Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 21:28
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.
28. shall be stoned ] The sanctity of human life demanded that an animal, not less than a man, should suffer for violating it: cf. (in P) Gen 9:5. Stoning was a common punishment among the Hebrew see e.g. Lev 20:2; Lev 20:27; Lev 24:14; Lev 24:16; Lev 24:23, Deu 13:10; Deu 17:5; Deu 21:21; Deu 22:21; Deu 22:24 f.: of an animal, as here, vv. 29, 32, Exo 19:13.
For the punishment of an animal and even of an inanimate object, such as a piece of wood or stone which had caused the death of a human being, there are many analogies. At Athens the court of the Phylobasileis (‘Tribe-kings’) in the Prytaneion, established, it was said, Draco (b.c. 624), investigated cases thus arising (Demosth. adv. Aristocr. 76, p. 645, Arist. Constit. of Athens, 57 end); and so Plato ( Legg. ix. 873 e 874 a) would have an animal or inanimate object that had killed a man tried, and, if found guilty, expelled from the country (the animal having been first slain). Pausanias (v. 27. 10; vi. 11. 6) mentions two cases of statues, one thrown into the sea, and the other ceremonially purified, for having caused a death. An interesting collection of parallels from many different nations is given by Frazer, Pausanias, ii. 370 ff. (cited by Cook, p. 252, who also refers to Baring-Gould, Curiosities of Olden Times, 1895, p. 57 ff.), many taken from Chambers, Book of Days, i. 126 ff. In mediaeval Europe animals charged with causing a death were often tried in a court of law, and, if found guilty, killed: a cow was executed in this way in France as late as 1740.
his flesh shall not be eaten ] Blood-guilt would be resting upon it, which would be transferred to any one partaking of it.
quit ] i.e. pronounced innocent, acquitted, as v. 19. The owner is acquitted, because it is assumed to be the first time that the animal has so acted. On ‘quit,’ see Aldis Wright’s Bible Word-Book, s.v.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
28 32. Injury done by a vicious ox to a free man or woman. Cf amm. 250 2.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
28 36. Bodily injuries due to animals, or neglect of reasonable precautions.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The animal was slain as a tribute to the sanctity of human life (Compare the marginal references and Gen 4:11). It was stoned, and its flesh was treated as carrion. Guilty negligence on the part of its owner was reckoned a capital offence, to be commuted for a fine.
In the case of a slave, the payment was the standard price of a slave, thirty shekels of silver. See Lev 25:44-46; Lev 27:3, and the marginal references for the New Testament application of this fact.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 21:28-36
If an ox gore.
Gods regard for the safety of man and beast
I. God cares for the safety of man.
1. If an ox injured a man for the first time, the life of the ox only was forfeited (Exo 21:28). But–
2. If the owner of the ox, acquainted with the proved vicious character of his beast, neglected to put him under restraint, and the ox killed his victim–as culpably negligent,–
(1) the owner was put to death; or–
(2) his life commuted for a fine.
II. God cares for the safety of the beast. Other Scriptures demonstrate this (Mat 6:26, etc.).
III. Provision for the safety of others should be made.
1. This provision should be made promptly.
2. This provision should be permanent.
Application:
1. Beware of injuring your neighbours soul by an unguarded inconsistency.
2. Beware of injuring your neighbours friendship by any unguarded passion.
3. Beware of injuring your neighbours character by any unguarded word.
4. Beware of injuring your neighbours peace by any unguarded look or action.
5. In all matters concerning your neighbour, remember that Whatsoever ye would, etc. (J. W. Burn.)
The penalties of carelessness
I. Life is superior to property. The ox that had gored a man to death was to be killed, and put out of the way. The ox is stoned to death; and, legally, it would involve physical uncleanness to eat of the flesh.
