Mishnah
1 There are four main categories of damages: the bull, and the pit, and the devourer, and the setting on fire. The bull is not like the devourer, nor is the devourer like the bull. Neither of them, which are alive, is like the pit which is not alive. Neither of them, which move in causing damage, is like the fire which does not move in causing damage. What they have in common is that they commonly cause damage and you are obligated to watch them. If damage is caused, the person causing the damage is obligated to pay the damages with the best-quality land.
Halakhah
“There are four main categories of damages,” etc. The bull means the horn, as it is written: “If a man’s bull strikes another person’s bull,”Exodus 21:35 etc. This applies to a harmless animal. What is the source for a notorious dangerous one? “Or it was known that it is a goring bull,”Exodus 21:36 etc. The pit, “if a man opens a pit,” etc. “the pit’s owner has to pay,” etc. The devourer: “If a person causes a field or a vineyard to be despoiled by sending his animals,”Exodus 22:4 this is the foot, as it is written: “Those who send the foot of bull and donkey.”Isaiah 32:20 And it is written: “Remove its cover and it will be despoiled,”Isaiah 5:5 that is the tooth, “tear down its fence and it will be trampled,” that is the foot. And the setting on fire, as it is written: “If fire starts and finds thistles,”Exodus 22:5 etc.
We have stated: “Four main categories of damages.” But Rabbi Ḥiyya stated thirteen: damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame, the unpaid trustee, and the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. So what we stated refers to responsibility for damages. What Rabbi Ḥiyya stated refers to both responsibility for damages and bodily injury. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked: How can we state “four main categories”? If everything was said about one bull, we should state “three.” If it was said about three bulls, we should state “five”! But just as it is presented in the verse, thus it is presented in the Mishnah.
The derivatives of the horn: goring, hitting, biting, wallowing, kicking, and pushing. Rabbi Isaac asked: Hitting and goring are fundamental. Do you call them derivatives? But he starts with the fundamentals and ends with the derivatives.
Derivatives of the pit: The entire third chapter of Mishnah Neziqin. Rabbi stated: Somebody put a glowing coal in the public domain, another person came and stumbled over it while a flask was in his hand. If as a result that person’s clothing was singed and the flask in his hand was broken, he is obligated for the flask because of “pit,” and for the garments because of “fire.”
Derivatives of the “foot”: It was stated: For an animal that entered private property and caused damage, whether by its forefoot, or by its hindfoot, or by its horn, or by the yoke on it, or by a sack on it, or by the cart it was pulling, one pays full damages. And one who causes damage in a karmelit pays full damages.
Derivatives of the tooth. They wanted to say that if a cow ate barley, or a donkey ate leeks, or a dog licked olive oil, or a pig ate meat, all of these are derivatives of the tooth. Rabbi Isaac said, all these belong to the basic category of the tooth. But did we not state “derivatives of the tooth”? If it stepped on a skin full of oil, since its body benefits from being oiled. As one says in general, the tooth eats and the body benefits, so here the body benefits. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If while walking it was disgorging grasses, what is the rule? Rabbi Yose said, just as one who puts a burning coal in the public domain, it causes damage as far as it moves. What does this mean? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it if somebody puts a knife close to the public domain. As you say there, if the fire touches one side, it trembles in its entirety, so here, a person is touched on one side and trembles in his entirety. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Levi: If a pit is full of water and a small lamb fell in, if water enters its ears it trembles in its entirety, so here it trembles in its entirety. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If while walking it tore out grasses with its body or its horns, what is the rule? Is this out of the ordinary? It is its common behavior.
Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Since for the pit, which is not usually moving, one has to pay full damages, how much more so for the bull which usually is moving? Either, since for the pit one pays full damages, the bull also pays full damages. Or, since the bull pays half damages, for the pit one should have to pay half damages. If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. If “the pit” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Why is it stated here? Because there are many things to state. Similarly, the seat is not like the bed and the bed is not like the seat. We can understand that the seat is not like the bed. A seat measuring one square ṭephaḥ can become impure. A bed measuring four ṭephaḥim can become impure. Because He declared a bed measuring four ṭephaḥim impure, would a seat measuring one square ṭephaḥ become impure? If the seat had not been written, I would have inferred the seat from the bed. Why is it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. Similarly, the paragraph on lighting the candles is not like the paragraph about exiling the impure and the paragraph on exiling the impure is not like the paragraph about lighting the candles. If the paragraph about exiling the impure had not been written, I would have inferred the rules of the paragraph on exiling the impure from the paragraph on lighting the candles. Why is it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. What they have in common is that they are “command” here and for future generations, so everything introduced by “command” is for here and for future generations. Rabbi La said, all of them need to be written. The bull teaches that the owners have to deal with the carcass. But it is written, “and the carcass will be his,” and it is written for the pit, “and the carcass will be his!” Rabbi Ishmael said, this excludes real estate which cannot be moved. It excludes a human because there can be no use of his body after death. But the fire teaches for all of them that one is responsible for accidents.
Rabbi Yose said: This means that a person who injured another has to pay first even if he later becomes injured, as is written: “He who injures an animal has to pay for it,” he has to pay the decrease in value.
“If damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages,” etc. Rabbi Ḥanina said, “he who injures an animal has to pay for it,”Leviticus 24:18 he has to pay the decrease in value. Bar Pedaiah said, “if it was torn, he must bring it up to the place of the carcass, for which he does not have to pay.”Exodus 22:12 Rabbi Nasa said, the quote of Rabbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed. If only the quote of Rabbi Ḥanina was given but Bar Pedaiah’s quote was not, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he should not have to pay anything. But for bodily damage he has to pay the decrease in value. Therefore, Bar Pedaiah’s quote is necessary. But if only the quote of Bar Pedaiah was given but Rabbi Ḥanina’s quote was not, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he has to pay the decrease in value. But for bodily damage he has to pay the full value. Therefore, the quote of Rabbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.
Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: One does not estimate for the thief or for the robber or for the borrower, but only for damages, and I am saying that one does not estimate even for the borrower, and Abba agrees with me. Who is Abba? Rabbi or Rabba bar Abuha. Rav Ḥisda said, this treats the main event as an accessory. There came Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: One does not estimate for the thief or for the robber or for the borrower, but only for damages, and watchmen fall under the rules of damages.
Rav Judah sent and asked Rabbi Eleazar: Does one estimate for the extortionist, the thief, and the robber? He answered him: one does not estimate for the thief or for the robber. What is the source for not estimating for them? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he must pay double,”Exodus 22:3 alive, not dead. That refers to theft. What is the source for robbery? Rabbi Abin said, “he must return the robbed object in the state in which he robbed it.”Leviticus 5:23
Mishnah
2 Anything I am obligated to watch, I have made subject to damage claims. If I have partially made it subject to damage claims, I am liable for claims as if I had made it subject to all claims. Properties of people of the covenant and private property, except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage. But property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage falls under the rules of restitution.
Halakhah
“Anything I am obligated to watch, I have made subject to damage claims,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: This refers to cattle and pit. But he did not state “fire.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, Is fire subject to damage claims? Rabbi Yose said, if fire involved more than damage claims, should he not receive a warning according to this opinion and be whipped? How is this? For fire, in becoming subject to damage claims, he accepts responsibility for damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame.
“If I have partially made it subject to damage claims” “as if I had made it subject to all claims.” This is the pit, as it was stated: If somebody dug a pit ten handbreadths deep and another came and deepened it another handbreadth, the latter is responsible. Rabbi says, one holds the latter responsible in case of death and the former for damages. Rabbi Isaac says: This is what the baraita says: the latter is responsible in case of death and both of them for damages. If he dug a pit ten handbreadths deep and another person came, whitewashed and lined it, both of them are liable. Is he liable because he whitewashed and lined it? When he told him, whitewash this pit and acquire it, for Rabbi Immi said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, the prevention of damages follows the rules of guarding an acquisition. Rabbi Simon said, explain it when he was digging in the dunes. And it was stated: If each of them dug ten, or each dug twenty, or each dug a hundred, they are all liable. How deep does it have to be? To be deadly, ten handbreadths. To do damage, anything. Symmachos says, three in depth and four in width. Rabbi Eleazar the caper grower says, the length of the animal which falls in. What does the length of the animal that falls in mean? Whether it is a chicken or a camel.
“Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sacred property.” As it was stated: “These properties are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sacred property.” Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: This follows Rabbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal,’Leviticus 5:21 Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sacred property. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices. Abba Yose ben Dosai says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling.” What is the difference between them? The one who says well-being sacrifices certainly includes tithes. But the one who says tithes excludes the firstling. “Rabbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sacred property. About any sacred property for which he is responsible if alienated, I read ‘against his neighbor and he lied.’Leviticus 5:21 But about any sacred property for which he is not responsible if alienated, I read ‘against the Eternal and he lied.’” Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sacred property, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I read “against his fellow and he denied,” but if he is not responsible if alienated, I read “against the Eternal and he lied,” but not “against his fellow and he lied.”
“Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But the rules apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that responsibility applies both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “the rules apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To indicate that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rabbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage,” would we not know that “the rules apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “the rules apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaim state: A condominium courtyard is liable, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is exempt. Some Tannaim state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is liable. He who says, a condominium courtyard is liable, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is exempt, for it is written: “the best of his fields.”Exodus 22:4 But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is liable, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”Exodus 22:4
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A condominium courtyard is liable. Rabbi Yasa said: I also deduced this from what Rabbi Hoshaia stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated four principles about damages in Rabbi Meir’s name: Any place which is permitted to both the person who sustained the damage and the person who caused it, such as a hostelry or a condominium courtyard and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot. For goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing by a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from real estate of the best quality. Permitted to the person who sustained the damage but not the person who caused it, he pays everything. Permitted to the person who caused the damage but not the person who sustained it, he is exempt from everything. And everybody agrees that if neither of them had access, such as a valley or public property and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot. For goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing from a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from his storage room.
Mishnah
3 Estimation and determination of monetary value are by a court based on testimony of free persons of the Covenant. Women are under the rule of torts and sometimes both the person who causes and the one who suffers the damage pay.
Halakhah
“Estimation and determination of monetary value,” etc. One does not say that a cow should be compensated for with a robe, but one appraises all property in court. “Monetary value,” this teaches that the court only appraises mortgageable property. But if the person suffering damage appropriated movables, one appraises those. “By a court,” this teaches that one only appraises in court. “Based on testimony,” for one only appraises by testimony. “Of free persons of the Covenant,” this excludes Gentiles, and slaves, and persons disqualified for testimony. “Women are under the rule of torts,” since the verse speaks only of men, it is necessary to include women: Rabbi Ishmael stated, “these are the laws which you must put before them.” “And sometimes both the person who causes and the one who suffers the damage pay.” They pay half the damage. This shows that one divides the damage. Each one loses half the value of the damage.
Mishnah
4 Five harmless and five notorious animals. An animal is not known to gore, nor to hit, nor to bite, nor to lie down, nor to kick. The tooth is known to eat what is appropriate for it. A notorious bull, a bull of the person who causes the damage on the property of the person who suffered the damage, and a human being.
Halakhah
“Five harmless and five notorious animals,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan said, this follows Rabbi Ṭarphon: “In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rabbi Ṭarphon said, full damages, but the Sages say, half damages.”
Mishnah
5 The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake, are notorious. Rabbi Eliezer says, when they are trained they are not notorious, except for the snake which is always notorious. What is the difference between tame and notorious? The tame pays half the damages from its body and the notorious pays full damages from the storage room.
Halakhah
“The wolf, and the lion, and the bear,” etc. It was stated: Rabbi Meir says, also the hyena. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abin said, Rabbi Meir only said this for a male hyena which is sometimes as dangerous as a lion.
