Chumashחומש

וכי יכה איש את עבדו או את אמתו. בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּעִבְרִי? תַּ"לֹ כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא, מַה כַּסְפּוֹ קָנוּי לוֹ עוֹלָמִית, אַף עֶבֶד הַקָּנוּי לוֹ עוֹלָמִית; וַהֲרֵי הָיָה בִכְלַל מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת? אֶלָּא בָא הַכָּתוּב וְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַכְּלָל, לִהְיוֹת נָדוֹן בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, שֶׁאִם לֹא מֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ וְשָׁהָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת פָּטוּר (מכילתא):

וכי יכה איש את עבדו או את אמתו AND IF A MAN SMITE HIS SERVANT OR HIS MAIDSERVANT — Scripture speaks of a Canaanitish servant. Or perhaps this is not so, but it speaks of a Hebrew servant? Scripture however states, (Exodus 21:21) “for he is his money”. How is it in the case of his money? It is something that is his forever (i. e. it is something the possession of which is not limited to a definite time)! So also the servant referred to here is such a one as is his forever (and only a Canaanitish servant serves his master for ever, cf. Leviticus 25:46, whilst the Hebrew servant goes free after six years). But surely he (one that smites his servant) is included in the general statement, (Exodus 21:12) ”Whosoever smiteth a man [so that he die shall surely be put to death]”; why, then, is this case mentioned at all? But Scripture singles it out from the general statement that he (who smiteth his servant etc.) may be subject to the particular regulation of “a day or two” (Exodus 21:21) — that if he (the servant) does not die beneath his hand and continue to live twenty-four hours his master should be freed from the death-penalty (Mekhilta).

בשבט. כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית? תַּ"לֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאִם בְּאֶבֶן יָד אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בָּהּ הִכָּהוּ (במדבר ל"ה), וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר: מַה יִּשְׂרָאֵל חָמוּר אֵין חַיָּב עָלָיו אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִכָּהוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית וְעַל אֵבֶר שֶׁהוּא כְדֵי לָמוּת בְּהַכָּאָה זוֹ, עֶבֶד הַקַּל לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן (מכילתא):

בשבט WITH A ROD — Scripture speaks of a rod that is capable of inflicting death. Or perhaps it speaks even of one that is not capable of inflicting death (but some-how or other the servant died beneath his hand)? Scripture however states, (Numbers 35:17) in reference to an Israellite (cf. Numbers 35:15) “And if he smote him with a stone in the hand, wherewith he may die, [and he die, he is a murderer]”. Now is not the following statement a logical conclusion à fortiori? How is it if one has killed an Israelite whose case is more stringent (inasmuch as the leniency mentioned in v. 21 is not applied to it)? He is not subject to the death penalty unless he smote him with an instrument capable of inflicting death and unless it be a limb through the striking of which by such an instrument he is likely to die! Then in the case of a servant where (as can be seen from v. 21) the conditions are less stringent, does it not follow all the more that he is not subject to the death penalty? (cf. Mekhilta).

נקם ינקם. מִיתַת סַיִף, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר חֶרֶב נֹקֶמֶת נְקַם בְּרִית (ויקרא כ"ו):

נקם ינקם HE SHALL SURELY BE AVENGED — This means execution by the sword. For thus does Scripture state, (Leviticus 26:25) “a sword avenging the vengeance of my covenant” (Mekhilta; Sanhedrin 52b).

אך אם יום או יומים יעמד לא יקם. אִם עַל יוֹם אֶחָד הוּא פָּטוּר עַל יוֹמַיִם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא יוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְיוֹמַיִם, וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה מֵעֵת לְעֵת (מכילתא):

אך אם יום או יומים יעמד לא יקם NOTWITHSTANDING IF HE CONTINUE A DAY OR TWO, HE SHALL NOT BE AVENGED — If the master is free of the death penally in case of the servant remaining alive one day, is it not logical that he is free if he lives two days (what need is there for Scripture to add יומים)? But it adds it to show that the term יום is to be defined by יומים — “a day that is like two days”. And what kind of day is thereby meant? A period of twenty-four hours (a day which comprises a part of two separate days) (cf. Mekhilta).

לא יקם כי כספו הוא. הָא אַחֵר שֶׁהִכָּהוּ, אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁשָּׁהָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת קֹדֶם שֶׁמֵּת, חַיָּב:

לא יקם כי כספו הוא HE SHALL NOT BE AVENGED: FOR HE IS HIS MONEY — However, any other person who smote him (the servant) is subject to the death penalty although he lived 24 hours before dying.

וכי ינצו אנשים. זֶה עִם זֶה, וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה:

וכי ינצו אנשים IF MEN STRIVE with each other and one intended to strike the other and inadvertently struck the woman (Sanhedrin 79b).

ונגפו. אֵין נְגִיפָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן דְּחִיפָה וְהַכָּאָה, כְּמוֹ פֶּן תִּגֹּף בָּאֶבֶן רַגְלֶךָ (תהילים צ"א), בְּטֶרֶם יִתְנַגְּפוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם (ירמיהו י"ג) וּלְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף (ישעיהו ח'):

ונגפו AND HURT [A WOMAN WITH CHILD] — The root נגף always signifies “dashing against” and “striking”. Examples are: (Psalms 91:15) “lest thou dash (תגוף) thy foot against a stone”; (Jeremiah 13:16) “and before your feet dash (יתנגפו)”; (Isaiah 8:14) “but for a stone of dashing (נגף).