II. The careless man is culpable. If the animal had been known to gore; if this fact had been testified to the owner, and proper precautions had not been taken, then the owner was in some measure participant in the evil doings of the vicious creature. Carelessness is culpable. He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. To prevent evil by wise precaution is our bounden duty, and is an indirect method of doing good. All life is precious; but it seems to be indicated that some lives are more precious than others. Thirty shekels is a high price for some; but a hundred shekels would be a low price for others. After death has visited, then estimates nearer the truth of a mans worth will be formed.
III. Man is responsible for preventable evil. If into the uncovered pit an ox or an ass fall, the owner of the pit shall make good the damage. Will the Almighty hold us responsible for the moral pits we have left uncovered? We have not placed precautionary signals in sufficient number along those highways where moral pits and quagmires abound. (W. Burrows, B. A.)
Punishment of criminal carelessness
If Moses had to regulate our legislation in reference to railway accidents, he would put it on altogether a new basis. If half-a-dozen people were killed and a score seriously injured through the mail running into a goods train, and Moses found that the engine driver who missed the signal had been on his engine twelve or fourteen hours, or that the pointsman who turned the mail into the goods siding had been kept at his post for, perhaps, a still longer period, I cannot help thinking that managers and directors would stand a chance of having a much, sharper punishment than they commonly receive now. And if criminal carelessness which might be fatal to life was punished by Moses with death, I think that fraudulent acts which are certain to injure the health and perhaps the life of the community, would have been punished by him not less severely. He would certainly have approved the sentence under which a few months ago a large farmer, greatly to his own astonishment and the astonishment of his friends, was put in prison for sending diseased meat to market; only I think that the old Jewish legislator would have inflicted a still heavier punishment–a few years penal servitude instead of a month or twos imprisonment. Chemists, who adulterate the drugs on which the rescue of life depends–the rescue of the life not only of ordinary members of the community like ourselves, whom also Moses would have protected, but of men of science, poets, and statesmen, whose death would be a calamity to the nation, and to the world–would I think, have been made responsible by him for the death of those who perished through their fault; and if they were not stoned or hung for murder, which I think would have been possible, a criminal penalty so heavy would have been inflicted on them, and they would have been branded with such imfamy, that other evil-disposed persons would have feared to repeat the crime. (R. W. Dale, D. D.)
Responsibility respecting life
We have this principle certainly in our law, but with what beneficial effect a much wider application of it might be made! Look at a few instances of carelessness. There is a block of crowded, unventilated, and badly-drained houses, into which necessity drives the poor to herd, and where they sicken and die. Think you this principle would not lay hands on the owner of such property? Would it spare a corporation if it neglected to deal with a pestilence breeding quarter? Neither would trifling carelessness escape. What is trifling? A traveller goes to a strange hotel, and retires to damp sheets, and ever afterwards suffers from ill-health, sometimes speedily loses life. Think of the thousands who travel, and follow even one stricken one into a sorrowful and bereaved family! Carelessness, when seen in its consummation, speaks for itself. But worse than carelessness is selfishness which pursues its ends regardless of others. In the sloppy winter of the Franco-German war, an army contractor furnished boots with paper soles to the French. In the Crimean war we heard of manufacturers who supplied blankets which, so to speak, rotted on the backs of our soldiers. How much death and disaster was due to this selfishness! Because we cannot count the victims is there no guilt? Moses would say, if life be lost and can be traced to a man, let him atone for it; results must be dealt with. Life is the one sacred thing. Nor is it difficult to see that such a principle applies itself to the selfishness of those who by their trickery and roguery in business ruin the commerce of their country. Alas! for the advice because it is utopian, and more because it is needed, but it is true that no tribunal would better serve England at this juncture than one which held the terror of moral justice over manufacturers who send out worthless goods and taint our honest name, and impair our credit the wide world over. They rob others, and they destroy their country. There are traitors to-day as real as those who in olden days took a bribe and sold their armies or their castles to the enemy. (W. Senior, B. A.)
