(Exodus 21:20) "And if a man strike his man-servant or his maid-servant": His man-servant and his maid-servant were also included in (Ibid. 29) "it killed a man or a woman," Scripture singling it out for special mention of (Ibid. 21) "But if one day or two days, etc." for lenity towards the master (as opposed to one who is not his master who kills him), wherefore this section is stated.
"And if a man strike": This tells me only of a man (who kills). Whence do I derive the same for a woman? R. Yishmael says: Since all the injuries in the Torah are unqualified, etc. (see above on 21:18).
R. Eliezer says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite (as opposed to a Hebrew) man-servant. You say this, but perhaps it speaks of a Hebrew? (This is not so, for) it is written here "his man-servant or his maid-servant," and elsewhere, (Leviticus 25:44) "From them (the Canaanites) shall you buy a man-servant or a maid-servant." Just as there, the Torah speaks of the Canaanites, so, here. Variantly: man-servant is being likened to maid-servant, and maid-servant to man-servant. Just as "maid-servant" — (she may be sold as a maid-servant,) whether adult or minor, so "man-servant," adult or minor — to exclude a Hebrew man-servant, who although (he may be sold as) a man-servant when he is an adult, may not (be sold as) a man-servant when he is a minor. And to exclude a Hebrew maid-servant, who, although she may be a maid-servant when she is a minor, may not be a maid-servant when she is an adult, (leaving her master, as she does, with the advent of pubertal signs.) R. Yitzchak said: I might understand that (also included is) a servant of two partners or one who is half-free, half-slave; it is, therefore, written "his man-servant or his maid-servant." Just as the first implies a servant that is entirely his, so, the second — to exclude the servant of two partners or one that is half-free (half-slave). R. Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite man-servant, it being written (Exodus 21:21) "for he (the servant) is his money." Just as his money is his for all time and he exercises complete control over it, (so, the servant being spoken of) — to exclude a Hebrew man-servant, who, though under his complete control, is not his for all time, (leaving, as he does in Yovel), and to exclude a servant of two partners or one who is half-free (half-slave), who, though he is his for all time, is not under his complete control.
(Exodus 21:20) "with a rod": I might think, whether or not it is of killing potential; it is, therefore, written (Numbers 35:38) "Or if with a wooden implement, whereby he can die he strike him," whereby we are apprised that he is not liable until he strikes him with something that has the potential to kill.
And whence is it derived that it must be in a locus which is critical to life? From (Devarim 19:11) "and he lie in wait for him and he rise up against him and he smite him mortally," whereby we are apprised that it (the weapon) must be of killing potential in a locus which is critical to life.
Now if (in the killing of) an Israelite, the graver (instance), not being subject to (the provision of [Exodus 21:21]) "But if one or two days," he is not liable unless it be with an implement of killing potential and in a locus which is critical to life, then (in the killing of) a Canaanite, the instance of lesser gravity, being subject to the above provision, how much more so should he not be liable unless it be with an implement of killing potential and in a locus which is critical to life! (Why, then, need it be written?) For if you say this, you have ruled for punishment through a fortiori reasoning, wherefore it is written "with a rod, etc.", to teach that punishment is not to be ruled for through such reasoning.
Rebbi says: What is the intent of "with a rod"? It is "extra" towards the formulation of an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: it is written here "rod," and, elsewhere, (vis-à-vis tithing, Leviticus 27:32) "rod." Just as here, excluding (a servant) acquired by two partners, so, there, excluding (from the tithe a beast) acquired by two partners.
"and he die under his hand": His striking and his (the servant's) dying must be in his domain. If he struck him (in his domain) and then sold him to another, he is not subject (to the provisions of "But if one day or two days, etc.")
"vengeance shall be taken": "Vengeance" connotes death. You say "death," but perhaps money (i.e., monetary restitution) is referred to. (This is not so.) It is written here "vengeance," and, elsewhere (Leviticus 26:25) "vengeance." Just as there, death (is indicated), so, here, death (is intended.) Just as there, (death by) the sword (is indicated), so, here, ([death by the sword] is intended.)
(Exodus 21:21) "But if one day or two days": I understand this literally. It is, therefore, (i.e., negating this,) written "if one day": How (are these two verses to be reconciled?) One day which is like two days; two days which are like one day. How so? A twenty-four hour period.
