What is meant by the term mu'ad?¹ [An animal regarding which] testimony² was given on three [different] days. If, however, an animal gored [other animals] on one day, or it bit, lay upon, kicked or butted [other animals many] - even one hundred - times in one day, it should not be considered to be mu'ad.³ If three pairs of witnesses gave testimony [concerning an animal]⁴ on one day, there is an [unresolved] doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad or not.

footnotes: ¹ Mu'ad literally means forewarned - i.e., the animal is prone to perform such acts, and the owner should be forewarned. ² From two acceptable witnesses. ³ For it is possible that the animal was disturbed by certain factors on that day, and its conduct is not indicative of its ordinary pattern. ⁴ I.e., that it gored three other animals on three days (Ra'avad, Maggid Mishneh).

The warning administered to an owner [for an animal] must be administered in the owner's presence, as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "And the owners shall be warned." The warning must be administered in a court.⁵

footnotes: ⁵ Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:12 states that this refers to a court of three judges who received semichah. For this reason, ever since this semichah was nullified, animals were no longer placed into the category of mu'ad. Accordingly, these laws do not apply in the present age.

When an ox belonging to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, a minor⁶ or a person who is overseas gores, [the owner] is not liable. The court should, however, appoint a guardian for the ox and administer the warning to the guardian.

footnotes: ⁶ All the first three people are considered to be mentally incompetent and are not held responsible for their conduct.

[The following rules apply when this ox] causes damage after the warning was administered to the guardian:⁷ If the ox is still classified as a tam, an ordinary animal, half the damages must be paid from the body [of the ox].⁸ If a warning was administered on three [different] days, and afterwards [the ox] causes damage, the guardian must pay for the damage from the choicest properties he owns.⁹ When the orphans attain majority, they must enter into litigation with the guardian and repay him.

footnotes: ⁷ I.e., the Rambam explains that the ox gored another ox, a guardian was appointed, and then it gored again. (See Or Sameach.) ⁸ Rashi (Bava Kama 39a), Rabbenu Asher and the Ra'avad differ and maintain that a guardian is not appointed unless the ox gores three times. Otherwise, the owners are not held liable. ⁹ The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 406) states that the payment is made from the property of the orphans, and not from that of the guardian.

When oxen are used for sport,¹⁰ and they are trained to gore each other, they are not considered to be mu'adim [to gore] each other. [Moreover,] even if they kill a human, they should not be executed, for [Exodus 21:28] states: "When an ox gores...," [implying that it does so on its own initiative,] not that it was prompted to gore.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Bava Kama 4:3 uses the expression A bull from a stadium. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains This one sends out his bull and the other sends out his bull. After having trained their animals to gore, they call to them to attack the other animal to see who will be victorious. This is done with the owner's consent. This is the habit of many foolish people.

When an ox was sold or given away as a present after its owners had been warned, its status reverts back to that of a tam. With the change in ownership, its status changes. If, however, an ox was borrowed or entrusted to a watchman, its status remains unchanged. Similarly, if a warning regarding an ox was given to a guardian, and then the owner who was a deaf mute regained his faculties, or the owner who was mentally incompetent regained competence, or the owner who was a minor attains majority, the status of the ox remains unchanged,¹¹ for it remains in the domain of the [same] owner.

footnotes: ¹¹ See Halachah 3. Although previously the guardian was responsible for watching the ox, the change in responsibility is not a change in ownership, and the ox's status is not changed.

When an animal was classified as mu'ad, and then it changes its conduct, its status changes and it is considered to be a tam. What is implied? If an ox was classified as mu'ad with regard to goring and it ceased goring, it is considered to be a tam with regard to goring, even though it still butts. When is it considered to have ceased [goring]? When children play¹² with it and it does not gore them. Similarly with regard to other tendencies regarding which warnings were given, [the status of the animal remains unchanged] until [children] play with it, and it does not do [what it was wont to do previously].

footnotes: ¹² Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:4). In neither source does the Rambam mention how often the children must play with the ox. With this ruling, the Rambam rejects an opinion stated in Bava Kama 23b, which states that if three days pass when the ox sees other oxen and does not gore them, the warning is rescinded.

When an ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to [other oxen], it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to other types of animals. An ox that has been classified as mu'ad with regard to humans is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to animals.¹³ If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to young animals, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to older animals. Therefore, if it caused damage of the type regarding which the warning was given, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it caused damages of another type, regarding which a warning was not given, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages. If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to Sabbaths, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to weekdays.¹⁴ If it causes damage on the Sabbath, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. During the week, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages. When is the warning rescinded? When children will play with it on the day concerning which the warning was given, and it does not harm them in the way it is known to cause harm.

footnotes: ¹³ Conversely, an ox that has been classified as mu'ad with regard to animals is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to humans. ¹⁴ Rashi (Bava Kama 37a) explains that on the Sabbath, an ox is not required to work. Hence, it may not feel the yoke of its master as thoroughly and may therefore cause damage. Others cite the Jerusalem Talmud which explains that since people dress differently on the Sabbath, the ox will not be familiar with them, and may gore them because it views them as strangers. This does not apply during the week.

If [an ox] gored another ox on one day, a donkey on the following day, and a camel on the day afterwards, it is classified as mu'ad for all [these three] types [of animals].¹⁵ [A warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw another ox and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw another ox and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore oxen on alternate days.¹⁶ Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which reflects the Rambam's wording in Halachot 10 and 12. The Rambam is explaining that to be classified as mu'ad for a type of animal, an ox does not have to gore that type of animal three times. The Ra'avad differs and explains that the ox is considered to be mu'ad for all types of animals. ¹⁶ Thus, if it gores an ox on an odd day, its owner will be liable for the full extent of the damages, and if it gores on an even day, he will be liable for only half the damages.

[Similarly, a warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw a donkey, but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw a horse and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw a camel but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw a mule and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw a wild ass but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore all [these three] types [of animals] on alternate days. If it gores one of these types of animals that it had gored on alternate days on a day on which it is mu'ad, [the owner must pay the full damages, as is required for an ox that is] mu'ad.

[When an ox] gores [an animal] on the fifteenth of one month, on the sixteenth of the following month, and on the seventeenth of the third month, it is not classified as mu'ad until it adds a day a third time, in the fourth month.¹⁷ If an ox hears a shofar blast and gores on three [successive] occasions, it is considered mu'ad [to gore after hearing] shofar blasts.¹⁸ Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.

footnotes: ¹⁷ A parallel to this law is found with regard to fixing the pattern of the onset of menstruation. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 8:6. ¹⁸ I.e., it appears that the shofar blasts prompt the ox to gore.

[There is an unresolved doubt in the following situations.] An ox gored three other oxen on three successive days. On the fourth day it gored a donkey, and on the fifth day it gored a camel. Or at first it gored a donkey and a camel, and then it gored three oxen one after another. There is a doubt if it is classified as mu'ad only for oxen or for all three types of animals. Similarly, if an ox gores on three successive Sabbaths and then on the Sunday and the Monday [following the third Sabbath], or it gored on Thursday, on Friday and then on three successive Sabbaths, there is a doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad only for Sabbaths or for a block of three days, two of which are ordinary weekdays.¹⁹

footnotes: ¹⁹ The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why the animal would be considered to be mu'ad for only this block of three days.

With regard to these unresolved questions and the like, [the owner of the ox] that caused the damage is required to pay for only half the damages. If the person whose property was damaged seizes property belonging to the other person equivalent to the full amount of the damages, it is not expropriated from him.²⁰

footnotes: ²⁰ See Chapter 1, Halachah 11.