Halacha
הלכה א
כַּמָּה הוּא הַכֹּפֶר. כְּמוֹ שְׁרָאוּ הַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁהוּא דְּמֵי הַנֶּהֱרָג הַכּל לְפִי שָׁוְיוֹ שֶׁל נֶהֱרָג שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא ל) "וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכל אֲשֶׁר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו". וְכֹפֶר הָעֲבָדִים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים בֵּין זְכָרִים בֵּין נְקֵבוֹת הוּא הַקְּנָס הַקָּצוּב בַּתּוֹרָה שְׁלֹשִׁים סֶלַע כֶּסֶף יָפֶה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הָעֶבֶד שָׁוֶה מֵאָה מָנֶה בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֶלָּא דִּינָר. וְכָל הַמְעֻכָּב גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר אֵין לוֹ קְנָס הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לוֹ אָדוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי יָצָא לְחֵרוּת:
כסף משנה
1.
How much is the atonement fine? The amount the judges evaluate as being the worth of the person who was killed; everything depends on his worth, as [implied by Exodus 21:30]: "And he shall give the ransom of his1 The antecedent of the pronoun his is a matter of debate among our Sages (Bava Kama 40a), who debated whether it refers to the soul of the owner or that of the person who was killed. According to the Rambam, there are dimensions of both opinions that are relevant. As evident from the previous chapter, by paying the atonement fine the owner of the ox is ransoming his own soul. On the other hand, as the Rambam states in this halachah and in Chapter 10, Halachah 4, the atonement fine is for the person killed, and the amount is determined according to the worth of the person who was killed. soul according to all that will be imposed upon him." The atonement fine for a servant, whether an adult or a minor, whether a male or a female, is the amount determined by the Torah: 30 selaim2 See Exodus 21:32. A sela is equivalent to four dinarim (zuzim). of fine3 I.e., pure silver. silver. [This applies] whether the servant was worth 100 maneh4 10,000 zuz. or only one dinar.If a servant is lacking only a bill of release,5 E.g., a servant who has been declared ownerless by his master, or one whom his master caused to lose one of the limbs that require his release. a fine is not imposed, for he does not have a master, for he has already attained his freedom.הלכה ב
לְמִי נוֹתְנִין הַכֹּפֶר. לְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַנֶּהֱרָג. וְאִם הֵמִית אִשָּׁה הַכֹּפֶר לְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מֵאָבִיהָ וְאֵינוֹ לַבַּעַל. הֵמִית מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין נוֹתֵן חֲצִי קְנָס לְרַבּוֹ וְהַחֵצִי הָאַחֵר רָאוּי לִתֵּן וְאֵין מִי יִקָּחֶנּוּ:
כסף משנה
2.
To whom is the atonement fine paid? To the heirs of the deceased. If a woman is killed, the atonement fine is paid to her heirs [as though she had not married], and not to her husband.6 A woman's property is inherited by her husband. He, however, is entitled only to the property that she possesses at the time of her death, but not property that will accrue to her afterwards. For this reason, he is not entitled to the atonement fine. Needless to say, if the woman has already borne children, the atonement fine is given to them. If a person who is half a servant, and half a freed man7 E.g., a servant was owned by two partners, and one of them freed him while the other did not.Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, who states that this law applies only to a maid-servant, but not to a male servant. The Radbaz (Volume VI, Responsum 2249), however, justifies the Rambam's view. is killed, half of the fine should be given to the owner, and the other half is fit to be given, but there is no one to take it.8 For the half-servant is dead, and he or she has no heirs. Even if he or she bore children as a servant, they are not considered as the half-servant's sons or daughters.הלכה ג
שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לִגַּח הַבְּעָלִים פְּטוּרִין מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. שֶׁלֹּא חִיְּבָה תּוֹרָה בִּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת אֶלָּא לָאָדָם:
כסף משנה
3.
When an ox gores a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, its owners are not liable for the value of the fetus. [This law applies] even when the ox is mu'ad to gore. For the obligation [stated in] the Torah to pay for the value of the fetus applies only when it is a human who causes the damages.9 Exodus 21:22 speaks about men fighting together, and one of them causing a woman to miscarry.הלכה ד
נָגַח שִׁפְחָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. שֶׁזֶּה כְּמִי שֶׁנָּגַח חֲמוֹר מְעֻבֶּרֶת. וְאִם הָיָה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת מִגּוּפוֹ:
כסף משנה
4.
If, however, an ox [that is mu'ad] gores a maid-servant and causes her to miscarry, [the owner] is required to pay for the value of the fetus. For this is equivalent to having gored a pregnant donkey.10 As mentioned at the conclusion of the previous chapter, servants are considered in certain contexts to be no more than their master's chattel. If the ox is tam, [the owner] must pay half the value of the fetus from the body of the ox.הלכה ה
כֵּיצַד שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ. אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה זוֹ שָׁוָה כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה מְעֵבֶּרֶת וְכַמָּה הִיא שָׁוָה עַתָּה וְנוֹתֵן לִבְעָלֶיהָ הַפְּחָת אוֹ חֶצְיוֹ. וְאִם הֵמִית הַשִּׁפְחָה מְשַׁלֵּם הַכֹּפֶר הַקָּצוּב בַּתּוֹרָה בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
5.