ולא יהיה אסון. בָּאִשָּׁה:

ולא יהיה אסון AND YET THERE BE NO MISCHIEF — no further mischief with the woman (Sanhedrin 79b).

ענוש יענש. לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל; שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לִמָּכֵר בַּשּׁוּק לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּדָמֶיהָ בִּשְׁבִיל הֶרְיוֹנָהּ:

ענוש יענש HE SHALL SURELY BE AMERCED to pay the value of the offspring to the husband. We estimate her value according to what she is worth if she were sold as a slave in the market giving her a higher value on account of her being with child (Bava Kamma 49a).

ענש יענש. יִגְבּוּ מָמוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּמוֹ וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף (דברים כ"ב):

ענוש יענש (lit., he shall surely be punished) — It means that they shall exact money from him. ענוש is used here in the same sense as in, (Deuteronomy 22:19) “And they shall amerce (וענשו) him an hundred shekel of silver”.

כאשר ישית עליו וגו'. כְּשֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ הַבַּעַל בְּבֵית דִּין לְהָשִׁית עָלָיו עֹנֶשׁ עַל כָּךְ:

כאשר ישית עליו וגו׳ means, when the husband will summons him before the Court that they should place upon him a fine for this (cf. Mekhilta),

ונתן. הַמַּכֶּה דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת:

ונתן THEN HE SHALL GIVE — i. e. the man that struck the woman shall give the value of the offspring.

בפללים – עַל פִּי הַדַּיָּנִים (מכילתא):

בפללים ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF THE JUDGES (Mekhilta).

ואם אסון יהיה. בָּאִשָּׁה:

ואם אסון יהיה AND IF THERE BE ANY FURTHER MISCHIEF — in the case of the woman,

ונתתה נפש תחת נפש. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חוֹלְקִים בַּדָּבָר, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מָמוֹן אֲבָל לֹא נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁהַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר מִמִּיתָה, וּמְשַׁלֵּם לְיוֹרְשָׁיו דָּמָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה נִמְכָּר בַּשּׁוּק (שם):

ונתת נפש תחת נפש THEN THOU SHALT GIVE SOUL FOR SOUL. Our Rabbis differ as to the explanation of the word נפש the first time it occurs here. There are some who say that it actually signifies “life” (i. e. life for life), others say that it means monetary compensation but not literally life, and they say that this must be so because he who intends to kill a certain person and inadvertently kills another instead, (as is the case here), is exempt from the death penalty, and has only to pay to his heirs his value estimating this as though he were sold as a slave in the market (Sanhedrin 79a).

עין תחת עין. סִמֵּא עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ כַּמָּה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו לִמְכֹּר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם; וְלֹא נְטִילַת אֵבֶר מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא דף פ"ג):

עין תחת עין EYE FOR EYE — If one blinded the eye of his fellow-man he has to pay him the value of his eye, i. e. he pays him how much his value would be diminished if he were to be sold as a slave in the market. In the same way all other cases are to be dealt with, but it does not mean the actual cutting off of the offender’s limb — just as our Rabbis have explained in the chapter beginning with the word החובל (Bava Kamma 84a).

כויה תחת כויה. מִכְוַת אֵשׁ; וְעַד עַכְשָׁו דִּבֵּר בְּחַבָּלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּחַת דָּמִים, וְעַכְשָׁיו בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ פְּחַת דָּמִים אֶלָּא צַעַר, כְּגוֹן כְּוָאוֹ בִשְׁפוּד עַל צִפָּרְנָיו, אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה רוֹצֶה לִטֹּל לִהְיוֹת מִצְטַעֵר כָּךְ (בבא קמא פ"ג):

כויה תחת כויה BURNING FOR BURNING — כויה is a burn produced by fire. Up to here (i .e. v. 24) Scripture has spoken of a bodily injury that is attended by a decrease of the market-value of the person injured; here, however, it speaks of a case in which there is no decrease of value but pain alone: if, for instance, a man burns another on his nails with a hot spit, we estimate how much a person like him (the injured) would be willing to accept for undergoing a pain like this, and such an amount the other has to pay as indemnity (Bava Kamma 84b).

פצע. הִיא מַכָּה הַמּוֹצִיאָה דָם, שֶׁפָּצַע אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ, נבר"ורא בְּלַעַז; הַכֹּל לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא – אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ פְּחַת דָּמִים, נוֹתֵן נֶזֶק, וְאִם נָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב, נוֹתֵן שֶׁבֶת וְרִפּוּי וּבֹשֶׁת וְצַעַר; וּמִקְרָא זֶה יָתֵר הוּא, וּבְהַחוֹבֵל דְּרָשׁוּהוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ לְחַיֵּב עַל הַצַּעַר אֲפִלּוּ בִמְקוֹם נֶזֶק – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי יָדוֹ, אֵין פּוֹטְרִים אוֹתוֹ מִן הַצַּעַר, לוֹמַר, הוֹאִיל וְקָנָה יָדוֹ יֵשׁ עָלָיו לְחָתְכָהּ בְּכָל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה, אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים, יֵשׁ לוֹ לְחָתְכָהּ בְּסַם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִצְטַעֵר כָּל כָּךְ, וְזֶה חֲתָכָהּ בְּבַרְזֶל וְצִעֲרוֹ:

