(Exodus 21:28) "And if an ox gore": The ox, too, was included in (Ibid. 12) "the striker of a man — if he die — shall be put to death." Scripture singled it out here for severity, (that it be put to death) by stoning. Thus, the adducing of this section.
"An if an ox gore": This tells me only of an ox. Whence do I derive (the same for) all beasts? It follows, viz.: It is written here "ox," and elsewhere (in the second Decalogue, Devarim 5:14) "ox." Just as the "ox" of Sinai is equated with "all of your beasts," so, here, all beasts are to be equated with ox.
And whence is it derived that all deaths (inflicted by the beast) are equated with goring? It follows, viz.: Since a mued (an ox that gored three times) is put to death (for killing a man) by stoning (viz. Ibid. 29), and a tam (an ox that gored a man to death even the first time) is put to death by stoning — if you have learned about a mued that all deaths (inflicted by it) are equated with goring, so, all deaths (inflicted) by a tam are to be equated with goring.
No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer (viz. 21:30), as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (29) "and it killed a man or a woman," for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here (28) "a man or a woman," and there (29) "a man or a woman." Just as there, all deaths are equated with goring, so, here, all deaths are to be equated with goring.
And whence is it derived that minors (who were killed by a tam) are equated with adults? It follows, viz.: Since a tam is to be stoned and a mued is to be stoned, if you have learned about mued that minors are to be equated with adults (viz. 21:31), then there (re a tam), too, minors are to be equated with adults.
No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer, wherefore minors are equated with adults, as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (31) "Or if it gore a son (a minor), or if it gore a daughter (a minor). It ("gore") is extra for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here (re tam [28]) "gore," and there (re mued) "gore." Just as there, minors are equated with adults, so, here.
R. Shimon b. Yochai said: Why was this (gezeirah shavah ) stated? Even without it, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If in a "place" — killing others — where minors are not equated with adults (— adults being liable; minors not —) — (If in such a place) minors are equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed — then in a place where "minors" are equated with "adults," (a young ox as well as a grown ox being stoned for killing a man) — how much more so should minors be equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed! — No, this may be true there, where intent (to damage) was equated with non-intent relative to (payment for) damages, wherefore minors were equated with adults in being killed, as opposed to our instance, where non-intent is not equated with intent, (the "horn" of the ox imposing liability only where the ox butts intentionally), wherefore we would say that minors are not equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed. It must, therefore, be written "Or if it gore a son or if it gore a daughter," "gore" being extra for purposes of formulating an identity, as above.
(Exodus 21:28) "the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten": Why is this stated? From "the ox shall be stoned," do I not know that its flesh is forbidden? (It is neveilah [carcass].) But (the meaning is that) if the ox were taken out to be stoned, and its owner intervened and slaughtered it, its flesh may not be eaten.
This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive that it is even forbidden to derive benefit from it? — Do you ask? If follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, (viz. Devarim 21:1-9) which atones for the spilling of blood, how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is itself a spiller of blood! — But reverse it, viz.: If it were permitted to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is a spiller of blood, how much more so would it be permitted to derive benefit from an eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:4) "and they shall break there the neck of the heifer in the river-bed" (from which it is derived [hermeneutically] that benefit may not be derived from it.)
I have reasoned and reversed. The reversal has been nullified and I have returned to the original a fortiori deduction, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood, how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is itself a spiller of blood.
Rebbi says: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which do not come to atone for the world (viz. Leviticus 26:27), how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, which does come to atone for the world! This tells me only of its flesh (i.e., that benefit may not be derived from the flesh of an ox that killed, which was slaughtered after judgment had been passed upon it.) Whence do I derive (the same for) its skin? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the skin of a sin-offering, whose flesh is permitted in its slaughtering, is forbidden (in the derivation of benefit) in its death, then an ox to be stoned, whose flesh is forbidden in its slaughtering, how much more so should its skin be forbidden in its death! — (No,) this is refuted by an ox which has become tamei, which, although its flesh is forbidden in its slaughtering, its skin is permitted in its death.
One of the disciples of R. Yishmael said: This may be true of an ox which has become tamei, from which benefit may be derived, for which reason its skin is permitted in its death, as opposed to an ox to be stoned, which, since benefit is forbidden to be derived therefrom, its skin is to be forbidden in its death.
