Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 21:35
And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead [ox] also they shall divide.
35. ‘If this admirable statute were faithfully administered now, it would prevent many angry, and sometimes fatal, feuds between herds-men, and at the same time would be a very fair adjustment of the questions of equity that grow out of such accidents’ (Thomson, L. and B. ii. 283). It is now the ‘custom of the desert’ (Doughty, Arab. Deserta, i. 351).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
35, 36. Injury done by an ox to one belonging to another person. If no neglect can be proved against the owner of the vicious ox, the damage is to be divided equally between the owners of the two animals ( v. 35): but if the owner of the vicious ox culpably neglects to keep it in, he is to make full compensation to the owner of the ox which has been killed.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The dead ox in this case, as well as in the preceding one, must have been worth no more than the price of the hide, as the flesh could not be eaten. See Lev 17:1-6.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
They shall divide the money; not equally, for so the owner of the mischievous ox might be gainer by the mischief, his ox being much worse than that which was killed; but in such proportions as the judges shall think fit, considering the worth of the cattle, and the circumstances of the action.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die,…. By pushing with his horns, or his body, or by biting with his teeth, as Jarchi, or by any way whatever:
then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money; the Scripture speaks, as the same writer observes, of one of equal value, otherwise the man that had his ox killed might be greatly a gainer by it; for if his ox was a poor one, and of little value, and the ox that killed his a good one, of value greatly superior, which according to this law was to be sold, and the money divided between the two owners, the man that lost his ox might have double the worth of it, or more, which was not equitable. On the other hand, according to the Jewish canons t, the case stood thus,
“when an ox of the value of one pound strikes an ox of the value of twenty, and kills him, and, lo, the carcass is of the value of four pounds, the owner of the ox is bound to pay him eight pounds, which is the half of the damage, (added to the half part of the price of the carcass,) but he is not bound to pay, but of the body of the ox which hurts, because it is said, “they shall sell the live ox”; wherefore if an ox of the value of twenty pieces of money should kill one of two hundred, and the carcass is valued at a pound, the master of the carcass cannot say to the master of the live ox, give me fifty pieces of money; but it will be said to him, lo, the ox which did the hurt is before thee, take him, and go thy way, although he is worth no more than a penny:”
and the dead ox also they shall divide; the money the carcass is worth; or it is sold for.
t Maimon. Hilchot Niske Mammon, c. 1. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 35, 36:
If the hurt was accidental and there was no evidence of neglect, the two parties were to divide the value of the living animal, and the carcass of the dead one. However, if there were evidence of neglect, and the aggressive animal were unrestrained, the one who suffered loss would receive the full value of the slain animal, and lose his share of the carcass.
The provisions of the Law were designed for administration of absolute justice to all, regardless of social or political standing.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(35-36) if one mans ox hurt anothers.Where no blame attached to the owner, the loss was to be equally shared. Where the dangerous character of the animal was, or ought to have been, known, the man whose ox was killed received its full value.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The law concerning a cattle fight is the same as one in the Laws of Esnunna, a twentieth century B.C. Akkadian law code. [Note: Laws of Esnunna, section 53.] However the Torah differentiated between an ox that gored habitually and one that did not in the case of one ox goring another. Thus the Torah showed higher regard for the rights and responsibilities of individuals.