(21:35) "And if the ox of a man butt": Included in "goring" is butting, pushing, lying upon, kicking, and biting. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Goring, butting, pushing, lying upon and kicking. Whence is biting derived? It is written (36) "and its owner did not guard it." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If when he guards it he is liable, how much more so when he does not guard it! What, then, is the intent of "and its owner not guard it"? Scripture makes him liable for an additional guarding. And which is that? (Guarding against biting.)
(21:35) "And if the ox of a man strike" to exclude the ox of a minor. "the ox of a man": to include the ox of others (i.e., gentiles). "the ox of his neighbor": to include the ox of a minor. "his neighbor": to exclude the ox of a Cuthite, the ox of a gentile, the ox of a sojourning proselyte (ger toshav).
"then they shall sell the living ox": Scripture speaks of oxen of equal value (one of which gored the other). But perhaps it speaks of oxen of unequal value? Would you say that? What is the way of the damagers? To profit or to lose" — To lose. And what is the way of the damaged? To take (the amount of) their damage or more than their damage? — Not more than their damage. (So that to avert this possibility, the first assumption [equal value] must be posited.)
Rebbi says: "Halving" is written in respect to the living ox, and "halving" is written in respect to the dead ox" — so it must be oxen of equal value of which Scripture speaks, (the halved shares of the dead ox, perforce being equal.)
"and also the carcass shall they halve": whence they ruled: An ox worth a hundred which gored an ox worth a hundred, or an ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred — he (the owner of the dead ox) takes half (of the value of the living ox.) An ox worth a hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred — he takes (the value of) all of it. An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth a hundred — he takes a quarter of it.
An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing — R. Meir said: Of this it is written "then they shall sell the living ox, etc." R. Yehudah said to him: Read all of this verse, viz. "and also the (value of the) carcass shall they halve." What is being spoken of? An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth one hundred, (in which instance) the living ox is sold, the (value of the) dead ox is divided equally, and the owner of the carcass deals with it. Of such an instance it is written "and also the carcass shall they halve."
"pay shall he pay an ox for an ox": This tells me only (that he pays) a beast. Whence do I derive (that he can also pay) money? It follows, viz.: It is written here "and the carcass shall belong to him," and elsewhere (21:34) "and the carcass shall belong to him." Just as here, (he can pay) with a beast, so, there, with a beast. Just as there, (he can pay) with money, so, here, (he can pay) with money.
(Exodus 21:37) "If a man steal an ox or a lamb": Both the slaughterer and the seller were in the (general) class (of thieves), viz. (Ibid. 22:6) "if the thief is found, he shall pay double," and Scripture removed them from that class to make them liable for the more severe "four and five" payment, wherefore this section was stated.
Variantly: Slaughtering is being likened to selling, and selling, to slaughtering. Just as selling is outside his (the owner's) domain, so, slaughtering (to make him liable for "four and five" payment) must be outside his domain. Just as (he is liable for "four and five") by selling (only) when the animal may be eaten, so, by slaughtering. Just as by selling, (only) when benefit may be derived from it, so by slaughtering. Just as by slaughtering, (only) when he (the thief) cannot revoke (his theft), so, by selling, (when the owner has despaired of the return of the theft, so that the thief has "acquired" the beast.) Just as with slaughtering, all (of the animal is involved), so, with selling.
Variantly: "If a man steal": Consecrated animals were also included in the general class, that if he stole them and slaughtered them outside (the azarah) he would pay "four and five." It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 17:2) "This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded, etc." — They (consecrated animals slaughtered outside the azarah) have been singled out for kareth (cutting off, for the desecrator) and not for payment (of "four and five").
R. Meir said: Come and see how beloved is work by Him who spoke and brought the world into being. (For) an ox, which he took from its work, he pays five-fold. (For) a lamb which he did not take from its work he pays (only) four-fold.
R. Yochanan b. Zakkai says: The Holy One Blessed be He is solicitous of human dignity. (For) an ox, which walks on his feet, (and need not be carried by the thief,) he pays five-fold. (For) a lamb, which he must carry on his back, he pays (only) four-fold, (having already made a kind of partial payment in the sacrificing of his dignity.)
R. Akiva says: "tachath ('in place of') the ox; "tachath the sheep" — to exclude (from "four and five" payment an animal [as opposed to a beast]). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since he (the thief) must pay (money) for stealing a beast, and he must pay (money) for stealing an animal, then if you have learned about a beast that he pays "four and five," so, he should be similarly liable for an animal. No, this may be so with a beast, which is sacrificed on the altar, as opposed to an animal, which is not — wherefore it does not pay "four and five."
But this is refuted by (the theft of) a blemished beast, which, although it is not sacrificed on the altar, does pay "four and five." — No, this may be so with a blemished beast, whose "kind" (i.e., "beast") is sacrificed upon the altar, as opposed to an animal, whose "kind" is not sacrificed upon the altar — wherefore it is written "tachath ('in place of') the ox"; "tachath ('in place of') the sheep" — to exclude an animal.