"and the owner of the ox is absolved": R. Yehudah says: He is absolved by Heaven. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a mued is stoned and a tam is stoned, then if we have learned about mued that even though the owner satisfied (the demands of) a beth-din of flesh and blood, he did not satisfy Heaven, (having to pay kofer), then there (in the instance of tam), too, even though he satisfied a beth-din of flesh and blood, he did not satisfy Heaven. It is, therefore, written "and the owner of the ox (a tam) is absolved" — by Heaven.
Shimon b. Azzai says: "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — from half-kofer. For it would follow: Since an ox who killed an ox must pay, and an ox that killed a man must pay, then just as there, (in the first instance) a mued pays full damages and a tam, half-damages; here, too, (in the instance of an ox that kills) a man, it is so. And what is the intent of "the owner of the ox is absolved"? Of half-kofer.
R. Gamliel says: "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of a man-servant. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since both a mued and a tam are stoned (for killing a man), then if we have learned about mued that he (the owner) pays for the worth of a man-servant, then it should be the same with a tam. It is, therefore, written (in the instance of a tam) "the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of a man-servant.
R. Akiva says: "the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of fetuses. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since both man and ox are liable for injury, then if we have learned about a man who intended to strike his fellow and struck a woman and caused her to miscarry that he is liable to pay for her fetuses, then the same obtains with an ox; it is, therefore, written "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — of payment for the fetuses.
(Exodus 21:29) "And if it were a goring ox": Scripture comes to distinguish between a tam and a mued: A mued requires (that the owner be warned before) witnesses; not a tam. A mued pays kofer; not a tam. A mued pays thirty sela (viz. Ibid. 32); not a tam. A mued pays full damages; a tam, half-damages. A mued pays from the aliyah (the owner's choicest property); a tam, from (sale of) its body.
A mued — one whose owner was warned three days. A tam — one which desisted (from goring) for three consecutive days. These are the words of R. Yehudah.
R. Meir says: A mued — one whose owner was warned three times (even in one day). A tam — one whom the children play with without (fear of) being gored. And what is the intent of "mitmol shilshom"? If he was warned three non consecutive days, it is regarded as a tam (and not as a mued).
"and the owner were warned": We are hereby apprised that he is not liable unless he was warned. "and he did not guard it": to bring (even) a non-paid watcher. Variantly: "and he did not watch it": as befits it — whence they ruled: If he watched it as befits it, he is not liable; if not as befits it, he is liable. If he tied it with a harness and it freed itself and damaged, he is liable for both a tam and a mued, it being written (Ibid. 36) "and its owner did not guard it" — and this is not considered guarding. These are the words of R. Meir.
R. Yehudah says: For a tam he is liable; for a mued, he is not liable, it being written (of the latter) "and its owner not guard it" — and this is considered guarding.
24
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.*סַכִּין: סכין שחיטה. אי-אפשר למנוע מן השור המועד להזיק אלא על ידי המתתו. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
R. Eliezer says: It has no "guarding" but the knife. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov exempts him in both instances.
"And it killed a man or a woman": This is "extra," towards comparison and the formulation of a gezeirah shavah (identity) (as above). "the ox shall be stoned": Why is this stated? It follows a fortiori, viz. :If a tam is to be stoned, how much more so a mued! — No, this may be so with a tam, for which he does not pay kofer, but not with a mued, for which he does pay kofer. It must, therefore, be written "the ox shall be stoned."
Variantly: Because it was in the class (of being stoned) and "departed" (from that class) for a new learning (i.e., that he pays kofer), Scripture restored it to its class.
R. Akiva says: "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner, too, shall die." The death of the owner is being likened to the death of the ox, viz.: Just as the death of the owner (requires a beth-din of) twenty-three, so, the death of the ox.
"and its owner, too, shall die": at the hands of Heaven. You say at the hands of Heaven, but perhaps at the hands of man? It is written (Numbers 35:31) "You shall not take kofer (ransom) for the soul of a murderer, who is liable to death" — Redemption is not given for those who are put to death at the hands of man, but (only) to those who are liable to death at the hands of Heaven.
(Exodus 21:30) "When kofer is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul": the value of the victim. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
R. Akiva says: the value of the killer (i.e., the owner of the ox). And thus do we find that redemption is not given for those who are put to death. In all places, those who are liable to death at the hands of man are not redeemed, as it is written (Leviticus 27:24) "Any cherem that is devoted from a man (going out to be executed) shall not be redeemed, (for) he is going to be put to death" (and has no valuation). But here "he shall give the redemption of his soul."