Mishnah
1 In what way is the foot notorious for breaking anything in its way? An animal is notorious for breaking anything in its way. If it was kicking or if pebbles were ricocheting from under its feet and breaking vessels, he pays half the damage. If it stepped on a vessel and broke it, and the pieces fell on another vessel and broke that, he pays full damages for the first and half damages for the second.
Halakhah
“How is the foot notorious,” etc. Doesn’t an animal usually make pebbles ricochet? Rabbi Immi said, this applies if a person was holding the vessel. But if it was lying in the public domain, since it was rightfully lying there and the animal was rightfully walking there, he is exempt. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, if there were two roads. On one there are grasses and pebbles, on the other there are no grasses or pebbles. If it ignored the one with no grasses or pebbles and went on the one with grasses and pebbles, he is exempt even though it was in the public domain. Rabbi Eleazar said, in anything that does not involve its body, the Sages made no distinction between private and public domain in the matter of half damages.
Can it be declared notorious in a matter that does not involve its body? Rabbi Zeira said, it can. Rabbi Illa said, it cannot. Rabbi Zeira said, a baraita disagrees with him: An ox that rubbed itself against a wall that fell on a person and killed him is liable for weregilt but exempt from death. Is there such a thing as weregilt for a tame animal? But it does not disagree with Rabbi Illa. Why is it exempt from death if it was notorious for knocking down walls? When it knocked it down, no person was there.
Rabbi Eleazar said: If it dropped dung, one pays full damages. For if it were not so, what would we say? That he has to keep a receptacle handy? That is, if it does not do so habitually. But if it does so habitually, he has to keep a receptacle handy.
Rabbi Hoshaia the Elder and Rabbi Judah Neśia were sitting together. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal came to them and asked: If it wagged its tail as those mules do, what is the rule? They did not answer him. Later, Rabbi Hoshaia the Elder told him, if it were not so, what would we say? Does he have to grab its tail? That is, if it does not usually do so. But if it usually does so, he has to grab its tail. What is clear to us? The question of full damages. What is the problem for us? Half damages.
“If it stepped on a vessel and broke it.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If it stepped on a skin full of oil, he pays full damages for the skin and half damages for the oil. If there was a table lying there with glass on top of it, and it stepped on the table so that the glass broke, he pays full damages for the table and half damages for the glass. If there were two tables, one on top of the other, and it stepped on the upper one and the lower one broke, he pays full damages for the upper table and half damages for the lower. If the table was lying in the public domain, and the animal stepped on it so that it flew off and broke in a private domain, which do you follow, the stepping or the breaking? If you follow the stepping, he is exempt from paying for the stepping. If you follow the breaking, then he is liable for the breaking.
Mishnah
2 Chickens are notorious for breaking things as they usually walk. If a string was tied to its foot, or it was scratching and broke vessels, he pays half damages.
Halakhah
“Chickens are notorious,” etc. Rav Huna said, this applies if it got tied up by itself. But if he tied it, he pays full damages. It was stated: “If chickens scratched at dough or fruit, or pecked at it, he pays full damages. If they scratched dust onto dough or fruit, one pays half the damages. If they were pecking at a rope and the pail came loose or broke, he pays full damages. If one fell on another, he pays full damages for the upper one and half damages for the lower one. It is not like a pit at one place which causes damage at another place.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, since it usually falls only into this cistern, it is as if it were his pit. It was stated: “If chickens fell into a garden, broke vegetables and cut rosemary, he pays full damages. Symmachos said, he pays full damages for cutting and half damages for breaking. If a chicken flew from one place to another and did damage with its body, he pays full damages. If by the wind of its wings, he pays half damages. Symmachos says, full damages. If it blew on vessels and broke them, he pays full damages.”
Mishnah
3 In what way is the tooth notorious for eating what is suitable for it? A domesticated animal is notorious for eating fruits and vegetables. If it ate a garment or vessels, he pays half damages. When was this said? In the domain of the person who suffers the damage. But on public property he is exempt, though if it benefited, he pays for the benefit.