פצע is an injury which draws blood — the accused having crushed the other’s flesh; navrure in old French In such a case it all depends upon what happens: if any decrease in his market-value is caused the other pays him an indemnity (נזק); if he is confined to his bed, he has to pay for loss of time, for medical treatment, for the shame he feels at being somewhat disfigured and for the pain he has been made to suffer. This passage, (פצע תחת פצע), is apparently redundant, but our Rabbis explained in the chapter beginning with the word החובל (Bava Kamma 85b) that Scripture intends by this statement to make one liable to pay for pain inflicted even in a case when one has already paid damages (נזק) for decrease in one’s value — that although he has paid him the value of his hand, we do not exempt him from paying also for pain inflicted, arguing thus: Since he has, so to say, purchased his hand by paying its value, he was entitled to cut if off by whatever means he pleases; but we say that he ought to have removed it by means of a poisonous drug when he would not have suffered so much pain. He, however, cut if off by means of an iron instrument and caused him great pain; therefore he is bound to pay for pain inflicted also.

חבורה. הִיא מַכָּה שֶׁהַדָּם נִצְרָר בָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּאֲדִים הַבָּשָׂר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, וּלְשׁוֹן חַבּוּרָה טק"א בְּלַעַז, כְּמוֹ וְנָמֵר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו (ירמיהו י"ג), וְתַרְגּוּמוֹ מַשְׁקוֹפֵי, לְשׁוֹן חֲבָטָה, בטדו"רא בְּלַעַז, וְכֵן שְׁדוּפוֹת קָדִים (בראשית מ"א), שְׁקִיפָן קִדּוּם – חֲבוּטוֹת בָּרוּחַ, וְכֵן עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהַדֶּלֶת נוֹקֵשׁ עָלָיו:

חבורה is a wound in which the blood is congealed but does not come out, only that the flesh on that spot becomes red. The word חבורה means tache in old French Similar is, (Jeremiah 13:23) “[Can an Ethiopian change his skin] or the leopard his spots (חברברתיו)”. The Targum renders it (חבורה) by משקופי, an expression denoting “beating”, batture in old French Similarly it translates (Genesis 41:6) שדופות קדים, “blasted with the east”, by שקיפן קדום, “beaten by the east wind”. So, too, the lintel it termed “משקוף” (from the root שקף “to beat upon”), as, e. g., in the expression על המשקוף, because the door beats against it.

את עין עבדו. כְּנַעֲנִי, אֲבָל עִבְרִי אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְשֵׁן וְעַיִן, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים:

את עין עבדו [AND IF A MAN SMITE] THE EYE OF HIS SERVANT — of a Canaanitish servant; but the Hebrew servant does not got free on account of his tooth or his eye having been knocked out by his master, as we have stated in our comment on the passage לא תצא כצאת העבדים (v. 7).

תחת עינו. וְכֵן בְּכ"ד רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים: אֶצְבְּעוֹת הַיָּדַיִם וְהָרַגְלַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי אָזְנַיִם, וְהַחֹטֶם, וְרֹאשׁ הַגְּוִיָּה שֶׁהוּא גִּיד הָאַמָּה. וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שֵׁן וְעַיִן? שֶׁאִם נֶאֱמַר עַיִן וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר שֵׁן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר מָה עַיִן שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ אַף כָּל שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ, וַהֲרֵי שֵׁן לֹא נִבְרָא עִמּוֹ; וְאִם נֶאֱמַר שֵׁן וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר עַיִן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר אֲפִלּוּ שֵׁן תִּינוֹק שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ חֲלִיפִין, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר עַיִן (מכילתא):

תחת עינו [HE SHALL LET HIM GO FREE] FOR HIS EYE’S SAKE — and similarly if he cuts off one of the twenty-four “tips of limbs” viz., the fingers, the toes, the two ears, the nose and the ראש הגויה, the membrum (cf. Mishnah Negaim 6:7). But why, since the precept is not applicable to eye and tooth alone but to twenty-four limbs, are both the eye and the tooth, mentioned? One would have stufficed! Because if only the eye were mentioned and not the tooth also, I might have said: What it the characteristic of the eye? It came into the world together with him! So, too, this law is applicable only to such limbs as came into the world together with him, but not to the tooth, for the tooth did not come into the world together with him. If, on the other hand, only the tooth had been mentioned and not the eye also, I might have said: the law applies even to a case when the master knocked out a child-slave’s tooth which grows again (more lit., which has a substitute) after a time. Therefore the eye is also mentioned to intimate that the law can be applied only when the master knocks out the tooth of his adult slave which, like the eye, does not grow again. (Kiddushin 24b).

וכי יגח שור. אֶחָד שׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וָעוֹף, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהֹוֶה (בבא קמא נ"ד):

וכי יגח שור AND IF AN OX THRUST — This law applies to an ox as well to any other cattle, wild beast or fowl, but Scripture mentions the ox, because it speaks of what usually occurs (Bava Kamma 54b).