R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heaven, as it is written (Numbers 30:12) "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their number, then each man shall give the ransom of his soul to the L–rd, etc.", and (II Kings 12:5) "each man, the money for the valuation of his soul," and (Mishlei 13:8) "A man's wealth may redeem his soul," and (Daniel 4:24) "But, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you. Redeem your soul through charity," and (Job 33:23-24) "If there will be for him but a single defending angel from a thousand to declare a man's uprightness for him, then He will be gracious to him and He will say: Redeem him from descending to the grave I have found kofer for Him!"
We find that certain consecrated objects can be redeemed and others cannot be redeemed; certain things that may not be eaten may be redeemed; things from which benefit may not be derived may not be redeemed. The nations of the world cannot be redeemed, as it is written (Psalms 49:8) "A man cannot redeem his brother; he cannot give his kofer to G–d. Too costly is their soul's redemption and unattainable forever."
Beloved is Israel for whose souls the Holy One Blessed be He has given the nations as kofer, as it is written (Isaiah 43:3) "I gave Egypt as kofer for you." Why? (Ibid. 4) "Because you were honored in My eyes, you were honored and I loved you, and I placed a man in your place and nations in place of your souls."
(שמות כא,כח) "וְכִי יִגַּח שׁוֹר אֶת אִישׁ אוֹ אֶת אִשָּׁה וָמֵת, סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר, וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ, וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי." אַף הַשּׁוֹר בַּכְּלָל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כא,כט) "וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה". וַהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלָלוֹ, לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו שֶׁיְּהֵי בִסְקִילָה, לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרָה פָרָשָׁה.
(Exodus 21:28) "And if an ox gore": The ox, too, was included in (Ibid. 12) "the striker of a man — if he die — shall be put to death." Scripture singled it out here for severity, (that it be put to death) by stoning. Thus, the adducing of this section.
"וְכִי יִגַּח שׁוֹר", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שׁוֹר; מְנַיִן לַעֲשׁוֹת כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה כַשּׁוֹר? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "שׁוֹר", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "שׁוֹר"; מַה שּׁוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּסִינַי, עָשָׂה בוֹ אֶת כָּל בְּהֵמָה כַשּׁוֹר, אַף שׁוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּן, דִּין הוּא שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בוֹ אֶת כָּל בְּהֵמָה כַשּׁוֹר.
"An if an ox gore": This tells me only of an ox. Whence do I derive (the same for) all beasts? It follows, viz.: It is written here "ox," and elsewhere (in the second Decalogue, Devarim 5:14) "ox." Just as the "ox" of Sinai is equated with "all of your beasts," so, here, all beasts are to be equated with ox.
וּמְנַיִן לַעֲשׁוֹת אֶת כָּל הַמִּיתוֹת כִּנְגִיחָה? הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָן: הוֹאִיל וּמוּעָד בִּסְקִילָה וְתָם בִּסְקִילָה, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל הַמּוּעָד, שֶׁעָשָׂה בוֹ אֶת כָּל הַמִּיתוֹת כִּנְגִיחָה, אַף תָּם נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ אֶת כָּל הַמִּיתוֹת כִּנְגִיחָה!
And whence is it derived that all deaths (inflicted by the beast) are equated with goring? It follows, viz.: Since a mued (an ox that gored three times) is put to death (for killing a man) by stoning (viz. Ibid. 29), and a tam (an ox that gored a man to death even the first time) is put to death by stoning — if you have learned about a mued that all deaths (inflicted by it) are equated with goring, so, all deaths (inflicted) by a tam are to be equated with goring.
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַמּוּעָד, שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּפֶר, לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ אֶת כָּל הַמִּיתוֹת כִּנְגִיחָה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) (שמות כא,כט) "וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", אֶלָּא מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ לָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּן 'אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה', וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה"; מַה "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה" שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן, עָשָׂה בוֹ כָל הַמִּיתוֹת כִּנְגִיחָה, אַף 'אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה' שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּן, דִּין הוּא שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בוֹ אֶת כָּל הַמִּיתוֹת כִּנְגִיחָה.
