Do not eat an ox put to death by stoning

---

SMG

With regards to an ox which is stoned [to death] [see positive Mitzva 66] the verse[i] states ולא יאכל את בשרו. Since the verse starts with סקול יסקל השור – is it not known that the flesh may not be eaten, as it is now a נבלה.[1] What then does this [second clause in the verse of] ולא יאכל את בשרו teach us. The verse tells you that if it was not [yet] stoned [to death] and someone slaughtered it after judgement was rendered, it is forbidden to be eaten, and it is forbidden to derive benefit [from the carcass] as was derived there [presumably in the Gemara[ii]]. And if one eats an olive’s worth from its flesh, he is lashed.

---

[1] As it had not been slaughtered – see negative Mitzva 133

---

[i] Shemos 21:28

[ii] Gem. Bava Kama 41a

---

AMUDAY SHLOMO

[the Maharshal quotes the Mitzva but does not elaborate. Perhaps the manuscript was not completed, or the comments have been lost to time.]

---

RASHI

Rashi provides the following commentary on the verse:

• וכי יגח שור – whether an ox, or any animal domesticated or wild or bird. The verse is only talking about a common occurrence.[i]
• ולא יאכל את בשרו – from the implication of what was said סקול יסקל השור – would I not know that it is a נבלה, and a נבלה is forbidden to eat. What then does ולא יאכל את בשרו teach us. That even if it was slaughtered after judgement was rendered [but before being stoned], it is still forbidden to eat. From where do we know [that it is forbidden to derive] benefit from. That is what we learn from the phrase ובעל השור נקי – like a person who tells his friend, this man has been ‘freed’ of his possessions, and he may not benefit from them at all. This is the Midrash.

The simple meaning is as implied: since the verse previously stated with regard to an animal with a propensity to kill וגם בעליו יומת – that also the owners shall die, therefore, when it comes to a simple animal [one not suspected of being a killer, the Torah] needed to state that ובעל השור נקי – [the owner of the ox is free from responsibility].

---

[i] See Gem. Bava Kama 54b

---

Discussion by SMS

The Gemara derives the prohibition of benefit from the stoned ox from the remainder of the verse ובעל השור נקי.

However, the SMG does not note that.

Possibly, the reason the SMG does not note that is that with the derivation coming from a different part of the verse, theoretically, that should mean there is a separate prohibition about that. However, there is no separate prohibition regarding benefiting from the stoned ox.

Also, it is possible that the pronunciation of the phrase in the verse ולא יֵאָכֵל – implies a passive phrase, that it will not be eaten. Normally, like we find with the other prohibitions against eating non-Kosher, the verse should state לֹא יֹאכַל. Perhaps the passivity means that it should not be eaten by anything or anyone, including feeding the dead animal to the dogs – which means that deriving benefit from the animal is forbidden.

It is of course also possible that the SMG is taking into account Rashi’s explanation – notwithstanding the Gemara’s derivation prohibiting benefit from the animal, the simple reading of the text doesn’t require that understanding, and therefore, the SMG does not discuss it further, nor provide the source for that derivation.

This needs more research.

---