A needful warning
On a cold Sabbath morning in February, a gentleman was walking along, somewhat hastily, through the snow. He noticed a bright-looking little lad standing upon the pavement, with his cap in his hand and his eyes fixed upon one spot on the sidewalk. As he approached him he looked up to him, and pointing to the place, said, Please dont step there, sir. I slipped there and fell down. What a different world this would be if all Christians were as particular as this lad to warn others against dangers, whether temporal or spiritual. (Christian Herald.)
A danger signal
At Saltcoats, not very far from the shore, stands a beacon in the winter. If you were to ask any one who belongs to that place, why it is there, you would be told this story:–A merchant from Glasgow, with his family, was residing there for the summer months. One morning the merchant went out to bathe before breakfast, and he thought he was quite safe as long as he kept near the shore. But there was a pit there which he did not know anything of, and into this pit he fell, and nothing more was seen or heard of him. After this accident a beacon was put up as a warning to all others to keep from the spot. What were the feelings that prompted this beacon to be put up? It must have been feelings of love to keep all others from danger. (Christian Herald.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 28. If an ox gore a man] It is more likely that a bull is here intended, as the word signifies both, see Ex 22:1; and the Septuagint translate the shor of the original by , a bull. Mischief of this kind was provided against by most nations. It appears that the Romans twisted hay about the horns of their dangerous cattle, that people seeing it might shun them; hence that saying of Horace. Sat., lib. i., sat. 4, ver. 34: Faenum habet in cornu, longe fuge. “He has hay on his horns; fly for life!” The laws of the twelve tables ordered, That the owner of the beast should pay for what damages he committed, or deliver him to the person injured. See Clarke on Ex 22:1.
His flesh shall not be eaten] This served to keep up a due detestation of murder, whether committed by man or beast; and at the same time punished the man as far as possible, by the total loss of the beast.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Under which you are to understand any other creatures of like nature which hurt a man in such a dangerous manner, whether with their horns, or teeth, or feet; but he mentions only the ox or bull, and his goring with his horn, because this is most frequently done.
Ox shall be stoned; partly, to prevent future mischiefs from that creature; partly, to punish its master for his negligence in not keeping it in; and principally, for mans admonition, for whom seeing the beasts were made, it is not strange nor unjust if it be destroyed for mans good. God would hereby show that he would not, and men should not, spare a wilful murderer.
His flesh shall not be eaten; both because it was forbidden food, its blood being not let out; and for the punishment of the owner, who was hereby hindered from the sale of it, to beget in all the greater detestation of murderers, when they observe the poor beast upon this account accursed, and therefore not to be touched or tasted.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28-36. If an ox gore a man or awoman, that they dieFor the purpose of sanctifying humanblood, and representing all injuries affecting life in a seriouslight, an animal that occasioned death was to be killed or sufferpunishment proportioned to the degree of damage it had caused.Punishments are still inflicted on this principle in Persia and othercountries of the East; and among a rude people greater effect is thusproduced in inspiring caution, and making them keep noxious animalsunder restraint, than a penalty imposed on the owners.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die,…. That are Israelites, of whom only Aben Ezra interprets it; but though they may be principally designed, yet not solely; for no doubt if one of another nation was gored to death by the ox of an Israelite, the same penalty would be inflicted, as follows:
then the ox shall be surely stoned; which is but an exemplification of the original law given to Noah and his sons, Ge 9:5: “at the hand of every beast will I require it”; i.e. the blood of the lives of men; which shows the care God takes of them, that even a beast must die that is the means of shedding man’s blood:
and his flesh shall not be eaten; it being as an impure beast according to this sentence, as Maimonides l observes; and even though it might have been killed in a regular manner before it was stoned, it was not to be eaten; no, not even by Heathens, nor by dogs might it be eaten, as a dead carcass might by a proselyte of the gate, or a stranger; this might not be given nor sold to him; for, as Aben Ezra observes, all profit of them is here forbidden:
but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit; from punishment, as the last mentioned writer observes, from suffering death; he shall only suffer the loss of his ox: the Targum of Jonathan is,
“he shall be quit from the judgment of slaughter (or condemnation of murder), and also from the price of a servant or maid,”
which was thirty shekels, Ex 21:32.
l Hilchot Maacolot Asurot, c. 4. sect. 22.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 28-32:
The text concerns death caused by a domesticated animal, in this case an ox, as one most likely to inflict such injury. In such case, the animal must be put to death (see Ge 9:6). Its meat could not be eaten. This would acquit the owner of any further liability.
