוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הֵמִית שׁוֹר חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ חֲמוֹרוֹ:
כסף משנה