No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer (viz. 21:30), as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (29) "and it killed a man or a woman," for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here (28) "a man or a woman," and there (29) "a man or a woman." Just as there, all deaths are equated with goring, so, here, all deaths are to be equated with goring.
וּמְנַיִן לַעֲשׁוֹת קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים? הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָן: הוֹאִיל וּמוּעָד בִּסְקִילָה, וְתָם בִּסְקִילָה, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל מוּעָד, שֶׁעָשָׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים, אַף תָּם, נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים!
And whence is it derived that minors (who were killed by a tam) are equated with adults? It follows, viz.: Since a tam is to be stoned and a mued is to be stoned, if you have learned about mued that minors are to be equated with adults (viz. 21:31), then there (re a tam), too, minors are to be equated with adults.
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַמּוּעָד שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּפֶר, לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) "אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ בַת יִגָּח", אֶלָּא מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ לָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "יִגַּח", נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "יִגַּח"; מַה "יִגַּח" שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן, עָשָׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים, אַף "יִגַּח" הָאָמוֹר כָּן נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים.
No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer, wherefore minors are equated with adults, as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (31) "Or if it gore a son (a minor), or if it gore a daughter (a minor). It ("gore") is extra for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here (re tam [28]) "gore," and there (re mued) "gore." Just as there, minors are equated with adults, so, here.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַדִּין: מָה, אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּהוֹרְגִין, עָשָׂה קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּנֶּהֱרָגִין, וְכָן שֶׁעָשָׂה קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּהוֹרְגִין, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּנֶּהֱרָגִין? לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ לְהַלָּן, שֶׁעָשָׂה אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן כַּמִּתְכַּוֵּן בַּנִּזָּקִין, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא עָשָׂה קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּנֶּהֱרָגִין, תֹּאמַר כָּן, שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן כַּמִּתְכַּוֵּן בַּנִּזָּקִין, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא עָשָׂה קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּנֶּהֱרָגִין! שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) (שמות כא,לא) "אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ בַת יִגָּח". וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ בַת יִגָּח"? אֶלָּא מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "יִגַּח", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "יִגַּח", מַה "יִגַּח" הָאָמוֹר לְהַלָּן, עָשָׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּנֶּהֱרָגִין, אַף "יִגַּח" הָאָמוֹר כָּן, נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּנֶּהֱרָגִין. דִּין הוּא שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בוֹ קְטַנִּים כִּגְדוֹלִים בַּנֶּהֱרָגִין.
R. Shimon b. Yochai said: Why was this (gezeirah shavah ) stated? Even without it, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If in a "place" — killing others — where minors are not equated with adults (— adults being liable; minors not —) — (If in such a place) minors are equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed — then in a place where "minors" are equated with "adults," (a young ox as well as a grown ox being stoned for killing a man) — how much more so should minors be equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed! — No, this may be true there, where intent (to damage) was equated with non-intent relative to (payment for) damages, wherefore minors were equated with adults in being killed, as opposed to our instance, where non-intent is not equated with intent, (the "horn" of the ox imposing liability only where the ox butts intentionally), wherefore we would say that minors are not equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed. It must, therefore, be written "Or if it gore a son or if it gore a daughter," "gore" being extra for purposes of formulating an identity, as above.
"סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר, וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ". לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר", הָא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ"? אֶלָּא שׁוֹר שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל, וְקִדְּמוּ בְעָלִים וּשְׁחָטוּהוּ, בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ".
(Exodus 21:28) "the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten": Why is this stated? From "the ox shall be stoned," do I not know that its flesh is forbidden? (It is neveilah [carcass].) But (the meaning is that) if the ox were taken out to be stoned, and its owner intervened and slaughtered it, its flesh may not be eaten.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, מְנַיִן שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה? אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה, אִם עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָיָה, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה! אוֹ חִלּוּף? אִם שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים, הֲרֵי הוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵי מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים כא,ד) "וְעָרְפוּ שָׁם אֶת הָעֶגְלָה בַּנָּחַל." דַּנְתִּי וְחִלַּפְתִּי, בָּטַל הַחִלּוּף וְזָכִיתִי לָדוּן בַּתְּחִלָּה: מָה אִם עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָיָה, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה.