In the event the owner was aware of the savage temper of his ox, and if he did not keep the animal under proper restraint, he was then held personally liable. If the animal then killed a person, the owner must pay whatever fine was imposed upon him. This related to freeman. In the case of a slave, the owner of the ox must pay a fine of thirty shekels of silver to the master, and the animal must be stoned.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
28. If an ox gore a man. Moses now descends even to the brute animals, so that, if they injured any one, by their punishment men may be more and more deterred from shedding blood. If, therefore, a goring ox have killed a man, he commands that it should be stoned, and that its carcass should be thrown away as abominable. Though censorious persons mock at this law, as if it were childish to punish a wretched animal, in which there is no criminality, their insolence requires but a brief refutation. For, since oxen were created for man’s good, so we need not wonder that their death, as well as their life, should be made to contribute to the public advantage. If, then, an ox that had killed a, man should be kept, men would undoubtedly grow hardened in cruelty by beholding it; and to eat its flesh, would be almost the same thing as eating the flesh of man. The cruelty of men, therefore, could not better be restrained, so that they should hold the murder of each other in abhorrence, than by thus avenging a man’s death. In the second place, God proceeds further, condemning the master of the ox himself to death, if he had been previously admonished to beware; for such a warning takes away the pretext of ignorance; nor should the punishment seem to be severe for gross neglect, because to give free outlet to dangerous beasts is equivalent to compassing men’s death. He who knowingly and willfully exposes the life of his brother to peril, is justly accounted his murderer. The exception which is finally added, at first sight contains a kind of contradiction, because it was forbidden by the Law to compound with a murderer for money. But inasmuch as a delinquency ( delictum) differs from a crime, although it was unlawful to covenant with murderers for the remission of their punishment, still the judges were permitted on their hearing of the case, to mitigate it, if a man were excused by his unconsciousness or inadvertency. This, then, is a special exception, which permits the judges to distinguish between the nature of offenses; viz., that, if they discovered a man not to be worthy of death, they should still punish his negligence by a pecuniary fine.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 21:28-36
GODS REGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF MAN AND BEAST.Exo. 21:28-36
This is an extension of the principle maintained in the preceding section,the sanctity of human life. So sacred is it, that it is not merely to be protected from injury or murder, but from accident. And not only human but animal life. Even that must not be sacrificed carelessly. Then
I. God cares for the safety of man.
1. If an ox injured a man for the first time, the life of the ox only was forfeited (Exo. 21:28). But
2. If the owner of the ox, acquainted with the proved vicious character of his beast, neglected to put him under restraint, and the ox killed his victim as culpably negligent,
(1) the owner was put to death; or
(2) his life commuted for a fine.
II. God cares for the safety of the beast. Other scriptures demonstrate this (Mat. 6:26; &c.).
1. In the case of a beast falling into an unprotected pit (or well), the penalty was adequate remuneration for the loss (Exo. 21:33-34).
2. In the event of an ox exhibiting vicious propensities for the first time, both the ox and its victim were to be sold and the proceeds equally divided; but after its proved viciousness, the owner for culpable carelessness was to bear the entire loss.