(שמות כא,לה) ["וְכִי יִגֹּף שׁוֹר אִישׁ אֶת שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ וָמֵת, וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ, וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן."] "וְכִי יִגֹּף". בִּכְלַל נְגִיפָה נְגִיחָה, דְּחִיָּה, רְבִיצָה, בְּעִיטָה.*דְּחִיָּה: דחיפה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. אַבָּא חֲנִין אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: בִּכְלַל נְגִיפָה נְגִיחָה, דְּחִיָּה, רְבִיצָה, וּבְעִיטָה; וּנְשִׁיכָה מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות כא,לו) "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו". וַהֲרֵי דְבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר: אִם כְּשֶׁשְּׁמָרוֹ וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק, חַיָּב, קַל וָחֹמֶר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ. וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ"? אֶלָּא שֶׁהוֹסִיף הַכָּתוּב עוֹד שְׁמִירָה אַחֶרֶת, וְאֵי זוֹ זוֹ? זוֹ נְשִׁיכָה.
(21:35) "And if the ox of a man butt": Included in "goring" is butting, pushing, lying upon, kicking, and biting. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Goring, butting, pushing, lying upon and kicking. Whence is biting derived? It is written (36) "and its owner did not guard it." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If when he guards it he is liable, how much more so when he does not guard it! What, then, is the intent of "and its owner not guard it"? Scripture makes him liable for an additional guarding. And which is that? (Guarding against biting.)
"שׁוֹר אִישׁ", לְהוֹצִיא שׁוֹר שֶׁלַּקָּטָן. "שׁוֹר אִישׁ", לְהָבִיא שׁוֹר שֶׁלַּאֲחֵרִים. "רֵעֵהוּ", לְהוֹצִיא שׁוֹר שֶׁלַּנָּכְרִי, שׁוֹר כּוּתִי, שׁוֹר גֵּר.
(21:35) "And if the ox of a man strike" to exclude the ox of a minor. "the ox of a man": to include the ox of others (i.e., gentiles). "the ox of his neighbor": to include the ox of a minor. "his neighbor": to exclude the ox of a Cuthite, the ox of a gentile, the ox of a sojourning proselyte (ger toshav).
"וְכִי יִגֹּף שׁוֹר אִישׁ אֶת שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ וָמֵת, וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ, וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן." יָכֹל בְּשָׁוִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּשָׁוִים וּבְשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִים? אָמַרְתָּ, מַה דֶּרֶךְ הַמַּזִּיקִין, נִשְׂכָּרִין אוֹ מַפְסִידִין? מַפְסִידִין; אַף הַנִּזָּקִין, נוֹטְלִין נִזְקָן אוֹ יָתֵר עַל נִזְקָן? נִזְקָן וְלֹא יוֹתֵר עַל נִזְקָן.
"then they shall sell the living ox": Scripture speaks of oxen of equal value (one of which gored the other). But perhaps it speaks of oxen of unequal value? Would you say that? What is the way of the damagers? To profit or to lose" — To lose. And what is the way of the damaged? To take (the amount of) their damage or more than their damage? — Not more than their damage. (So that to avert this possibility, the first assumption [equal value] must be posited.)
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֶמְרָה חֲצִיָּה בַּחַי וְנֶאֶמְרָה חֲצִיָּה בַמֵּת. הָא בְּשָׁוִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Rebbi says: "Halving" is written in respect to the living ox, and "halving" is written in respect to the dead ox" — so it must be oxen of equal value of which Scripture speaks, (the halved shares of the dead ox, perforce being equal.)
"וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן." מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה, שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, נוֹטֵל חֶצְיוֹ; שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, נוֹטֵל כֻּלּוֹ; שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה, נוֹטֵל רְבִיעִי.
"and also the carcass shall they halve": whence they ruled: An ox worth a hundred which gored an ox worth a hundred, or an ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred — he (the owner of the dead ox) takes half (of the value of the living ox.) An ox worth a hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred — he takes (the value of) all of it. An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth a hundred — he takes a quarter of it.
שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: "וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ". אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה: קְרָא אֶת כָּל הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה "וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן", וְאֵי זֶה זֶה? זֶה שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְהַנְּבֵלָה מָנֶה. מוֹכְרִין אֶת הַחַי, וְאֶת הַמֵּת חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה, וּבַעַל הַנְּבֵלָה מְטַפֵּל בְּנִבְלָתוֹ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן".
