Sanhedrin 30

אימא לקטלא הוא דאתא א"כ ליכתוב וגם בעליו ולישתוק

Perhaps it is meant to [indicate] capital punishment [for the owner]? — In that case it should have been written, and the owner also, and no more. But [perhaps] had the Divine Law written so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the word yumath, [H] ('he shall be put to death'). ');">¹</span> it could be argued that [the text implies death] by stoning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the same death should be meted out to both man and ox. ');">²</span>

אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא בסקילה בסקילה ס"ד קטל איהו בסייף ממונו בסקילה

— Could this view possibly be entertained! If a man himself is the murderer, his death is by the sword:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 52a. ');">³</span> when his property [sc. an ox] slays, shall he [the owner] be stoned!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A severer death. Surely not! ');">⁴</span>

ודילמא האי דכתב רחמנא יומת לאקולי עילויה לאפוקי מסייף לחנק הניחא למאן דאמר חנק חמור אלא למאן דאמר חנק קיל מאי איכא למימר

But might it not be argued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In support of the literal interpretation. ');">⁵</span> that the reason the Divine Law wrote <i>'yumath</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is apparently superfluous. ');">⁶</span>

לא ס"ד דכתיב (שמות כא, ל) אם כופר יושת עליו ואי ס"ד בר קטלא הוא והכתיב (במדבר לה, לא) לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח

&nbsp; is to [indicate] an easier death, i.e., to commute death by the sword to death by strangulation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by an unspecified death, strangulation is meant (infra 52b). ');">⁷</span> Now, on the view that strangulation is a severer death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As held by R. Simeon, cf. infra 49b. ');">⁸</span>

אדרבה משום היא גופה קטל איהו לא תיסגי ליה בממונא אלא בקטלא קטל שורו ליפרוק נפשיה בממונא אלא אמר חזקיה וכן תנא דבי חזקיה אמר קרא (במדבר לה, כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא על רציחתו אתה הורגו ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו

it is correct;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it would appear illogical to punish the owner more severely than in the case of his own act. ');">⁹</span> but according to the view that strangulation is an easier death [than decapitation],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As held by the Rabbis, ibid. ');">¹⁰</span>

איבעיא להו שור סיני בכמה מי גמר שעה מדורות או לא תא שמע דתני רמי בר יחזקאל (שמות יט, יג) אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה מה איש בכ"ג אף בהמה בכ"ג:

what is there to be said [against it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the argument in support of the literal interpretation of 'yumath'. ');">¹¹</span> — This cannot be entertained, because it is written, If there be laid on him a ransom;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 30. ');">¹²</span>

הארי והזאב כו': אמר ר"ל והוא שהמיתו אבל לא המיתו לא אלמא קסבר יש להן תרבות ויש להן בעלים רבי יוחנן אמר אע"פ שלא המיתו אלמא קסבר אין להם תרבות ואין להם בעלים

and, should you maintain that he is liable to death, is it not written, You shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 31; and surely, if he is to be executed, he is considered as such. ');">¹³</span> On the contrary, that fact [proves that the text is literal, Thus:] in case of a man's own crime, money is no adequate punishment, only death; whereas, when his beast kills, he can ransom himself with money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And where there is no offer of a ransom he is to be put to death. And the question — 'perhaps the verse means to indicate capital punishment for the owner' — remains. ');">¹⁴</span>

תנן רבי אליעזר אומר כל הקודם להורגן זכה בשלמא לר' יוחנן למאי זכה זכה לעורן אלא לר"ל למאי זכה כיון שהמיתו שוינהו רבנן כמאן דגמר דינייהו ואיסורי הנאה נינהו

— But, said Hezekiah, and thus said a Tanna of the school of Hezekiah: Scripture state, He that smote him [a human being] shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁵</span> For a murder committed by himself, you may put him to death, but you may not put him to death for a murder committed by his ox.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deduced from the words, 'he is a murderer', which appear superfluous. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי זכה זכה לשמים תניא כוותיה דר"ל אחד שור שהמית ואחד בהמה וחיה שהמיתו בכ"ג ר' אליעזר אומר שור שהמית בעשרים ושלשה ושאר בהמה וחיה שהמיתו כל הקודם להורגן זכה בהן לשמים:

The schoolmen asked: How many were needed [to judge] the ox [that sinned in approaching] Mount Sinai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XIX, 13. Approach was forbidden to man and beast on pain of death. ');">¹⁷</span> [The question is] whether we can derive a temporary enactment from permanent practice or not? — Come and hear! Rammi b. Ezekiel taught, Whether it be beast or man, it shall not live;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁸</span>

ר"ע אומר כו': ר"ע היינו ת"ק איכא בינייהו נחש:

just as a man is judged by twenty-three, so is a beast judged by twenty-three. THE LION AND THE WOLF etc.&nbsp;… Resh Lakish said: Provided, however, that they killed [a human being], but not otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then does R. Eliezer maintain that the sooner they are killed the better. ');">¹⁹</span>

אין דנין כו': האי שבט דחטא במאי אילימא שבט שחלל את השבת אימר דפליג רחמנא בין יחידים למרובין לענין עבודת כוכבים בשאר מצות מי פליג אלא בשבט שהודח

Thus he holds that they can be tamed and have owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., their owners acquire legal title to them. For otherwise, it would be natural to assume that R. Eliezer meant that they should always be slain as potential mankillers. ');">²⁰</span> R. Johanan says [that it is R. Eliezer's view] even when they have killed no one. Hence he holds that they cannot be tamed or have owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even if a person does breed them, he acquires no legal title thereto, and anyone is at liberty to kill them. ');">²¹</span>

למימרא דבדינא דרבים דיינינן ליה כמאן לא כרבי יאשיה ולא כרבי יונתן דתניא עד כמה עושין עיר הנדחת מי' ועד ק' דברי רבי יאשיה רבי יונתן אומר מק' ועד רובו של שבט

We learnt: R. ELIEZER SAYS, WHOEVER IS FIRST TO KILL THEM [WITHOUT TRIAL], ACQUIRES. This is correct according to R. Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whose opinion there is no ownership. Moreover, since they are slain even before they have killed a human being, they are not treated as animals sentenced to death, all benefit from which is prohibited. ');">²²</span> What does he acquire? — He acquires [the possession of] their skin. But according to Resh Lakish, what does he acquire? As soon as they killed someone, the Rabbis regarded them as sentenced [to death], in which case every benefit from them is prohibited!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 41b. ');">²³</span>

ואפילו ר' יונתן לא קאמר אלא רובו אבל כולו לא אמר רב מתנה הכא

What then does he acquire? — He acquires [merit] in the sight of Heaven. There is [a Baraitha] taught which is in agreement with Resh Lakish: It is all one whether it be an ox, or any other beast or animal that killed a man, [it is judged] by twenty-three. R. Eliezer says: Only an ox that killed [is tried] by twenty-three, but any other animal or beast who killed, whoever is first to kill them acquires merit in the sight of Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sanh. III. ');">²⁴</span> R. AKIBA SAID etc. Is not R. Akiba's opinion identical with that of the first Tanna [of the Mishnah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then state his view as though he differed with the first Tanna? ');">²⁵</span> — [No;] they differ in the case of a serpent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, according to R. Akiba, can be killed even without trial. ');">²⁶</span> A WHOLE TRIBE MUST NOT BE JUDGED etc. What sin was committed by the tribe? Shall I say, that it is a case of a tribe that desecrated the Sabbath? But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Say'. ');">²⁷</span> if the Divine Law made a distinction between individual sinners and a multitude, it was only in cases of idolatry; did it then differentiate in cases [of the transgression] of other commandments? — It must therefore refer to a tribe that was beguiled [into idolatry]. Is it to imply that it must be tried like a multitude? [If so,] this coincides with the opinion of neither R. Josiah nor R. Jonathan. For it has been taught: How many inhabitants must a town have that it may be proclaimed condemned? Not less than ten and not more than a hundred:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a town, referred to as 'ir (v. Deut. XIII, 14) can be condemned. R. Josiah holds that a community of less than ten is a village (kefar) and one of more than a hundred is an entire community, of which the 'city' is only a part. ');">²⁸</span> this is the view of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says: From a hundred to the majority of the tribe in question. And even R. Jonathan admits only the majority of a tribe, but not the whole of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of a whole tribe, the members are to be tried individually as when an entire community, as distinct from a town, practises idolatry (v. preceding note). ');">²⁹</span> The case in question, says R. Mathna, is one