None but a superficial mind will deem this legislation trivial. It involves important principles recognised in all civilised codes. The application is, that Gods regard, as expressed in the law, should be mans as expressed in action. The Jew, in the literal case before us, must put a wall round his pits or wells, or cover them in some way and keep in his intractable bulls: the Christian, in practical life, must adopt every precaution necessary for the safety of his neighbour or his neighbours property. Hence there are matters about which a man may not simply consult his own interest. God and society demand that we consult the interest of others. Thus selfishness is checked, and provision made for harmony and peace and safety between man and man. The text suggests
I. That provision for the safety of others should be made. We must not argue that others are able to take care of themselves, and if they walk into danger it is their own fault. No, the Christian law is, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. We may be able to walk amidst the dangers of our own field with impunity, because we are familiar with them, and are armed against them. Our neighbour may not be. Wherefore, If eating flesh or drinking wine, &c. Destroy not thy brother for whom Christ died.
II. That this provision should be made promptly. We must not argue that it will be time to adopt precautions when we see our neighbour coming. No, Christian life must be regulated by the principle that prevention is better than cure. We are not at liberty to wait till the accident has occurred. Life is too short, and too valuable, for such experiments. We save life equally by prevention as by rescue. There may be no conspicuous heroism in taking precautions, but God counts it as very acceptable service. Davy did more for humanity by inventing his simple lamp than he would by daring attempts to rescue hundreds of victims from exploded mines. And so it is better by far to save a man from moral ruin than by indefatigable attempts to save him when ruined.
III. That this provision should be permanent. That accidents are exceptional does not alter the case. Most of the permanent arrangements of life are made to meet exceptional cases. A house is not built for weather, which with us is pretty uniformly mild; but so as to stand the severe stress of occasional torrents and winds. A shipbuilder does not contemplate the fair weather; but the exceptional storm. So our neighbour may be calling, or his ox straying, at any moment. The visit may be uncertain, but the uncertainty is permanent. So should be our means of meeting it. Be prepared, therefore, for accidents, and make sure in case of uncertainties. And depend upon this, he who is careful about his neighbour will be equal to any emergency that may occur respecting himself.
Application(i.) Beware of injuring your neighbours soul by any unguarded inconsistency. (ii.) Beware of injuring your neighbours friendship by any unguarded passion. (iii.) Beware of injuring your neighbours character by any unguarded word. (iv.) Beware of injuring your neighbours peace by any unguarded look or action. (v.) In all matters concerning your neighbour, remember that Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.
J. W. Burn.
THE PENALTIES OF CARELESSNESS
In a nomadic state of society, great care is required in the management of cattle, if interests are not to clash, if the welfare of the community is to be promoted. Even when the children of Israel reached the Promised Land, there would be still need for caution, and great precision in the laying down of laws. The wise foresight of the legislator is seen in these particular laws with reference to dangerous cattle.
I. Life is superior to property.The ox that had gored a man to death was to be killed, and put out of the way. His flesh was not to be eaten. The ox is stoned to death; and, legally, it would involve physical uncleanness to eat of the flesh. Is there Old Testament symbolism in this fact? Does the ox symbolise the murderer? Does the Almighty thus in a most significant manner set forth the awfulness of murder? This, however, may be safely inferred, that property should ever be subordinate to life. What a pity that this noble principle of the Mosaic code is not more fully carried out in modern days! We rightly slaughter cattle to prevent the spread of disease; but the farmer would object to have an ox slaughtered because it had unfortunately gored a man to death. There is still at work in modern society the influence of this mistaken principle,the omnipotence of property. We need to learn the preciousness of human life.
II. The careless man is culpable.If the animal had been known to gore; if this fact had been testified to the owner, and proper precautions had not been taken, then the owner was in some measure participant in the evil doings of the vicious creature. Carelessness is culpable. He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. To prevent evil by wise precaution is our bounden duty, and is an indirect method of doing good. There are degrees of carelessness, and degrees of guilt. The man may so conduct himself as to declare that he rather rejoiced in the oxs murderous tendency; and, if so, the man must not only have his ox killed, but he himself is to be put to death. But there may be mitigating circumstances about the owners conduct. The sufferers may take a lenient view of the transaction. Then the owner of the ox shall give a proper ransom for the life which has been forfeited, whether son or daughter. But if it be a manservant or a maidservant that is killed, then thirty shekels of silver shall be given to the master; which was probably the usual market price of a slave. All life is precious; but it seems to be indicated that some lives are more precious than others. Thirty shekels is a high price for some; but a hundred shekels would be a low price for others. After death has visited, then estimates nearer the truth of a mans worth will be formed.