ולא יאכל את בשרו. מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא נְבֵלָה וּנְבֵלָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה? אֶלָּא מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ? שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, בַּהֲנָאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי, כְּאָדָם הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ יָצָא פְּלוֹנִי נָקִי מִנְּכָסָיו וְאֵין לוֹ בָהֶם הַנָּאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם, זֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ (בבא קמא מלכים א). וּפְשׁוּטוֹ כְמַשְׁמָעוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּמּוּעָד וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת, הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר בַּתָּם וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי:

ולא יאכל את בשרו AND ITS FLESH SHALL NOT BE EATEN — From what is implied in the words “the ox shall surely be stoned” do I not know that it becomes carrion, and carrion of course is prohibited to be eaten? Why then is it stated, “and its flesh shall not be eaten”? It is to intimate that even if he slaughtered the animal according to regulation after sentence of stoning has been pronounced but before it had been carried out it is forbidden to be eaten. Whence may it be proved that under such circumstances it is prohibited to derive any other benefit from it? Scripture therefore states: “and the owner of the ox is נקי” — it is a phrase such as a man uses to his fellow: that man there has gone away “empty” (נקי) of all his property (he has nothing whatever left), and he has not the slightest benefit of it. This is how the Halachic Midrash explains it (Bava Kamma 41a). However, the real sense of ובעל השור נקי, is what it literally means: the owner of the ox shall be guiltless. Because Scripture says with reference to the מועד (an ox which inflicted injury three times in succession, and about which its owner must therefore be regarded as forewarned), (v. 29) “and his owner also shall be put to death”, it was forced to state with regard to the תם (a hitherto innocuous animal, having inflicted an injury for the first time) “the owner of the ox shall be guiltless”.

מתמל שלשם. הֲרֵי שָׁלֹשׁ נְגִיחוֹת (מכילתא):

מתמל שלשם [BUT IF THE OX HAS BEEN WONT TO THRUST] YESTERDAY AND BEFORE YESTERDAY — Here you have including the present occasion the three times an ox must gore before it can be declared a מועד (Bava Kamma 23b).‎

והועד בבעליו. לְשׁוֹן הַתְרָאָה בְעֵדִים, כְּמוֹ הָעֵד הֵעִד בָּנוּ הָאִישׁ (בראשית מ"ג):

והועד בבעליו AND IT HATH BEEN TESTIFIED TO HIS OWNER — הועד (from the root עוד) is an expression for warning through witnesses (Bava Kamma 24a), as in, (Genesis 43:3) “the man hath solemnly forewarned (הָעֵד הַעִד) us”.

והמית איש וגו'. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִגַּח אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהֱמִיתוֹ בִנְגִיחָה, הֱמִיתוֹ בִנְשִׁיכָה, דְּחִיפָה, בְּעִיטָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהֵמִית:

והמית איש וגו׳ BUT HE HATH PUT TO DEATH A MAN [OR WOMAN] — Since it states, (v. 28) “If an ox gore (יגח) [a man or a woman, that he die]” I might say that I have only the law dealing with the case that it kills by pushing him with the horn (the root נגח being mainly used of thrusting with the horn, cf. e .g., Deuteronomy 33:17) but whence can the law be derived that it applies also to the case where it kills by biting, thrusting, or kicking? Scripture therefore states “he hath put to death [a man or a woman]” thus intimating that so long as death is caused by the animal it is liable to stoning.

וגם בעליו יומת. בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. יָכוֹל בִּידֵי אָדָם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה רוֹצֵחַ הוּא, עַל רְצִיחָתוֹ אַתָּה הוֹרְגוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה הוֹרְגוֹ עַל רְצִיחַת שׁוֹרוֹ (סנהדרין ט"ו):

וגם בעליו יומת AND HIS OWNER ALSO SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH by a visitation of God. You might perhaps think he shall be punished by human agency (the judges)! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 35:21) “he that smote him (a human being) shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer” — the force of these last words is to intimate that for a murder committed by himself you shall put him to death (i. e. he suffers death by human agency as is the law regarding a murderer), but you shall not put him to death on account of a murder committed by his ox; this must be left to God (Sanhedrin 15b; cf. also Mekhilta).

אם כפר יושת עליו. "אִם" זֶה אֵינוֹ תָלוּי, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה" – לְשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר, זֶה מִשְׁפָּטוֹ שֶׁיָּשִׁיתוּ עָלָיו בֵּית דִּין כֹּפֶר:

אם כפר יושת עליו WHEN THERE BE SET ON HIM A RANSOM — This אם is not conditional (i. e. it does not mean “if” the heirs feel inclined to set on him a ransom) but it has the same meaning as in (Exodus 22:24) “When (אם) thou lendest money” where it has the meaning of אשר, “when” (for it is a duty to lend money to the poor and it is not optional). It is the law regarding him that the court should set on him a ransom.

ונתן פדין נפשו. דְּמֵי נִזָּק דִּבְרֵי רַ' יִשְׁמָעֵאל, רַ' עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר דְּמֵי מַזִּיק (מכילתא):

ונתן פדיון נפשו HE SHALL GIVE THE RANSOM OF HIS SOUL — the value of the injured person; this is the view of R. Ishmael, R. Akiba, however, says that it means the value of the person who caused the injury (Mekhilta).