This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive that it is even forbidden to derive benefit from it? — Do you ask? If follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, (viz. Devarim 21:1-9) which atones for the spilling of blood, how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is itself a spiller of blood! — But reverse it, viz.: If it were permitted to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is a spiller of blood, how much more so would it be permitted to derive benefit from an eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:4) "and they shall break there the neck of the heifer in the river-bed" (from which it is derived [hermeneutically] that benefit may not be derived from it.)
רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ! מָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ לֹא מְטַמָּא אֶת הָאָרֶץ, וְלֹא מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַשְּׁכִינָה, הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָיָה, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אֶת הָאָרֶץ, וּמְסַלֵּק אֶת הַשְּׁכִינָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה.
I have reasoned and reversed. The reversal has been nullified and I have returned to the original a fortiori deduction, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood, how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is itself a spiller of blood.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: וּמָה, אִם פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין לְכַפָּרָה לָעוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה, שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא לְכַפָּרָה לָעוֹלָם, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְשָׂרוֹ, עוֹרוֹ מְנַיִן? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר: וּמָה, אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁבְּשָׂרָהּ מֻתָּר בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, עוֹרָהּ אָסוּר בְּמִיתָתָהּ, שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי עוֹרוֹ אָסוּר בְּמִיתָתוֹ! הֲרֵי נְבֵלָה תּוֹכִיחַ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּשָׂרָהּ אָסוּר בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, עוֹרָהּ מֻתָּר בְּמִיתָתָהּ; הִיא תּוֹכִיחַ עַל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי עוֹרוֹ מֻתָּר בְּמִיתָתוֹ.
Rebbi says: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which do not come to atone for the world (viz. Leviticus 26:27), how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, which does come to atone for the world! This tells me only of its flesh (i.e., that benefit may not be derived from the flesh of an ox that killed, which was slaughtered after judgment had been passed upon it.) Whence do I derive (the same for) its skin? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the skin of a sin-offering, whose flesh is permitted in its slaughtering, is forbidden (in the derivation of benefit) in its death, then an ox to be stoned, whose flesh is forbidden in its slaughtering, how much more so should its skin be forbidden in its death! — (No,) this is refuted by an ox which has become tamei, which, although its flesh is forbidden in its slaughtering, its skin is permitted in its death.
אָמַר אֶחָד מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַנְּבֵלָה, שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה, לְפִיכָךְ עוֹרָהּ מֻתָּר בְּמִיתָתָהּ, תֹּאמַר בַּשּׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה, לְפִיכָךְ יְהֵי עוֹרוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה.
One of the disciples of R. Yishmael said: This may be true of an ox which has become tamei, from which benefit may be derived, for which reason its skin is permitted in its death, as opposed to an ox to be stoned, which, since benefit is forbidden to be derived therefrom, its skin is to be forbidden in its death.
"סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ". "אֶת", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְהָבִיא דָּמוֹ וְחֶלְבּוֹ וְעוֹרוֹ.
(Exodus 21:28) "eth its flesh": to include (in the prohibition of benefit) its blood, its fats, and its hide.
"וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי." רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר: נָקִי מִידֵי שָׁמַיִם. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, הוֹאִיל וּמוּעָד בִּסְקִילָה וְתָם בִּסְקִילָה, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל מוּעָד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצְאוּ בְעָלָיו מִידֵי בֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּבָשָׂר וָדָם, לֹא יָצְאוּ בְעָלָיו מִידֵי בֵית דִּין שֶׁלַּשָּׁמַיִם, הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי"? נָקִי מִידֵי שָׁמַיִם.
"and the owner of the ox is absolved": R. Yehudah says: He is absolved by Heaven. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a mued is stoned and a tam is stoned, then if we have learned about mued that even though the owner satisfied (the demands of) a beth-din of flesh and blood, he did not satisfy Heaven, (having to pay kofer), then there (in the instance of tam), too, even though he satisfied a beth-din of flesh and blood, he did not satisfy Heaven. It is, therefore, written "and the owner of the ox (a tam) is absolved" — by Heaven.
שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּי אוֹמֵר: "וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי", נָקִי מֵחֲצִי נֶזֶק. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, הוֹאִיל וְשׁוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הַשּׁוֹר, בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין, וְשׁוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם, בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין, מַה לְּהַלָּן, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אַף כָּן מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק! הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי"? נָקִי מֵחֲצִי נֶזֶק.