How is this sum evaluated? We assess the value of this maid-servant when she was pregnant, and how much she is worth now.11 Our Sages note that there are two elements lost with the miscarriage: a) the fetus, which would otherwise become the owner's property, and b) the fact that while pregnant, a woman looks larger and healthier (Bava Kama 49a). [The owner of the ox] must pay [the owner of the maid-servant] the difference or half the difference.12 I.e., if the ox was mu'ad, the owner must pay the entire difference. If it is tam, he must pay half the difference. If [the ox] kills the maid-servant, [despite the fact that she is pregnant, its owner] need pay only the fine determined by the Torah, as we have explained.13 See Halachah 3. No extra renumeration is made in consideration of the miscarriage.הלכה ו
שׁוֹר שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לִבְהֵמָה וְנָגַח אֶת הָאָדָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם הֱמִיתוֹ פָּטוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אִם חָבַל בּוֹ חַיָּב בְּנֵזֶק. וְאִם תָּם הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק מִגּוּפוֹ. וְאִם מוּעָד נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם:
כסף משנה
6.
When an ox intended to gore an animal and instead gored a man, [the owner is not liable], even if the man dies, as explained.14 Chapter 10, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, if [the ox] injures him, [the owner of the ox] is liable for the damages.15 Our Sages explain that one might think that although the owner is liable if his ox damages another ox in this manner, he would not be liable for injuring a man. The rationale is that an animal does not have a spiritual source protecting it, while a person does. If injury occurs despite that spiritual protection, one might think that it is willed by God, and therefore the owner of the ox is not liable. (See Bava Kama 2b). If the ox is tam, he should pay half the damages from the body of the ox. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire amount of the damages.16 See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.הלכה ז
שׁוֹר תָּם שֶׁהֵמִית וְהִזִּיק דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת וְאֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. וּמוּעָד שֶׁהֵמִית וְהִזִּיק דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְחוֹזְרִין וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. קָדְמוּ וְדָנוּהוּ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת תְּחִלָּה חוֹזְרִין וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת:
כסף משנה
7.
When an ox that is tam kills [a man] and then causes damage,17 To a man or to another animal. it is sentenced to execution, but there is no financial claim on its owners.18 For the payment for the damages caused by an ox that is tam must come from the body of the ox itself. In this instance, since the ox must be stoned to death, we are forbidden to benefit from its carcass. Thus, there is no source from which this obligation can be met. If an ox that is mu'ad kills and then causes damage, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined,19 They must pay from resources other than the body of the ox. and then it is sentenced to execution. If it is sentenced to execution first, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined afterwards.הלכה ח
וּמֵהֵיכָן מִשְׁתַּלֵּם מִן הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ בִּרְדִיָּתוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ לִסְקִילָה אֵין לוֹ בְּעָלִים שֶׁיִּתְחַיְּבוּ בִּנְזָקָיו. דָּנוּהוּ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת וּבָרַח אֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת:
כסף משנה
8.
How is this money collected? From the profit that will accrue from the labor of the ox after it has been sentenced.20 I.e., the ox is hired out by the court to work for different people. When enough money accrues to pay for the damages, it is executed. [This step is taken] because once it is sentenced to be stoned to death, it no longer has owners who are considered liable for the damages it caused.21 The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position as follows. It is clear to the Rambam that once an animal is sentenced to be executed, it is no longer considered the property of its owner, and the owner is not considered responsible for the damages, even if the damages took place before the death sentence was delivered. (It appears that the Rambam considers that the obligation for the damages takes place only after the matter is taken to court.) For this reason, the Rambam maintains that the ox itself should be made to work for the damages.For this reason, the ox will not be executed immediately after being sentenced. Although it is not proper to delay the execution of a human, there is no such principle with regard to the execution of an ox. There are other authorities who differ with several elements of the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation. If [in the above situation] it was sentenced to death and then it22 I.e., the ox. Rashi interprets Bava Kama 91a, the source of this halachah, as referring to the flight of the owner of the ox. fled, no liability [resulting from the damages] is assigned.23 For the ox is not present to be hired out to work.הלכה ט
שׁוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְּעָלָיו אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ. וְכֵן אִם הִפְקִירוֹ אֵינוֹ מֻפְקָר. מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. הֶחֱזִירוֹ שׁוֹמֵר לִבְעָלָיו אֵינָהּ חֲזָרָה. שְׁחָטוֹ בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ לִסְקִילָה. אֲבָל עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמָר דִּינוֹ לִסְקִילָה אִם הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מֻקְדָּשׁ וְאִם הִפְקִירוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא מֻפְקָר. מְכָרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מָכוּר. הֶחֱזִירוֹ שׁוֹמֵר לִבְעָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה מֻחְזָר. וְאִם קָדַם וּשְׁחָטוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה:
כסף משנה
9.