או בן יגח. בֵּן שֶׁהוּא קָטָן:

או בן ינח WHETHER HE HAVE THRUST A SON — a son who is a minor;

או בת. שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה; לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה, יָכוֹל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח וְגוֹ', לְחַיֵּב עַל הַקְּטַנִּים כַּגְּדוֹלִים (שם):

או בת יגח OR HAVE THRUST A DAUGHTER, who is a minor. Since it states, (v. 29) “and hath put to death a man or a woman”, one might think that the owner is liable only for the death of adult persons, Scripture therefore states, “whether he have thrust a son etc.” to make him liable for the death of minors equally as for that of adults (Mekhilta).

אם עבד, או אמה. כְּנַעֲנִיִּים:

אם עבד או אמה IF [AN OX SHALL THRUST] A MANSERVANT OR A MAIDSERVANT — Canaanitish servants (Mekhilta).

שלשים שקלים יתן. גְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב הוּא, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה אֶלֶף זוּז בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֶלָּא דִּינָר. וְהַשֶּׁקֶל מִשְׁקָלוֹ אַרְבָּעָה זְהוּבִים שֶׁהֵם חֲצִי אֻנְקִיָא לְמִשְׁקָל הַיָּשָׁר שֶׁל קוֹלוֹנְיָ"א:

שלשים שקלים יתן HE SHALL GIVE THIRTY SHEKELS — This is the enactment of Scripture (and no reason is given) — the indemnity shall be thirty shekels whether the slave was worth a thousand zuz or was worth no more than one denar. A shekel weighs four gold coins, making half an ounce according to the correct weight of Cologne.

וכי יפתח איש בור. שֶׁהָיָה מְכֻסֶּה וְגִלָּהוּ:

וכי יפתח איש בור AND IF A MAN SHALL OPEN A PIT which was covered over, and he now uncovered it.

או כי יכרה. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אִם עַל הַפְּתִיחָה חַיָּב עַל הַכְּרִיָּה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא כוֹרֶה אַחַר כּוֹרֶה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב (בבא קמא נ"א):

או כי יכרה OR IF A MAN SHALL DIG [A PIT] — Why is this stated? If he becomes liable for opening one that already exists how much the more is he liable for digging a new one! However, it does not mean that he digs a pit from beginning to end but it is intended to include in this law a person who digs after another has dug (i. e. who deepens to a height of ten handbreaths a pit which another has already excavated to a depth less than this. Before he did this an animal which fell into the pit was unlikely to kill itself; now, however, such a fall may prove fatal) — that such a one alone becomes liable (cf. Bava Kamma 51a).

ולא יכסנו. הָא אִם כִּסָּהוּ פָּטוּר; וּבְחוֹפֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב:

ולא יכסנו AND SHALL NOT COVER IT — if, however, he did cover it, though he did not fill it in with earth” he is not liable (Bava Kamma 50a). Scripture speaks of one who excavates a pit in a public thoroughfare (cf. Bava Kamma 49b).

שור או חמור. הוּא הַדִּין לְכָל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר אָנוּ לְמֵדִין אוֹתוֹ שׁוֹר שׁוֹר מִשַּׁבָּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ (שמות כ"ג), מַה לְּהַלָּן כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה כְּשׁוֹר – שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְכָל בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ (דברים ה') – אַף כָּאן כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה כְּשׁוֹר, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר אֶלָּא שׁוֹר וְלֹא אָדָם, חֲמוֹר וְלֹא כֵלִים (בבא קמא נ"ג):

שור או חמור AN OX OR AN ASS — This is the law also with respect to all cattle and beasts, because wherever the Torah prescribes something with regard to “ox or ass”, we derive it (the fact that it applies to all cattle and beasts) on the grounds of the verbal similarity of שור in the text in question with שור which occurs in the law prescribing the Sabbath rest, for — with regard to the latter — it is stated, (Exodus 23:12) “that thine ox and thine ass may rest”. Now how is it in the latter case? We know that all cattle and beasts are to be treated in this respect as the “ox”, because in another passage referring to Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:14) it is expressly said “[thy ox and thy ass] and all thy cattle”! So here, too, all cattle and beasts are to be treated as the ox. The only reason why ox and ass are alone mentioned is to imply: “an ox” — but not a man, “an ass” — but not vessels (Bava Kamma 53b).

בעל הבור. בַּעַל הַתַּקָּלָה; אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁאֵין הַבּוֹר שֶׁלּוֹ – שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ בִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – עֲשָׂאוֹ הַכָּתוּב בְּעָלָיו לְהִתְחַיֵּב עָלָיו בִּנְזָקָיו:

בעל הבור THE OWNER OF THE PIT [SHALL PAY FOR IT] — This means the one who occasioned the damage. Although the pit was not his, — for he dug it in the public thoroughfare, — Scripture regards him as its “owner” (בעל הבור) in so far that he becomes responsible for the damage caused by it.

