The Goring Ox Singled Out for Stoning and Forbidden Flesh

"And if an ox gores a man" (Exodus 21:28). The ox too was already included in the general rule, for it is said, "He who strikes a man so that he dies" (Exodus 21:12). Why then did Scripture remove it from the general rule? To deal more strictly with it, namely that the ox be put to death by stoning. For this reason this passage was stated. "And if an ox gores": from this I know only of an ox. From where do I learn to treat every domestic animal like an ox? I reason thus. "Ox" is said here and "ox" is said elsewhere (at Sinai). Just as the ox spoken of at Sinai made every animal subject to the same law as an ox, so the ox spoken of here makes every animal subject to the same law as an ox. From where do I learn to treat all forms of killing like goring? I reason: since the forewarned ox is stoned and the harmless ox is stoned, if you have learned of the forewarned ox that all forms of killing are treated like goring, the harmless ox too should be so treated. No: if you say this of the forewarned ox, which pays ransom, will you say it of the harmless ox, which pays no ransom? Therefore Scripture teaches "a man or a woman," which is stated only to draw an analogy and to derive a gezeira shava [a verbal-comparison inference]. Just as there all forms of killing are treated like goring, so here it is right that all forms of killing be treated like goring. From where do I learn to treat minors like adults? I reason: since the forewarned ox is stoned and the harmless ox is stoned, if you have learned of the forewarned ox that minors are treated like adults, the harmless ox too should be so. No: if you say this of the forewarned ox, which pays ransom, and so on. Therefore Scripture teaches "or gores a son," which is stated only as a free expression, to draw an analogy and derive a gezeira shava. "Gores" is said here and "gores" is said elsewhere: just as there it treated minors like adults, and so on. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Why is it stated? Lest one say, I can derive it by reasoning: if in a case where Scripture did not treat minors like adults regarding those who slay, it did treat minors like adults regarding those who are slain, then here, where it did treat minors like adults regarding those who slay, is it not right that it treat minors like adults regarding those who are slain? No: if you say this elsewhere, where it treated the unintending like the intending regarding damages, and therefore treated minors like adults regarding those slain, will you say it here, where it did not treat the unintending like the intending regarding damages, and therefore did not treat minors like adults regarding those slain? Therefore Scripture teaches "gores" for a gezeira shava, and so on. "Its flesh shall not be eaten" (Exodus 21:28). From this I know only the prohibition of eating. From where that benefit from it is also forbidden? You say a fortiori: if the heifer whose neck is broken, which atones for bloodshed, is forbidden for benefit, then the ox that is stoned, which sheds blood, surely it is right that it be forbidden for benefit. Or take the opposite: if the stoned ox, which sheds blood, were permitted for benefit, then the heifer whose neck is broken, which atones for bloodshed, is it not right that it be permitted for benefit? Therefore Scripture teaches, "And they shall break the heifer's neck there" (Deuteronomy 21:4). I reasoned and reversed and the reversal collapsed; I am entitled to argue as at first, and so on. Rabbi Yitzchak says: This is unnecessary. If the heifer whose neck is broken, which does not defile the land nor drive away the Divine Presence, is forbidden for benefit, then the stoned ox, which defiles the land and drives away the Divine Presence, surely it is right that it be forbidden for benefit. Rabbi says: If the bulls that are burned, which come only for atonement, are forever forbidden for benefit, then the stoned ox, which does not come to atone, surely it is right that it be forever forbidden for benefit. From this I know only its flesh; from where its hide? Rabbi Yishmael used to say: You argue a fortiori: if the sin-offering, whose flesh is permitted when slaughtered, has its hide forbidden when it dies of itself, then the stoned ox, whose flesh is forbidden even when slaughtered, surely it is right that its hide be forbidden when slaughtered. The carcass shall prove otherwise, for its hide is permitted when the animal dies of itself; it proves regarding the stoned ox that although its flesh is forbidden in slaughter, it is right that its hide be permitted when it dies. One of Rabbi Yishmael's students said: No: if you say this of the carcass, which is permitted for benefit and therefore its hide is permitted at death, will you say it of the stoned ox, which is forbidden for benefit, so that its hide should be forbidden when it dies? "Its flesh shall not be eaten": why is it stated? To include its blood, its fat, and its hide. "And the owner of the ox shall be clear" (Exodus 21:28). Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: clear from the hand of Heaven. For by reasoning one might think: since the forewarned ox is stoned and the harmless ox is stoned, if you have learned of the forewarned ox that even though its owners have escaped the court of flesh and blood the owners have not escaped the court of Heaven, the harmless ox should be the same. Therefore Scripture teaches, "And the owner of the ox shall be clear," clear from the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says: clear from half-damages. Rabban Gamliel says: clear from the value of a slave. Rabbi Akiva says: clear from the value of the unborn, and so on.