Shimon b. Azzai says: "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — from half-kofer. For it would follow: Since an ox who killed an ox must pay, and an ox that killed a man must pay, then just as there, (in the first instance) a mued pays full damages and a tam, half-damages; here, too, (in the instance of an ox that kills) a man, it is so. And what is the intent of "the owner of the ox is absolved"? Of half-kofer.
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,כח) "וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי", נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, הוֹאִיל וּמוּעָד בִּסְקִילָה וְתָם בִּסְקִילָה, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל מוּעָד שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי הָעֶבֶד, יָכֹל אַף בַּתָּם יְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי הָעֶבֶד? הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי"? נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד.
R. Gamliel says: "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of a man-servant. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since both a mued and a tam are stoned (for killing a man), then if we have learned about mued that he (the owner) pays for the worth of a man-servant, then it should be the same with a tam. It is, therefore, written (in the instance of a tam) "the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of a man-servant.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: "וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי", נָקִי מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, הוֹאִיל וְחִיֵּב בָּאָדָם וְחִיֵּב בַּשּׁוֹר, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל אָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, יְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת, אַף הַשּׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהִכָּה אִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, יְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת! הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי"? נָקִי מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת.
R. Akiva says: "the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of fetuses. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since both man and ox are liable for injury, then if we have learned about a man who intended to strike his fellow and struck a woman and caused her to miscarry that he is liable to pay for her fetuses, then the same obtains with an ox; it is, therefore, written "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — of payment for the fetuses.
(שמות כא,כט) ["וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם, וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ, וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה, הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל, וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת."] "וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא". בָּא הַכָּתוּב לַחְלֹק בֵּין שׁוֹר תָּם לְמוּעָד. חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים בֵּין שׁוֹר תָּם לְמוּעָד: מוּעָד צָרִיךְ עֵדִים, וְתָם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ עֵדִים; מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּפֶר, וְתָם פָּטוּר מִן הַכֹּפֶר; מוּעָד נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים סֶלַע, וְתָם אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים סֶלַע; מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק; מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּה, וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם מִגּוּפוֹ.
(Exodus 21:29) "And if it were a goring ox": Scripture comes to distinguish between a tam and a mued: A mued requires (that the owner be warned before) witnesses; not a tam. A mued pays kofer; not a tam. A mued pays thirty sela (viz. Ibid. 32); not a tam. A mued pays full damages; a tam, half-damages. A mued pays from the aliyah (the owner's choicest property); a tam, from (sale of) its body.
"מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם", יוֹם וְאֶמֶשׁ וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו. אֵיזֶהוּ שׁוֹר תָּם, וְאֵיזֶהוּ שׁוֹר מוּעָד? מוּעָד, שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים, וְתָם, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵי הַתִּינוֹק מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּקַרְנָיו. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
"mitmol shilshom": today, yesterday, and the day before. Which is a tam and which is a mued?
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מוּעָד, שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים, וְתָם, שֶׁיַּחְזֹר בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה.
A mued — one whose owner was warned three days. A tam — one which desisted (from goring) for three consecutive days. These are the words of R. Yehudah.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִלּוּ הֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם"? אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָזַר בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֵינוֹ נִדּוֹן אֶלָּא כְתָם.
R. Meir says: A mued — one whose owner was warned three times (even in one day). A tam — one whom the children play with without (fear of) being gored. And what is the intent of "mitmol shilshom"? If he was warned three non consecutive days, it is regarded as a tam (and not as a mued).
"וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁהִתְרוּ בוֹ. "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ", לְהָבִיא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ", כָּרָאוּי לוֹ. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: שְׁמָרוֹ כָרָאוּי, פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא כָרָאוּי, חַיָּב. קְשָׁרוֹ בְּמוֹסֵרָה וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק,*מוֹסֵרָה: חבל עבה. חבל הקשור לרסן. תָּם פָּטוּר וּמוּעָד חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כא,לו) "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו", לֹא שְׁמָרוֹ זֶה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
"and the owner were warned": We are hereby apprised that he is not liable unless he was warned. "and he did not guard it": to bring (even) a non-paid watcher. Variantly: "and he did not watch it": as befits it — whence they ruled: If he watched it as befits it, he is not liable; if not as befits it, he is liable. If he tied it with a harness and it freed itself and damaged, he is liable for both a tam and a mued, it being written (Ibid. 36) "and its owner did not guard it" — and this is not considered guarding. These are the words of R. Meir.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּם חַיָּב, וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כא,לו) "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו", וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה.