כסף ישיב לבעליו. יָשִׁיב לְרַבּוֹת שְׁוֵה כֶסֶף וַאֲפִלּוּ סֻבִּין (שם ז'):

כסף ישיב לבעליו [THE OWNER OF THE PIT SHALL PAY FOR IT] AND RESTORE MONEY UNTO THE OWNER OF THEM — The word ישיב is apparently redundant; it would have sufficed to state ישלם כסף לבעליו but it is added to include as legal tender in this case even bran (i. e. the restitution need not be money so long as he actually restores something of money-value). (Bava Kamma 7a).

והמת יהיה לו. לַנִּזָּק; שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּבֵלָה וְנוֹטְלָהּ בְּדָמִים וּמְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ הַמַּזִּיק עָלֶיהָ תַשְׁלוּמֵי נִזְקוֹ (בבא קמא י'):

והמת יהיה לו AND THE DEAD BEAST SHALL BELONG TO HIM — to him who has suffered the loss. We assess the value of the carcass and he (the claimant) takes it at this value in part payment, and the man who caused the damage pays him in addition to this as much as will make up the whole loss he has suffered (Bava Kamma 10b).

וכי יגף. יִדְחֹף; בֵּין בְּקַרְנָיו, בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ, בֵּין בְּרַגְלוֹ, בֵּין שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ בְשִׁנָּיו, כֻּלָּן בִּכְלַל נְגִיפָה הֵם, שֶׁאֵין נְגִיפָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן מַכָּה:

וכי יגף AND IF [AN OX] HURT [AN OX OF HIS FELLOW-MAN] — יגף means to thrust; whether it injures by horns or the whole body, or whether it kicks with its foot or bites it with its teeth, all are included in the term נגף, for נגף means nothing else than מכה — the impact of one thing upon another (Mekhilta).

שור איש. שׁוֹר שֶׁל אִישׁ:

שור איש means שור של איש THE OX OF A MAN (i. e. שור is in construct state to the word איש).‎

ומכרו את השור וגו'. בְּשָׁוִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר – שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁהֵמִית שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם – בֵּין שֶׁהַנְּבֵלָה שָׁוָה הַרְבֵּה, בֵּין שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה מְעַט, כְּשֶׁנּוֹטֵל זֶה חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת וְזֶה חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, נִמְצָא כָל אֶחָד מַפְסִיד חֲצִי נֶזֶק שֶׁהִזִּיקָה הַמִּיתָה; לִמְּדָנוּ שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, שֶׁמִּן הַשָּׁוִין אַתָּה לָמֵד לְשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִין, כִּי דִּין הַתָּם לְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק – לֹא פָּחוֹת וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. אוֹ יָכוֹל אַף בְּשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִין בִּדְמֵיהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן חַיִּים אָמַר הַכָּתוּב יֶחֱצוּ אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם? אִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵן, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַמַּזִּיק מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַרְבֵּה, כְּשֶׁהַנְּבֵלָה שָׁוָה לִמָּכֵר לְנָכְרִים הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִדְּמֵי שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַכָּתוּב שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמַּזִּיק נִשְׂכָּר; אוֹ פְעָמִים שֶׁהַנִּזָּק נוֹטֵל הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִדְּמֵי נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם – שֶׁחֲצִי דְּמֵי שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק שָׁוִין יוֹתֵר מִכָּל דְּמֵי שׁוֹר הַנִּזָּק – וְאִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵן, הֲרֵי תָם חָמוּר מִמּוּעָד. עַל כָּרְחֲךָ לֹא דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בְּשָׁוִין, וְלִמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמִן הַשָּׁוִין תִּלְמֹד לְשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִין, שֶׁהַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּם חֲצִי נִזְקוֹ שָׁמִין לוֹ אֶת הַנְּבֵלָה, וּמַה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו בִּשְׁבִיל הַמִּיתָה, נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַפְּחָת וְהוֹלֵךְ. וְלָמָה אָמַר הַכָּתוּב בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה וְלֹא אָמַר יְשַׁלֵּם חֶצְיוֹ? לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאֵין הַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מִגּוּפוֹ, וְאִם נָגַח וּמֵת, אֵין נִּזָּק נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא הַנְּבֵלָה, וְאִם אֵינָהּ מַגַּעַת לַחֲצִי נִזְקוֹ יַפְסִיד; אוֹ שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה, שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז, אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא אֶת הַשּׁוֹר, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב הַתָּם לְחַיֵּב אֶת בְּעָלָיו לְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעֲלִיָּה (בבא קמא ל"ג):