An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing — R. Meir said: Of this it is written "then they shall sell the living ox, etc." R. Yehudah said to him: Read all of this verse, viz. "and also the (value of the) carcass shall they halve." What is being spoken of? An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth one hundred, (in which instance) the living ox is sold, the (value of the) dead ox is divided equally, and the owner of the carcass deals with it. Of such an instance it is written "and also the carcass shall they halve."
(שמות כא,לו) "אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם, וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו, שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹר תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר, וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ." בָּא הַכָּתוּב לַחְלֹק בֵּין שׁוֹר תָּם לְמוּעָד. חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים בֵּין שׁוֹר תָּם לְמוּעָד: מוּעָד צָרִיךְ עֵדִים, וְתָם אֵין 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 מִגּוּפוֹ.
"מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם". יוֹם וְאֶמֶשׁ וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו.
(21:36) "mitmol shilshom": today, yesterday, and the day before.
אֵיזֶהוּ שׁוֹר תָּם וְאֵי זֶה הוּא שׁוֹר מוּעָד? מוּעָד, שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים, וְתָם, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵי הַתִּינוֹק מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּקַרְנָיו. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מוּעָד, שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים, וְתָם, שֶׁיַּחְזֹר בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִלּוּ הֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם"? אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָזַר בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֵינוֹ נִדּוֹן אֶלָּא כְתָם.
"וְהוּעַד", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁהִתְרוּ בוֹ. "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ", לְהָבִיא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ", כָּרָאוּי לוֹ. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: שְׁמָרוֹ כָרָאוּי, פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא כָרָאוּי, חַיָּב. קְשָׁרוֹ בְמוֹסֵרָה, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק, תָּם פָּטוּר, וּמוּעָד חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו", לֹא שְׁמָרוֹ זֶה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּם חַיָּב, וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כא,לו) "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו", וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
"and he did not guard it": to bring (even) a non-paid watcher, etc.
"שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹר". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְהֵמָה, כֶּסֶף מְנַיִן? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ" מַה כָּן בְּהֵמָה, אַף לְּהַלָּן בְּהֵמָה, מַה לְּהַלָּן כֶּסֶף, אַף כָּן כֶּסֶף.
"pay shall he pay an ox for an ox": This tells me only (that he pays) a beast. Whence do I derive (that he can also pay) money? It follows, viz.: It is written here "and the carcass shall belong to him," and elsewhere (21:34) "and the carcass shall belong to him." Just as here, (he can pay) with a beast, so, there, with a beast. Just as there, (he can pay) with money, so, here, (he can pay) with money.
"וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ", לַנִּזָּק. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לַנִּזָּק, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לַמַּזִּיק? אָמַרְתָּ, אִלּוּ כֵּן הָיָה, מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ"? לַנִּזָּק! אֶלָּא מַגִּיד שֶׁשָּׁמִין דְּמֵי נִבְלָתוֹ, וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ דְּמֵי נִזְקוֹ.
"and the carcass shall belong to him": (See before Section 12)
(שמות כא,לז) "כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה, וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ, חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר, וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה." אַף הַטּוֹבֵחַ וְהַמּוֹכֵר הָיוּ בַכְּלָל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כב,ו) "אִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב, יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנָיִם." וַהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלָלוֹ, לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרָה הַפָּרָשָׁה.
(Exodus 21:37) "If a man steal an ox or a lamb": Both the slaughterer and the seller were in the (general) class (of thieves), viz. (Ibid. 22:6) "if the thief is found, he shall pay double," and Scripture removed them from that class to make them liable for the more severe "four and five" payment, wherefore this section was stated.
"שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה", לְחַיֵּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
"an ox or a lamb": to impose liability for each in itself.
"וּטְבָחוֹ". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא טוֹבֵחַ, מוֹכֵר מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אוֹ מְכָרוֹ". עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַדִּין: אִם הַטּוֹבֵחַ חַיָּב, מוֹכֵר לֹא יְהֵי חַיָּב? אִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵּן, עָנַשְׁתָּ מִן הַדִּין! לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "אוֹ מְכָרוֹ", לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁאֵין עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין.
"and he slaughter it": This tells me only of slaughtering. Whence do I derive (the same for) selling? From "or he sell it."
דָּבָר אַחֵר: הִקִּישׁ טוֹבֵחַ לַמּוֹכֵר, וּמוֹכֵר לַטּוֹבֵחַ: מַה מְּכִירָה חוּץ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף טְבִיחָה חוּץ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. מַה מְּכִירָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה, אַף טְבִיחָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. מַה מְּכִירָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה, אַף טְבִיחָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה. מַה טְּבִיחָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחְזֹר, אַף מְכִירָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחְזֹר. מַה טְּבִיחָה, כֻּלָּהּ, אַף מְכִירָה, כֻּלָּהּ.