When an ox killed a human, and afterwards its owner consecrates it, it is not consecrated.24 Once an ox has been sentenced to death, it is no longer considered to be the property of its former owner. Similarly, if he declares it ownerless, it is not ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is not effective. If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is not considered to have been returned.25 And the watchman must reimburse the owner for his ox, for he is responsible for it. If it is slaughtered, one is forbidden to benefit from its meat.26 See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 4:22, Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 4:2 and other sources. When does the above apply? After it has already been sentenced to death. If, however, it had not been sentenced to death [different rules apply]. If its owner consecrates it, it is consecrated. If he declares it ownerless, it is ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is effective.27 The purchaser should slaughter the ox immediately. Otherwise, its meat will become forbidden. If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is considered to have been returned.28 Although the ox will be sentenced to death, the watchman is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for the owners have the option of slaughtering the ox before it is sentenced to death. If it is slaughtered first, one is not forbidden to benefit from its meat.הלכה י
שׁוֹר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁוָרִים אֲחֵרִים כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גּוֹמְרִין דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹר אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַשּׁוֹר כְּדִין הָאָדָם. נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶלֶף כֻּלָּן נִסְקָלִים וְנִקְבָּרִין וַאֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה כְּדִין בְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת:
כסף משנה
10.
When an ox [that killed a human] becomes intermingled with other oxen before it was sentenced to death, they are all not held liable. [The rationale is that] just as the judgment of a human being [must be concluded in the presence of that person], so too, the judgment of the ox must be concluded in the presence of the ox.29 And since the ox cannot be identified, that is not possible. If an ox becomes intermingled with other oxen - even 1000 - after it was sentenced to death, they all must be stoned to death.30 The animal is not considered to become bateil b'rov, insignificant because it is mixed with a larger quantity of permitted substances. Indeed, even when it becomes mixed with a far larger number of oxen, its identity is never considered insignificant. The rationale is that a live animal is important. And an important entity is never considered to be insignificant (Zevachim 72a; Sanhedrin 79b-80a). It is forbidden to benefit from them, and their carcasses must be buried, as is required whenever an animal is stoned to death.31 See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:7 and Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashim 19:11.הלכה יא
פָּרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת שֶׁהֵמִיתָה אֶת הָאָדָם וְכֵן כָּל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵרָה הֲרֵי עֵבָּרָהּ כָּמוֹהָ. הִיא וְעֵבָּרָהּ נָגְחָה הִיא וְעֻבָּרָהּ נִרְבְּעָה:
כסף משנה
11.
When a pregnant cow kills a person - and similarly, all animals that were used for a sinful purpose [that requires their execution]32 This apparently refers to an animal used by a human for sodomy, which must be executed, as stated in Leviticus 20:15. For no other sin is an animal executed. - the laws that apply to it apply to its calf.33 This follows the principle stated in the next halachah: A fetus is considered to be an extension of its mother. For it and its calf gored; it and its calf were sodomized.הלכה יב
נָגְחָה וְהֵמִיתָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְעַבְּרָה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינָהּ נִתְעַבְּרָה וְיָלְדָה קֹדֶם גְּמַר דִּין וְלָדָהּ מֻתָּר וְאִם יָלְדָה אַחַר גְּמַר דִּין וְלָדָהּ אָסוּר שֶׁהָעֻבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא. וְאִם נִתְעָרֵב וָלָד זֶה בַּאֲחֵרִים כּוֹנְסִין אֶת כֻּלָּם בְּכִפָּה עַד שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ שָׁם:
כסף משנה
12.
[The following rules apply if a cow] gored a person to death and then became pregnant: If it became pregnant and bore a calf before it was sentenced to death, the calf is permitted.34 For it was not part of its mother's body, neither at the time of the killing, nor at the time of the sentence. If it bore a calf after the sentence was delivered, the calf is forbidden, for a fetus is considered an extension35 Literally the thigh. of its mother.36 And so, just as the sentence caused the mother to become forbidden, it also caused the calf to become forbidden. The calf is not executed, however. Instead, it is left to die. If [the calf] became intermingled with other calves, they must all be enclosed in a closed room until they die.37 In this instance as well, all the calves need not be executed. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from them, because the presence of a live animal in a mixture is never considered to be insignificant.הלכה יג
שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁהוּזַמּוּ עֵדָיו כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בּוֹ זָכָה שֶׁהֲרֵי מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ הִפְקִירוּהוּ בְּעָלָיו. וְאִם הֵעִידוּ שֶׁבְּעָלָיו רִבְּעָהוּ וְהֵזִים אֶת הָעֵדִים הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר לִבְעָלָיו וְהַקּוֹדֵם וּמְשָׁכוֹ לֹא זָכָה בּוֹ שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהַבַּעַל יוֹדֵעַ בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא וְשֶׁאֵלּוּ עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵם וַהֲרֵי הוּא מְיַחֵל לַהֲזִימָם לֹא הִפְקִיר:
כסף משנה