ומכרו את השור וגו׳ THEN THEY SHALL SELL THE LIVE ONE — Scripture is speaking of a case when both animals are of the same value: an ox of the value of 200 zuz that killed another also valued at 200 zuz. Then whether the carcass is worth much or whether it is worth little, as soon as one takes one-half of the living animal and one-half of the dead, and the other takes one-half of the living animal and one-half of the dead, it follows that each of them suffers the loss of half the damage which the death of the animal has caused. Scripture teaches us that the תם (which is the animal spoken of here — one that inflicted injury for the first time) always pays half damages. For from what it states about animals of the same value you may gather the rule for such as are of different values — that the law regarding the תם is for its owner to pay half damages, neither more nor less. Or perhaps you might say that also of animals which were of unequal value when living Scripture states that both of them must be halved! But if you say this, you will find that sometimes the man who occasions the damage may benefit considerably — namely, when the carcass is worth when sold unto heathens much more than the value of the ox which inflicted the injury. And you must admit that it is impossible that Scripture should say that the man who occasioned the damage should benefit by it. Or it may sometimes happen that the claimant will receive much more than the value of the whole damage — namely, when one-half of the value of the defendant’s ox is worth more than the whole value of the claimant’s ox. Consequently if you still maintain this (that the animals are to be halved even when they are of different value), the result may well be that the case of the תם is more severely dealt with than that of the מועד (when the claimant gets full damages — but not more). You must therefore needs admit that Scripture speaks here only of animals that are of equal value, and that it teaches you that the owner of a תם has to pay half damages; and from what is said in respect to animals of equal value you may derive the law in respect of such as are of different values — that in any case when a person is paid half the damages caused to him we value the carcass for him (the claimant); and as regards the depreciation in value caused by its death — he must accept a sum equal to half of that depreciation together with the carcass and has to be satisfied (Hebrew: and goes his way). But why does Scripture use this mode of expression and does not simply say: he (the owner of the תם) shall pay the half? To teach you by the way that the תם pays only to the extent of its own value (Hebrew: from what can be obtained for its body). So in case it gores another and itself dies, the claimant gets at most the carcass of the ox that caused the damage, and if that does not amount to one-half of the damage, he has to suffer the loss. Or take another case: an ox of the value of one maneh (200 zuz) that gored an ox of the value of 500 zuz (so that the loss is more than the whole value of the ox that caused it). The claimant still does not get more than the living ox; and the defendant is not bound to make up the deficiency from his own money, for the תם is not responsible to such an extent as to make its owner liable to pay from his own property) (Bava Kamma 16b).

או נודע. אוֹ לֹא הָיָה תָם, אֶלָּא נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא, הַיּוֹם וּמִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם הֲרֵי שָׁלֹשׁ נְגִיחוֹת:

או נודע means, OR it was not a תם but IT IS KNOWN THAT THE OX WAS WONT TO THRUST to-day yesterday and the day before yesterday — thus you have the three acts of goring required to make it a שלם ישלם שור (Bava Kamma 23b)

שלם ישלם שור. נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:

.מועד HE SHALL SURELY PAY AN OX [FOR THE OX] — i. e. the full damage.

והמת יהיה לו. לַנִּזָּק; וְעָלָיו יַשְׁלִים הַמַּזִּיק עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּלֵּם נִזָּק כָּל נִזְקוֹ:

והמת יהיה לו AND THE DEAD SHALL BELONG TO HIM — to the claimant (Bava Kamma 23b) as part of this full payment. In addition to it the defendant has to complete the amount until the claimant has been paid for his entire loss.

חמשה בקר וגו'. אָמַר רַ' יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי חָס הַמָּקוֹם עַל כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁל בְּרִיּוֹת – שׁוֹר שֶׁהוֹלֵךְ בְּרַגְלָיו וְלֹא נִתְבַּזָּה בּוֹ הַגַּנָּב לְנָשְׂאוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׂה שֶׁנּוֹשְֹׁאוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה הוֹאִיל וְנִתְבַּזָּה בוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָדוֹל כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל מְלָאכָה – שׁוֹר שֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׂה שֶׁלֹּא בִטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה (מכילתא, בבא קמא ע"ט):

חמשה בקר וגו׳ [HE SHALL PAY] FIVE OF THE HERD etc. — Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said, “The Omnipresent has much consideration for the honour of His creatures: when an ox — an animal that can walk by itself — has been stolen and sold or slaughtered, in which case the thief had not to degrade himself by carrying it on his shoulder, he has to pay fivefold restitution. In the case of a lamb, however, which he had to carry on his shoulder, he has to pay only the fourfold, because he was forced to degrade himself by carrying it”. Rabbi Meir said, “Come and see how great is the virtue of labour: In the case of the theft of an ox which he (the thief) withdrew from its labour, thereby causing a loss to its owner, he has to repay five oxen, in the case of a lamb which he has not withdrawn from its labour — only four (Bava Kamma 79b).

תחת השור, תחת השה. שְׁנָאָן הַכָּתוּב, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹר וְשֶׂה בִּלְבַד (בבא קמא ס"ז):

תחת השור … תחת השה FOR THE OX … FOR THE LAMB — The text repeats the words שור and שה unnecessarily (for it would have sufficed to state כי יגנוב איש שור וטבחו או מכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע הצאן תחת השה “And if a man shall steal an ox … then he shall pay five of the herd for it, or four sheep in place of the lamb”) to tell you that the rule providing for four-fold and five-fold restitution applies solely to the ox and the lamb (and not to any other cattle) (Bava Kamma 67b).

אם במחתרת. כְּשֶׁהָיָה חוֹתֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת:

אם במחתרת means when he was breaking in into the house (i. e. in the very act of forcing an entry, but at no other moment).