Variantly: Slaughtering is being likened to selling, and selling, to slaughtering. Just as selling is outside his (the owner's) domain, so, slaughtering (to make him liable for "four and five" payment) must be outside his domain. Just as (he is liable for "four and five") by selling (only) when the animal may be eaten, so, by slaughtering. Just as by selling, (only) when benefit may be derived from it, so by slaughtering. Just as by slaughtering, (only) when he (the thief) cannot revoke (his theft), so, by selling, (when the owner has despaired of the return of the theft, so that the thief has "acquired" the beast.) Just as with slaughtering, all (of the animal is involved), so, with selling.
"כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ". אַף מֻקְדָּשִׁין הָיוּ בַכְּלָל, שֶׁאִם גּוֹנְבָן וּשׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. וַהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיאָן מִכְּלָלָן, לְהַחְמִיר עֲלֵיהֶן לְזוֹקְקָן לְהִכָּרֵת,*לְזוֹקְקָן לְהִכָּרֵת: לחייב אותם כרת. שֶׁהָיוּ חַיָּבִין בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: אִם חַיָּבִין עַל הִכָּרֵת הֶחָמוּר, לֹא יִהְיוּ חַיָּבִין בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין הַקַּלִּין? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (ויקרא יז,ב) "זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יי", מִכְּלַל הִכָּרֵת יָצְאוּ, וְלֹא יָצְאוּ מִכְּלַל תַּשְׁלוּמִין.
Variantly: "If a man steal": Consecrated animals were also included in the general class, that if he stole them and slaughtered them outside (the azarah) he would pay "four and five." It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 17:2) "This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded, etc." — They (consecrated animals slaughtered outside the azarah) have been singled out for kareth (cutting off, for the desecrator) and not for payment (of "four and five").
"חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם", אַרְבָּעָה וָהוּא. "וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן", שְׁלֹשָׁה וָהוּא.
(Exodus, Ibid.) "Five (head of) cattle should he pay for the ox": four and itself; "and four sheep for the lamb": three and itself.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה, כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מְלָאכָה לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם! שׁוֹר, לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מְלָאכָה, יְשַׁלֵּם חֲמִשָּׁה; וְשֶׂה, אֵין לוֹ מְלָאכָה, יְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה!
R. Meir said: Come and see how beloved is work by Him who spoke and brought the world into being. (For) an ox, which he took from its work, he pays five-fold. (For) a lamb which he did not take from its work he pays (only) four-fold.
רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּי אוֹמֵר: חָס הַמָּקוֹם עַל כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁלַּבִּרְיוֹת: שׁוֹר, לְפִי שֶׁהִלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו, יְשַׁלֵּם חֲמִשָּׁה; שֶׂה, לְפִי שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ, יְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה.
R. Yochanan b. Zakkai says: The Holy One Blessed be He is solicitous of human dignity. (For) an ox, which walks on his feet, (and need not be carried by the thief,) he pays five-fold. (For) a lamb, which he must carry on his back, he pays (only) four-fold, (having already made a kind of partial payment in the sacrificing of his dignity.)
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: "תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר... תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה", לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַחַיָּה. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, הוֹאִיל וּבְהֵמָה בְתַשְׁלוּמִין, וְחַיָּה בְתַשְׁלוּמִין, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, אַף הַחַיָּה יְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה! לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַבְּהֵמָה, שֶׁהִיא קְרֵבָה עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, לְפִיכָךְ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, תֹּאמַר בַּחַיָּה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה עַל גַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.
R. Akiva says: "tachath ('in place of') the ox; "tachath the sheep" — to exclude (from "four and five" payment an animal [as opposed to a beast]). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since he (the thief) must pay (money) for stealing a beast, and he must pay (money) for stealing an animal, then if you have learned about a beast that he pays "four and five," so, he should be similarly liable for an animal. No, this may be so with a beast, which is sacrificed on the altar, as opposed to an animal, which is not — wherefore it does not pay "four and five."
וַהֲרֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה עַל גַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וּמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה! הִיא תּוֹכִיחַ עַל הַחַיָּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה עַל גַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, יְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה! לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְבַעֲלַת מוּם, שֶׁמִּינָהּ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, תֹּאמַר בַּחַיָּה, שֶׁאֵין מִינָהּ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר...תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה"? לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַחַיָּה.
But this is refuted by (the theft of) a blemished beast, which, although it is not sacrificed on the altar, does pay "four and five." — No, this may be so with a blemished beast, whose "kind" (i.e., "beast") is sacrificed upon the altar, as opposed to an animal, whose "kind" is not sacrificed upon the altar — wherefore it is written "tachath ('in place of') the ox"; "tachath ('in place of') the sheep" — to exclude an animal.