R. Shimon says: Why need this ("for he is his money") be stated. Even if it were not stated I would know it by induction, viz.: Since his ox is killed for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant, and another's ox is liable for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant; he is killed for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant, and another is killed for killing his man-servant or his maid-servant — then if you have learned that there is no difference between his ox and that of another in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant, then we should make no distinction between him and another (vis-à-vis the application of the "one or two day" provision) in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant. It is, therefore, written "Vengeance shall not be taken, for he is his (the owner's) money." Scripture hereby apprises us that though no distinction is made between his ox and that of another in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant, a distinction is made (in the application of the afore-mentioned provision) between himself and another, (the provision applying only if he killed them, but not if another killed them.)
(שמות כא,כ) "וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט, וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ, נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם." אַף עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָיוּ בַכְּלָל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כא,כט) "וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה". וַהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלָלוֹ לְהָקֵל עָלָיו, שֶׁיְּהֵי נִדּוֹן בְּ"יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם". לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה.
(Exodus 21:20) "And if a man strike his man-servant or his maid-servant": His man-servant and his maid-servant were also included in (Ibid. 29) "it killed a man or a woman," Scripture singling it out for special mention of (Ibid. 21) "But if one day or two days, etc." for lenity towards the master (as opposed to one who is not his master who kills him), wherefore this section is stated.
"וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מְנַיִן? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ כָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, שֶׁעָשָׂה בוֹ נָשִׁין כַּאֲנָשִׁין, פּוֹרֵט אֲנִי בְכָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, לַעֲשׁוֹת בָּהֶן נָשִׁין כַּאֲנָשִׁין.
"And if a man strike": This tells me only of a man (who kills). Whence do I derive the same for a woman? R. Yishmael says: Since all the injuries in the Torah are unqualified, etc. (see above on 21:18).
רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,כט) "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,לג) "וְכִי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְהִשְׁוָה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לָאִישׁ בְּכָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (שמות כא,לד) "בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם"? (שמות כב,ה) "שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה." הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה"? לְתַלְמוּדוֹ בָא.
"אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֲמָתוֹ", לְחַיֵּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
"his man-servant or his maid-servant": to make one liable for each in itself.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בַּכְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּכְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בָּעִבְרִי? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כה,מד) "מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד וְאָמָה." הִקִּישׁ עֶבֶד לְאָמָה וְאָמָה לְעֶבֶד: מָה עֶבֶד שֶׁגָּדְלוֹ וְקָטְנוֹ עֶבֶד, אַף אָמָה שֶׁגָּדְלָהּ וְקָטְנָהּ אָמָה. יָצָא עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּדְלוֹ עֶבֶד, אֲבָל אֵין קָטְנוֹ עֶבֶד; יָצַאת אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּטְנָהּ אָמָה, אֲבָל אֵין גָּדְלָהּ אָמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: וְשׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אַף עֶבֶד שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין וְעֶבֶד שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין בְּמַשְׁמָע! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֲמָתוֹ", מָה עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, אַף אָמָה שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. יָצָא עֶבֶד שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין, וְעֶבֶד שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, שֶׁאֵין כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בַּכְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּכְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בָּעִבְרִי? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות כא,כא) "לֹא יֻקַּם, כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא." מַה כַּסְפּוֹ, שֶׁקִּנְיָנוֹ קִנְיַן עוֹלָם וּרְשׁוּתוֹ גְּמוּרָה לוֹ, אַף כָּל שֶׁקִּנְיָנוֹ קִנְיַן עוֹלָם וּרְשׁוּתוֹ גְּמוּרָה לוֹ. יָצָא עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרְשׁוּתוֹ גְּמוּרָה לוֹ, אֲבָל אֵין קִנְיָנוֹ קִנְיַן עוֹלָם; יָצָא עֶבֶד שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין וְעֶבֶד שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּנְיָנוֹ קִנְיַן עוֹלָם, אֲבָל אֵין רְשׁוּתוֹ גְּמוּרָה לוֹ.