R. Yehudah says: For a tam he is liable; for a mued, he is not liable, it being written (of the latter) "and its owner not guard it" — and this is considered guarding.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.*סַכִּין: סכין שחיטה. אי-אפשר למנוע מן השור המועד להזיק אלא על ידי המתתו. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
R. Eliezer says: It has no "guarding" but the knife. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov exempts him in both instances.
"וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה". מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה. "הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַדִּין: אִם הַתָּם בִּסְקִילָה, מוּעָד לֹא יְהֵי בִסְקִילָה? לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַתָּם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּפֶר, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא בִסְקִילָה, תֹּאמַר בַּמּוּעָד שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּפֶר, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְהֵי בִסְקִילָה! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל".
"And it killed a man or a woman": This is "extra," towards comparison and the formulation of a gezeirah shavah (identity) (as above). "the ox shall be stoned": Why is this stated? It follows a fortiori, viz. :If a tam is to be stoned, how much more so a mued! — No, this may be so with a tam, for which he does not pay kofer, but not with a mued, for which he does pay kofer. It must, therefore, be written "the ox shall be stoned."
דָּבָר אַחֵר: הָיָה בַכְּלָל וְיָצָא לִדּוֹן בְּחָדָשׁ, וְהֶחְזִירוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִכְלָלוֹ.
Variantly: Because it was in the class (of being stoned) and "departed" (from that class) for a new learning (i.e., that he pays kofer), Scripture restored it to its class.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: "הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת", הִקִּישׁ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר לְמִיתַת בְּעָלִים: מָה מִיתַת בְּעָלִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, אַף מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.
R. Akiva says: "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner, too, shall die." The death of the owner is being likened to the death of the ox, viz.: Just as the death of the owner (requires a beth-din of) twenty-three, so, the death of the ox.
"וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת", יוּמָת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִידֵי אָדָם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,ל) "אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו, וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ", הָא נוֹתְנִין פִּדָּיוֹן לַמּוּמָתִין בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. עֲדַיִן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, יוּמָת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם! אַתָּה אוֹמֵר יוּמָת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּידֵי אָדָם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (במדבר לה,לא) "וְלֹא תִקְחוּ כֹפֶר לְנֶפֶשׁ רֹצֵחַ, אֲשֶׁר הוּא רָשָׁע לָמוּת", הָא אֵין נוֹתְנִין פִּדָּיוֹן לַמּוּמָתִין בִּידֵי אָדָם, אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין פִּדָּיוֹן לַמּוּמָתִין בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם.
"and its owner, too, shall die": at the hands of Heaven. You say at the hands of Heaven, but perhaps at the hands of man? It is written (Numbers 35:31) "You shall not take kofer (ransom) for the soul of a murderer, who is liable to death" — Redemption is not given for those who are put to death at the hands of man, but (only) to those who are liable to death at the hands of Heaven.
(שמות כא,ל) "אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו, וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו." פִּדְיוֹן נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלַּמּוּמָת. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
(Exodus 21:30) "When kofer is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul": the value of the victim. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: פִּדְיוֹן נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלַּמֵּמִית. וְכֵן מָצִינוּ, שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין פִּדָּיוֹן לַמּוּמָתִין בִּידֵי אָדָם בְּכָל מָקוֹם. חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, אֵין לָהֶן פִּדָּיוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כז,כט) "כָּל חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יָחֳרַם מִן הָאָדָם, לֹא יִפָּדֶה, מוֹת יוּמָת."
R. Akiva says: the value of the killer (i.e., the owner of the ox). And thus do we find that redemption is not given for those who are put to death. In all places, those who are liable to death at the hands of man are not redeemed, as it is written (Leviticus 27:24) "Any cherem that is devoted from a man (going out to be executed) shall not be redeemed, (for) he is going to be put to death" (and has no valuation). But here "he shall give the redemption of his soul."