אין לו דמים. אֵין זוֹ רְצִיחָה, הֲרֵי הוּא כְמֵת מֵעִקָּרוֹ; כָּאן לִמְּדַתְךָ תוֹרָה "אִם בָּא לְהָרְגְּךָ, הַשְׁכֵּם לְהָרְגוֹ" וְזֶה לְהָרְגְּךָ בָּא, שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹדֵעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַעֲמִיד עַצְמוֹ וְרוֹאֶה שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין מָמוֹנוֹ בְּפָנָיו וְשׁוֹתֵק, לְפִיכָךְ עַל מְנָת כֵּן בָּא שֶׁאִם יַעֲמֹד בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן כְּנֶגְדוֹ יַהַרְגֶנּוּ (סנהדרין ע"ב):

אין לו דמים THERE SHALL NO GUILT OF BLOOD BE INCURRED FOR HIM — This is not regarded as a murder; it is as though he (the thief) has been dead from the beginning of his criminal act (אין לו דמים is taken to mean: he, the thief, had no blood — no vitality). Here the Torah teaches you the rule: “If one comes with the intention of killing you, be quick and kill him”. — And this burglar actually came with the intention of killing you, for he knew full well that no one can hold himself in check, looking on whilst people are stealing his property before his eyes and doing nothing. He (the thief) therefore obviously came with this purpose in view — that in case the owner of the property would resist him, he would kill him (Sanhedrin 72a).

אם זרחה השמש עליו. אֵין זֶה אֶלָּא כְמִין מָשָׁל: אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ הַדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלוֹם עִמְּךָ, כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁהוּא שָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם, כָּךְ פָּשׁוּט לְךָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא לַהֲרֹג אֲפִלּוּ יַעֲמֹד בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, כְּגוֹן אָב הַחוֹתֵר לִגְנֹב מָמוֹן הַבֵּן, בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁרַחֲמֵי הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן וְאֵינוֹ בָא עַל עִסְקֵי נְפָשׁוֹת (שם):

אם זרחה השמש עליו IF THE SUN SHONE UPON HIM — This is only a metaphorical expression signifying: if the fact is clear to you that he is peaceably disposed towards you. The simile is: just as the sun brings peace (happiness) to the world so if it is evident to you that he did not come with the intention of killing, even if the owner of the property would resist him (Sanhedrin 72a), as, for instance, when a father breaks in to steal the money of his son, for it is certain that the father cherishes feelings of pity for his child and the matter of taking human life is not in his thoughts at all, — then

דמים לו. כְּחַי הוּא חָשׁוּב, וּרְצִיחָה הִיא אִם יַהַרְגֶנוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת:

דמים לו, then he is to be regarded as a living man (cf. Rashi’s explanation of אין לו דמים v. 1.), and it is murder if the householder kills him.

שלם ישלם. הַגַּנָּב מָמוֹן שֶׁגָּנַב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב מִיתָה; וְאֻנְקְלוֹס שֶׁתִּרְגֵּם אִם עֵינָא דְּסַהֲדַיָּא נְפָלַת עֲלוֹהִי, לָקַח לוֹ שִׁטָּה אַחֶרֶת, לוֹמַר, שֶׁאִם מְצָאוּהוּ עֵדִים קֹדֶם שֶׁבָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וּכְשֶׁבָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נֶגְדּוֹ הִתְרוּ בוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַהַרְגֵהוּ, דמים לו – חַיָּב עָלָיו אִם הֲרָגוֹ, שֶׁמֵּאַחַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ רוֹאִים לוֹ, אֵין הַגַּנָּב הַזֶּה בָא עַל עִסְקֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, וְלֹא יַהֲרֹג אֶת בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן:

שלם ישלם means the thief shall only restore the money he has stolen but is not subject to the death penalty. Onkelos who renders אם זרחה השמש עליו by, “If the eye of witnesses fall upon him” chose a different way of explaining the verse, namely, that if witnesses surprise him before the householder appears, and when the householder is going towards him they warn him not to kill him (the thief), then דמים לו, he is punishable if he kills him; for since there are people watching him the thief surely has no thought of taking human life and will not kill the owner of the property.

המצא תמצא. בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא טָבַח וְלֹא מָכַר:

המצא תמצא IF THE THEFT BE CERTAINLY FOUND IN HIS HAND i. e. in his possession (Mekhilta), he having neither sold it nor slaughtered it he shall pay only double.

משור עד חמור. כָּל דָּבָר בִּכְלַל תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּמִקְרָא אַחֵר "עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה עַל כָּל אֲבֵדָה … יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ" (בבא קמא ס"ב):

משור עד חמור WHETHER IT BE AN OX OR AN ASS — Every thing stolen whether it be animate or inanimate comes under the category of things for which two-fold compensation (“kefel”) must be made, for it is said in another verse, (8) “[for every matter of tresspass whether it be for ox, for ass…], for sheep, for raiment or for any lost thing … he shall pay double unto his fellow-man”(Bava Kamma 62b).

חיים שנים ישלם. וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ מֵתִים, אֶלָּא חַיִּים אוֹ דְּמֵי חַיִּים (מכילתא):

חיים שנים ישלם means, two living animals (חיים שנים) shall he pay and he shall not give dead animals in payment (Mekhilta) — but either living animals or the value of living animals.