R. Eliezer says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite (as opposed to a Hebrew) man-servant. You say this, but perhaps it speaks of a Hebrew? (This is not so, for) it is written here "his man-servant or his maid-servant," and elsewhere, (Leviticus 25:44) "From them (the Canaanites) shall you buy a man-servant or a maid-servant." Just as there, the Torah speaks of the Canaanites, so, here. Variantly: man-servant is being likened to maid-servant, and maid-servant to man-servant. Just as "maid-servant" — (she may be sold as a maid-servant,) whether adult or minor, so "man-servant," adult or minor — to exclude a Hebrew man-servant, who although (he may be sold as) a man-servant when he is an adult, may not (be sold as) a man-servant when he is a minor. And to exclude a Hebrew maid-servant, who, although she may be a maid-servant when she is a minor, may not be a maid-servant when she is an adult, (leaving her master, as she does, with the advent of pubertal signs.) R. Yitzchak said: I might understand that (also included is) a servant of two partners or one who is half-free, half-slave; it is, therefore, written "his man-servant or his maid-servant." Just as the first implies a servant that is entirely his, so, the second — to exclude the servant of two partners or one that is half-free (half-slave). R. Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite man-servant, it being written (Exodus 21:21) "for he (the servant) is his money." Just as his money is his for all time and he exercises complete control over it, (so, the servant being spoken of) — to exclude a Hebrew man-servant, who, though under his complete control, is not his for all time, (leaving, as he does in Yovel), and to exclude a servant of two partners or one who is half-free (half-slave), who, though he is his for all time, is not under his complete control.
"בְּשֵׁבֶט". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (במדבר לה,יח) "אוֹ בִּכְלִי עֵץ יָד אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בּוֹ הִכָּהוּ וַיָּמֹת, רֹצֵחַ הוּא, מוֹת יוּמַת הָרֹצֵחַ." מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית.
(Exodus 21:20) "with a rod": I might think, whether or not it is of killing potential; it is, therefore, written (Numbers 35:38) "Or if with a wooden implement, whereby he can die he strike him," whereby we are apprised that he is not liable until he strikes him with something that has the potential to kill.
וּמְנַיִן וְאֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְהָמִית? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים יט,יא) "וְאָרַב לוֹ וְקָם עָלָיו וְהִכָּהוּ נֶפֶשׁ וָמֵת", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, אֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְהָמִית.
And whence is it derived that it must be in a locus which is critical to life? From (Devarim 19:11) "and he lie in wait for him and he rise up against him and he smite him mortally," whereby we are apprised that it (the weapon) must be of killing potential in a locus which is critical to life.
עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַדִּין: וּמָה, אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁהָחְמַר בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּ"יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם", אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, וְאֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, וּכְנַעֲנִי, שֶׁהוּקַל בּוֹ, שֶׁהוּא בְּ"יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם", אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵי חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, וְאֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְהָמִית! אֶלָּא אִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵּן, עָנַשְׁתָּ מִן הַדִּין! לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "בַּשֵּׁבֶט", לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁאֵין עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין.
Now if (in the killing of) an Israelite, the graver (instance), not being subject to (the provision of [Exodus 21:21]) "But if one or two days," he is not liable unless it be with an implement of killing potential and in a locus which is critical to life, then (in the killing of) a Canaanite, the instance of lesser gravity, being subject to the above provision, how much more so should he not be liable unless it be with an implement of killing potential and in a locus which is critical to life! (Why, then, need it be written?) For if you say this, you have ruled for punishment through a fortiori reasoning, wherefore it is written "with a rod, etc.", to teach that punishment is not to be ruled for through such reasoning.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: "בַּשֵּׁבֶט", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַּדִּין: אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁהָחְמַר בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּ"יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם", אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, וְאֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, וּכְנַעֲנִי, שֶׁהוּקַל בּוֹ, שֶׁהוּא בְּ"יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם", אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵי חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, וְאֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְהָמִית! לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "בַּשֵּׁבֶט". וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בַּשֵּׁבֶט"? אֶלָּא מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ לָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "בַּשֵּׁבֶט", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (ויקרא כז,לב) "הַשָּׁבֶט", מַה 'שֵּׁבֶט' שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְּהַלָּן, לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַלָּקוּחַ שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין, אַף כָּן, לְהוֹצִיא הַלָּקוּחַ שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין.
Rebbi says: What is the intent of "with a rod"? It is "extra" towards the formulation of an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: it is written here "rod," and, elsewhere, (vis-à-vis tithing, Leviticus 27:32) "rod." Just as here, excluding (a servant) acquired by two partners, so, there, excluding (from the tithe a beast) acquired by two partners.
"וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ", שֶׁתְּהֵא מַכָּתוֹ וּמִיתָתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. הָא אִם הִכָּהוּ וּמְכָרוֹ לְאַחֵר וּמֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר.
"and he die under his hand": His striking and his (the servant's) dying must be in his domain. If he struck him (in his domain) and then sold him to another, he is not subject (to the provisions of "But if one day or two days, etc.")
"נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם." מִיתָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִיתָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מָמוֹן? הָיָה רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן 'נְקִימָה', וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: (ויקרא כו,כה) "וְהֵבֵאתִי עֲלֵיכֶם חֶרֶב נֹקֶמֶת נְקַם בְּרִית"; מַה לְּהַלָּן חֶרֶב, אַף כָּן חֶרֶב.
"vengeance shall be taken": "Vengeance" connotes death. You say "death," but perhaps money (i.e., monetary restitution) is referred to. (This is not so.) It is written here "vengeance," and, elsewhere (Leviticus 26:25) "vengeance." Just as there, death (is indicated), so, here, death (is intended.) Just as there, (death by) the sword (is indicated), so, here, ([death by the sword] is intended.)
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן 'נְקִימָה', וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: (במדבר לא,ב) "נְקֹם נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֵת הַמִּדְיָנִים"; מַה לְּהַלָּן בַּחֶרֶב, אַף כָּן בַּחֶרֶב; מָה כָּן בְּבֵית דִּין, אַף לְהַלָּן בְּבֵית דִּין.
Just as here, by beth-din, so, there, by beth-din.
(שמות כא,כא) ["אַךְ אִם יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַעֲמֹד, לֹא יֻקַּם, כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא."] "אַךְ אִם יוֹם", וְשׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כִּשְׁמוּעוֹ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אוֹ יוֹמַיִם". "אוֹ יוֹמַיִם", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כִּשְׁמוּעוֹ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אַךְ אִם יוֹם". כֵּיצַד יִתְקַיְּמוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים? יוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְיוֹמַיִם וְיוֹמַיִם שֶׁהֵן כְּיוֹם. כֵּיצַד? מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
(Exodus 21:21) "But if one day or two days": I understand this literally. It is, therefore, (i.e., negating this,) written "if one day": How (are these two verses to be reconciled?) One day which is like two days; two days which are like one day. How so? A twenty-four hour period.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: "אַךְ אִם יוֹם", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כִּשְׁמוּעוֹ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אַךְ", חָלַק.
R. Yossi Haglili says: "But if one day or two days": I might take this literally, but "But" delimits it (to the above interpretation).
"לֹא יֻקַּם, כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא." זֶהוּ שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בַּכְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
"Vengeance shall not be taken, for he (the servant) is his money": About this R. Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite man-servant.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַדִּין: הוֹאִיל וְשׁוֹרוֹ בְּמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ, וְשׁוֹר אַחֵר בְּמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ, וְהוּא בְמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ, וְאַחַר בְּמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ; אִם לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא חָלַק בֵּין שׁוֹרוֹ לְשׁוֹר אַחֵר בְּמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ, לֹא נַחְלֹק בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין אַחֵר לְמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "לֹא יֻקַּם, כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא", מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָלַק בֵּין שׁוֹרוֹ לְשׁוֹר אַחֵר בְּמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ, נַחְלֹק בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין אַחֵר בְּמִיתָה עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְעַל אֲמָתוֹ. הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "לֹא יֻקַּם"? "כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא."
R. Shimon says: Why need this ("for he is his money") be stated. Even if it were not stated I would know it by induction, viz.: Since his ox is killed for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant, and another's ox is liable for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant; he is killed for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant, and another is killed for killing his man-servant or his maid-servant — then if you have learned that there is no difference between his ox and that of another in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant, then we should make no distinction between him and another (vis-à-vis the application of the "one or two day" provision) in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant. It is, therefore, written "Vengeance shall not be taken, for he is his (the owner's) money." Scripture hereby apprises us that though no distinction is made between his ox and that of another in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant, a distinction is made (in the application of the afore-mentioned provision) between himself and another, (the provision applying only if he killed them, but not if another killed them.)