Whose Ox Is Liable and Why Its Flesh Is Forbidden

Our Rabbis taught: "ox," "ox," [stated] seven [times], to include the ox of a woman, the ox of orphans, the ox of guardians, the ownerless ox, the ox of the Sanctuary, and the ox of a convert who died leaving no heirs; [all of these] are liable to [the penalty of] death. Rabbi Yehudah says: the ownerless ox, the ox of the Sanctuary, and the ox of a convert who died leaving no heirs are exempt, because they have no owners. Furthermore Rabbi Yehudah said: even if it gored and afterward [its owner] declared it ownerless, he is exempt, for it says "and warning was given to its owner and it killed" (Exodus 21:29), [meaning] until the death, the standing in judgment, and the verdict are all alike [with the ox having an owner]. Our Rabbis taught: from the implication of what is said "the ox shall surely be stoned," do I not know that it is carrion, and carrion is forbidden to eat? What does Scripture teach by saying "its flesh shall not be eaten"? Scripture tells you that even if he slaughtered it [properly] after its verdict was sealed, it is forbidden to eat. I have only [a prohibition against] eating; from where [a prohibition against] benefit? Scripture teaches "and the owner of the ox is clear [naki]" [literally, clean]. What is the implication? Shimon ben Zoma says: like a person who says to his fellow, so-and-so went out clean [naki] of his property and has no benefit from it at all. And say: where he slaughtered it after its verdict was sealed it is permitted to eat, and this "shall not be eaten" refers to where he stoned it, that it is forbidden in benefit, in line with what Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: wherever it says "it shall not be eaten," "you shall not eat," "you shall not eat," both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit are implied, until Scripture specifies for you as it specified regarding carrion, [permitted] to the resident alien by gift and to the foreigner by sale. They said: this applies where the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of benefit issue from one verse; but here, where the prohibition of eating issues from "shall surely be stoned," if it enters your mind that "shall not be eaten" is a prohibition of benefit, let the Merciful One write "he shall not benefit." Rav said: one who betroths a woman with the dung of a stoned ox, she is betrothed [the dung has value]; with the dung of calves of idolatry, she is not betrothed. "And nothing of the devoted thing shall cling to your hand" (Deuteronomy 13:18). There [regarding idolatry] all is forbidden in benefit; here, "its flesh shall not be eaten," its flesh is forbidden but its dung is permitted. And it was necessary [to write] "the owner of the ox is clear," lest you say only its flesh is forbidden but its hide is permitted. As it was taught: Shimon HaAmsoni, and some say Nechemiah HaAmsoni, used to expound every [instance of the word] "et," and so forth.