III. Man is responsible for preventable evil.If into the uncovered pit an ox or an ass fall, the owner of the pit shall make good the damage. He shall pay the price of the animal so killed; and receive the dead beast, of which he could only use the skin, and other such parts. The flesh was unclean. If we leave a pit uncovered we must take the consequences. Will the Almighty hold us responsible for the moral pits we have left uncovered? We have not placed precautionary signals in sufficient number along those highways where moral pits and quagmires abound.
IV. Community of interest.In the Jewish polity men were not to be allowed to consider their own interests as paramount. They were to consider the welfare of others. The man, whose ox had killed the ox of another, was in a measure responsible for the loss occasioned. The goring ox was to be sold, and thus removed out of the sight of those to whom it had rendered itself obnoxious And the money got for the living ox was to be divided; and the dead ox also they shall divide. It is likely that the dead ox had gored. But if the ox had been known to gore aforetime, then the owner must pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own. The master must be watchful over the very cattle that he owns. He must have respect to the welfare of his neighbour. Let us feel that we have interests in common. The prosperity of one is the prosperity of all in a degree. In the long run there can be no individual interests separate from the interests of the whole community. Selfishness is self-defeating and suicidal. If there cannot be community of goods, there must always be community of interestsW. Burrows, B.A.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Pitfalls! Exo. 21:33-34. Evils are wrought by want of thought, as well as by want of heart. Bare want of thought is censured as sinful. There is a selfish and heedless disregard of the rights and personal safety of others. But there are moral as well as material pits. The gin-palace keeper should be compelled to write up, An open pit here. Keepers of haunts of vice should be forced to have for their sign the opinion of the wise man in the Book of ProverbsThe Way to the Pit.
Our dangers and delights are near allies;
From the same stem the rose and prickle rise.
Daniel.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(28) The ox shall be surely stonedi.e., he shall die the death of a murderer.
His flesh shall not be eaten.An ox killed by stoning would not be bled in the usual way, and would be unclean food for Hebrews. According to the Rabbis, the flesh might not even be disposed of to the Gentiles, but had to be buried. If this were so, the object must have been to mark strongly that whatever creature took human life was accursed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(28-32) Injuries to the person might arise either from man or from animals. Protection from both was needed. The law given to Noah (Gen. 9:5) had already laid it down that whenever a beast killed a man his life was to be forfeit. This law was now re-enacted, but with a further and very important proviso. If the animal had an owner, and the owner had reason to know that it was dangerous, then not only the beast, but the owner also was to be held guilty. He was to be liable to a process for murder (Exo. 21:29); but, with the consent of the aggrieved family, might pay a sum of money as compensation instead (Exo. 21:30). In the case of a slave, the sum was fixed at what was regarded as the standard price of a slave (Lev. 25:44-46; Lev. 27:3), viz., thirty silver shekels.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28-32. If an ox gore a man This statute further guards the sanctity of human life . A potent object-lesson lay in the command that the murderous animal’s flesh shall not be eaten, for it was to be regarded as polluted with the curse of a human life destroyed. Even the owner of such an ox might suffer the death penalty if he had knowingly permitted him to run at large after being duly admonished of the animal’s vicious habit. This penalty might, however, be commuted for a sum of money, which was, doubtless, left to the magistrates to determine. The valuation fixed by the law as the price of a slave thus killed was thirty shekels of silver. Comp. Zec 11:12-13; and Mat 26:15; Mat 27:3-4.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Regulations For Injuries In Connection With Beasts ( Exo 21:28-36 ).
