3וְהוֹאִיל וְכָל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הָאָדָם נִסְקָלִין הֵיאַךְ יִמָּצֵא מוּעָד לַהֲרֹג עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּמוּ בְּעָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּפֶר. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָרַג שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָרַג יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהַמּוּעָד לְעַכּוּ"ם הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג שְׁלֹשָׁה יִשְׂרָאֵל טְרֵפָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָרַג שָׁלֵם. אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג וּבָרַח וּבָרְבִיעִי נִתְפַּס. שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים חַיָּבִין בְּכֹפֶר עַד שֶׁיִּסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר. וְכֵן אִם סִכֵּן שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד לַהֲרִיגָה וּבְעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּפֶר. וְכֵן אִם הִכִּירוּ עֵדִים אֶת בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר וְלֹא הִכִּירוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר בְּפַעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וּבָרְבִיעִית רָאוּ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁהָרַג וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם זֶה הוּא הַשּׁוֹר שֶׁהָרַג בְּשָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת אוֹ אַחֵר הָיָה. הוֹאִיל וְהוּעֲדוּ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם בִּבְקָרָם שׁוֹר שֶׁהָרַג שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הָיָה לָהֶם לִשְׁמֹר כָּל בְּהֶמְתָּם וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְרוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּפֶר:
Since every animal, beast or fowl that kills a human being should be stoned to death, how is it possible to find an animal that is mu'ad to kill, so that its owner will be liable to pay an atonement fine? It killed three gentiles, and then it killed a Jew. For an ox that is mu'ad [to kill] a gentile, is also mu'ad for a Jew. Alternatively, it killed three Jews who were classified as t'refot, and then killed a healthy person. [Other possible situations are the following:] [On three occasions,] it killed a person and then fled, and it was captured on the fourth occasion. [We must say that it was captured, because] the owners are not obligated to pay an atonement fine unless the ox is executed. It mortally wounded three individuals at the same time [and they and the fourth person the ox gored all died at the time]. It killed three animals. In all these instances, it is deemed as mu'ad to kill, and the owner is liable to pay an atonement fine. There is also another instance. On three occasions [one of the oxen belonging to a person killed a human]; on each of these occasions, the witnesses recognized the owner, but did not recognize the ox. On the fourth occasion, they saw an ox that killed a person [and were able to recognize it afterwards]. They did not, however, know if this was the same ox that had killed [people] on the three previous occasions or not.[In this instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay an atonement fine. The rationale is that] since the owner was warned that he had an ox in his herd that had killed [people] on three occasions, he should have guarded all his oxen [more carefully]. Since he did not, he must pay the atonement fine.