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה רַחֲמָיו שֶׁלְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם עַל בָּשָׂר וָדָם! שֶׁאָדָם קוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן מִידֵי שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות ל,יב) "כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם, וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיי בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם." וְאוֹמֵר (מלכים ב יב,ה) "אִישׁ כֶּסֶף נַפְשׁוֹת עֶרְכּוֹ". וְאוֹמֵר (משלי יג,י) "כֹּפֶר נֶפֶשׁ אִישׁ עָשְׁרוֹ". וְאוֹמֵר: *(דניאל ד,כד)** לָכֵן, הַמֶּלֶךְ, שֶׁעֲצָתִי תִהְיֶה יָפָה עָלֶיךָ, וַחֲטָאֶיךָ בְּצִדְקָה פְּדֵה. "לָהֵן מַלְכָּא מִלְכִּי יִשְׁפַּר עֲלָךְ, וַחֲטָאָךְ בְּצִדְקָה פְרֻק". וְאוֹמֵר: (איוב לג,כג) "אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו מַלְאָךְ מֵלִיץ אֶחָד מִנִּי אָלֶף, לְהַגִּיד לְאָדָם יָשְׁרוֹ." וְאוֹמֵר (איוב לג,כד) "וַיְחֻנֶּנּוּ וַיֹּאמֶר: פְּדָעֵהוּ מֵרֶדֶת שָׁחַת, מָצָאתִי כֹפֶר."
R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heaven, as it is written (Numbers 30:12) "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their number, then each man shall give the ransom of his soul to the L–rd, etc.", and (II Kings 12:5) "each man, the money for the valuation of his soul," and (Mishlei 13:8) "A man's wealth may redeem his soul," and (Daniel 4:24) "But, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you. Redeem your soul through charity," and (Job 33:23-24) "If there will be for him but a single defending angel from a thousand to declare a man's uprightness for him, then He will be gracious to him and He will say: Redeem him from descending to the grave I have found kofer for Him!"
נִמְצֵינוּ לְמֵדִים: קָדָשִׁים, יֵשׁ לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן, קָדָשִׁים, אֵין לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן. אֲסוּרִים בַּאֲכִילָה, יֵשׁ לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן; אֲסוּרִים בַּאֲכִילָה, אֵין לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן. אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָיָה, יֵשׁ לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן; אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה, אֵין לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן. שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים, יֵשׁ לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן; שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים, אֵין לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן. עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת, יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּדָּיוֹן; עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת, אֵין לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן. חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת, יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּדָּיוֹן; חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת, אֵין לָהֶן פִּדָּיוֹן. אַף לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, יֵשׁ לָהֶם פִּדָּיוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (תהלים מט,ח-ט) "אָח לֹא פָדֹה יִפְדֶּה אִישׁ, לֹא יִתֵּן לֵאלֹהִים כָּפְרוֹ. וְיֵקַר פִּדְיוֹן נַפְשָׁם וְחָדַל לְעוֹלָם."
We find that certain consecrated objects can be redeemed and others cannot be redeemed; certain things that may not be eaten may be redeemed; things from which benefit may not be derived may not be redeemed. The nations of the world cannot be redeemed, as it is written (Psalms 49:8) "A man cannot redeem his brother; he cannot give his kofer to G–d. Too costly is their soul's redemption and unattainable forever."
חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנָּתַן הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם כַּפָּרָה תַּחַת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ישעיה מג,ג) "נָתַתִּי כָפְרְךָ מִצְרַיִם, כּוּשׁ וּסְבָא תַּחְתֶּיךָ." מִפְּנֵי מָה? (ישעיה מג,ד) "מֵאֲשֶׁר יָקַרְתָּ בְעֵינַי, נִכְבַּדְתָּ, וַאֲנִי אֲהַבְתִּיךָ, וְאֶתֵּן אָדָם תַּחְתֶּיךָ, וּלְאֻמִּים תַּחַת נַפְשֶׁךָ."
Beloved is Israel for whose souls the Holy One Blessed be He has given the nations as kofer, as it is written (Isaiah 43:3) "I gave Egypt as kofer for you." Why? (Ibid. 4) "Because you were honored in My eyes, you were honored and I loved you, and I placed a man in your place and nations in place of your souls."