In this section there is a very basic chiasmus:
a Punishment for the goring of a man or woman (Exo 21:28-32).
b Punishment in respect of a beast falling into an open pit (Exo 28:33-34).
a Punishment for the goring of a beast (Exo 21:35-36).
Exo 21:28-31
“And if an ox gore a man or a woman and death results the ox will certainly be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten. But the owner of the ox shall be free from blame. But if the ox was in the habit of goring previously, and the owner had been told, and he had not kept it in, with the result that it killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid on him, whether he have gored a son or have gored a daughter, it shall be done to him according to this judgment.”
A man is not to be blamed for an unexpected attack by an ox even though death results. The only punishment is the slaying of the ox by stoning. It has been rendered blood guilty. Furthermore its meat could not be eaten. It belonged to God in reparation. But if the ox had a reputation for goring people and the owner had not restricted it, then the owner is guilty of manslaughter if it kills someone, and must be put to death. There is, however, in this exceptional case the possible alternative of a ‘ransom.’ (Presumably because the killing was not the direct action of the owner – compare Num 35:31-32 where no ransom is allowed for a deliberate manslayer).
“If there be laid on him a ransom.” There is the alternative that the owner can pay a ransom fixed by the court and save his own life. He can be redeemed by the payment of a price. The choice as to whether a ransom can be accepted possibly rests solely in the hands of the court, but it may require the consent of the family of the deceased who may help to fix the level of the ransom (compare Exo 21:22).
“The ox will certainly be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten.” The guilty animal must in all cases be put to death. And because it is blood guilty its flesh cannot be eaten. This may partly be due to the fact that being deprived of any benefit from the oxen is the sole punishment in some cases of the owner. But it is also a recognition that killing is an evil beyond all evils. The killer is marked off as solely in the hands of God, to be dealt with as He will. It is tabu.
In the Law Code of Hammurabi it was laid down that when an ox killed a man nothing needed to be done, but if it killed a man and was known to be dangerous then a fine should be paid. Life was not seen as quite so important there.
From our point of view there is a warning here about being concerned for the safety of others. These laws build up a background of righteous behaviour that can be applied to many situations. As we study them we learn from them the principles on which they are based, fairness, thoughtfulness and responsibility.
Exo 21:32
“If the ox gore a bondman or a bondwoman he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”
In this case the ransom is fixed because thirty shekels is the price of a bondman so that there is no argument.
The principle lying behind these laws is that of the responsibility of an owner for anything he owns which is dangerous. He is responsible to ensure that it can cause no harm. And secondly that blame should not be attached for what could not be foreseen.
Exo 21:33-34
“And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls in it, the owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to their owner and the dead beast shall be his.”
A man is responsible to safeguard any pit, well or cistern that he has dug or opened, for they should be covered. So if an ox or ass falls into them he must make recompense, but keeps the carcass. The principle is that someone should not lose through another’s negligence. It reminds us today that God is concerned about our being concerned for the fate of others, including animals.
Exo 21:35-36
“And if one man’s ox hurt another’s so that it dies, then they will sell the live ox and divide what is obtained for it, and they will also divide the dead one. Or if it is known that the ox had a tendency to gore in the past, and his owner has not kept him in, he shall surely pay ox for ox and the dead beast shall be his own.”
Where there is accidental loss through a misbehaving ox any loss is divided between the two parties, but where the misbehaving ox already had a reputation for goring, the owner should have kept it under control, therefore he is responsible for any loss of the innocent party. He does, however, receive the dead animal and can sell its hide. It seems that at this stage the meat could also be eaten or sold.
Lev 17:15-16 expresses disfavour at the eating of such an animal that ‘dies of itself’, either by homeborn or stranger, but as long as the blood is not eaten it only renders the person unclean, a position to be remedied by ritual washing and waiting until the evening. But Deu 14:21 forbids such food to God’s people because the people are holy to Yahweh. It may, however, be given to ‘strangers’ or foreigners. But no specific consequence is outlined. Both therefore express disapproval, any seeming contradiction probably depending on the type of ‘stranger’ in question, whether temporary, semi-permament or permanent, or on the fact that Israelites were ignoring the law so that it had to be tightened up.
