"...whether it gores a boy or it gores a girl..." Wouldn't I know it by logic: a man is liable for killing a man, whether adult or minor, and an ox is liable for killing a man – must be, whether adult or minor? No, man's law is more strict, with liability for pain, cure, etc. Therefore, the verse is needed.If an ox was rubbing itself against the wall and the wall collapsed on a man and killed him, or if the ox intended to kill an animal but instead killed man, or to kill a Canaanite but instead killed a Jew, the ox is exempt.
Art: A Wall in Naples by Thomas Jones
4 comments:
Why couldn't you infer about children from an adult? A child also has pain and needs a cure?
Sure, the 100 words format doesn't allow for a complete explanation, so here it is...
The passage of a goring ox states “Whether it gores a boy or it gores a girl, in accordance with this judgment shall be done to him”. The verse comes to make the ox liable for the killing of a minor as for the killing of adult.
Now would this not be dictated by logic? Since the Torah held a person liable for killing a person, and it held an ox liable for killing a person, it follows that just as when it held a person liable for killing a person there is no difference between and adult victims, so too, when it held an ox liable for killing a person you should not differentiate between minor and adult victim?
No! The law holding an ox liable for killing a minor cannot be derived from the law holding a person liable for killing a minor. For if you say this with regard to a person who kills another person, who is liable to pay for four additional things if he injures a person, will you necessarily say the same with regard to an ox, which is NOT liable for these four things? Therefore, the Torah states, “...whether it gores a boy or it gores a girl...” to hold the ox liable for killing minors as for killing adults.
Ramban suggests that the ox's killing of a helpful child does not demonstrate as much negligence on the part of its owner as its killing of an adults.
Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni explain that since the death of the child was not solely a result of the owners' negligence, but also of his parents' carelessness, it might be thought that the owner is absolved from liability. Therefore the verse must teach that he is nonetheless liable.
Thanks for the explanation!
Welcome
Post a Comment