The code of Hammurapi and the Hittite Laws have fairly similar regulations to these above and what follows. Such laws were required in all farming communities. These laws teach us that we have a responsibility to ensure that what we have is not a danger to others and that we must be fair in our dealings, making compensation when it is our fault.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ordinances for the Protection of Life and Property
v. 28. If an ox gore a man or a woman that they die, then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten, v. 29. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, v. 30. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him, v. 31. Whether he have gored a son or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. v. 32. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maid-servant, v. 33. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein, v. 34. the owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them, v. 35. And if one man’s ox hurt another’s that he die, then they shall sell the live ox, v. 36. Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in, he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Exo 21:28. If an ox gore a man or a woman The Hebrew word shor, might, perhaps, with more propriety, be rendered a bull; the LXX have it . The Romans used to mark mischievous bulls by twisting hay about their horns. Horace alludes to this, when he says, foenum habet in cornu, longe fuge, He has hay on his horns, avoid him. The law of the twelve tables ordered, that the owner of such beast should pay for what damages it committed, or deliver it to the person injured. See Gen 9:5. There can be no doubt that this law extended equally to any other destructive animals, whereof the owners did not take due care.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Observe, from those laws, how offensive in the sight of God blood-shedding is, even when committed by the unconscious brute, as well as by rational creatures.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.
Ver. 28. Then the ox shall be surely stoned. ] God requiring man’s blood even of beasts. Gen 9:5 See Trapp on “ Gen 9:5 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the ox: Exo 21:32, Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6, Lev 20:15, Lev 20:16
Reciprocal: Gen 3:14 – thou art Exo 19:13 – whether Deu 17:8 – between blood Deu 22:8 – then thou shalt
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 21:28-36 E. Damages by or to Cattle.An ox goring anyone to death must be stoned, and might not be eaten, as tainted with blood-guilt (Exo 21:28). In ancient Greece and elsewhere, and even in medival Europe, animals were tried in court. But the owner of an ox known to be vicious, and yet left at large, must die, or pay a fine to the relatives (Exo 21:29 f.), the same rule holding good of a minor of either sex (Exo 21:31). A slaves death required a fine of 30 shekels (worth 4, 2 Samuel 6 d. now, and much more then) and the oxs death. These two (Exo 21:30; Exo 21:32) are the only cases in the OT of the wergild or death-price so common in antiquity. Further, if a well or grain-pit were left uncovered, and an animal fell in and died, the offender had to pay the value, but might have the carcase for its skin and (possibly at that time) for its flesh (Exo 21:33 f.). And if one ox killed another, the owners were to divide the price of the pair; but if it was a vicious ox let loose, the owner must pay in full, but have the carcase. Doughty testifies that this is now the custom of the desert, though Thomson writes as if it were still a much-needed reform.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely {t} stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.
(t) If the beast be punished, much more shall the murderer.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Hammurabi Code specified the death of the son of the owner of the ox if the ox killed the son of another man (Exo 21:31). [Note: Ibid., section 230.] The Torah required the owner’s life or a ransom (Exo 21:30). Note, too, that Exo 21:31-32 value the lives of male and female slaves the same. The value of an adult slave under the Torah was 30 shekels of silver (cf. Mat 26:15). Under the Code of Hammurabi it was 1/3 of a mina of silver (about 17 shekels). [Note: Ibid., section 252.] The ox also died by stoning. In this way God taught His people that they should view even slaves as created in His image (cf. Gen 9:5). The goring ox (Exo 21:28-32) is the typical example of death caused by cattle or domestic animals.
"The fate of the ox gives clear evidence of the theological principle of the subordination of the animal world to human sovereignty. That the fatal goring of one ox by another required only compensation shows the relative insignificance of the animal-to-animal relationship (Exo 21:35-36)." [Note: Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p. 43.]