Halakhah
“How is the tooth notorious,” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, it refers to the first part. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it refers to all of it. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish’s position seems reversed. There, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it is liable. And here he says this? They said, there he spoke in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia, but here in his own name. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish’s statement implies that if a walking animal kicks one that is lying down, it is exempt from payment. Rabbi Joḥanan’s statement implies that if a walking animal kicks one that is lying down, it is liable. This is so not only when a walking animal kicks one that is lying down, or one lying down kicks a walking one. What if a walking animal kicks a walking one? Rabbi Immi said, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, it is exempt from payment only if a walking animal kicks one that is lying down. But in the case of one lying down against one walking, or one walking against one walking, it is liable. Rabbi Hoshaia stated: It is always exempt. What is Rabbi Hoshaia’s reason? Is there no “horn” in the public domain? Rav said, if it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it is liable. For the leniency for “tooth” is when it ate while walking from what was standing, and the restriction for “horn” is when the walking animal kicked the one standing still. Ilfai said: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it is liable. For the leniency for “tooth” is that it ate while walking from the walking, and the restriction for “horn” is when the walking animal kicked the walking one.
Mishnah
4 How does he pay for what it benefited from? If it ate in the public square, he pays for what it benefited from. At the edges of the public square, he pays for what it damaged. From the door of a store, he pays for what it benefited from. Inside the store he pays for what it damaged.
Halakhah
“How does he pay for what it benefited from,” etc. Rav said, if it turned its neck and ate, he pays for what it damaged. But didn’t we state: “From the door of a store, he pays for what it benefited from. Inside the store he pays for what it damaged”? How can that be? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it as a donkey carrying lambs, and as it passed by, they turned their necks and ate. From the door of a store, he pays for what they benefited from. Inside the store he pays for what they damaged. Rav said, if it ate barley, he pays the price of straw. But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya state a baraita that disagrees? “Therefore, if it ate wheat which is bad for it, it is exempt. If it changed its manner and ate, he pays full damages. What does ‘if it changed its manner and ate, he pays full damages’ mean? If somebody had his chest hanging on his back and a cow stretched out its neck and ate from it, its owner pays full damages. If a large container was at the entrance to a store, partly outside and partly inside, and a cow stretched its neck and ate from it, he pays full damages.”
Mishnah
5 For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof and broke vessels one pays full damages because they are notorious. If a dog stole a hot pitta and went to a stack of sheaves, and while it was eating the hot pitta it set fire to the stack, its owner pays full damages for the pitta and half damages for the stack.
Halakhah
“For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof,” etc. Some Tannaim state, “jumped.” Some Tannaim state, “fell.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah reads, “jumped.” “Fell” does not apply.
“A dog stole a hot pitta.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, this applies only if it set fire to every single ear of grain. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another. Rabbi Isaac bar Tevelai said, a Mishnah supports Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “If a kid goat was tied to it and a slave was close by and was burned, he is liable. If the slave was tied to it and the kid goat close by, he is exempt.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then he is guilty of a capital crime for the first ear, and he should be liable to pay for the rest. Rabbi Yose said, you can also learn it from this: “If his cattle set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is liable. But if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is exempt.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, shouldn’t he be liable, since he should have to pay for the rest? A person put a hot water bottle outside. A donkey passed by and broke it. The case came before Rabbi Isaac bar Tevelai, who said to him: He does not owe you anything. Not only that, but if the donkey had been hurt, you would be liable for its damages.
Mishnah
6 Which one is tame and which one is notorious? Notorious, if there was testimony against it for three days. Tame, if it behaved for three days. These are the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says, notorious, if there was testimony against it three times. Tame, if children touched it.
Halakhah
“Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rabbi Judah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.”Exodus 21:36 How does Rabbi Meir account for “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it as separate gorings: if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and did not gore, and the third day gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second day gored dogs and the third day gored pigs, would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, was not let out the second day, and was let out the third day and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed about this: A woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she is certainly a niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is a niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and said, it is certain. Then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.
Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Meir for the tame animal and Rabbi Judah for testimony, as we have stated: “A bull that gored three times on the same day is not notorious. Why does the verse say ‘from yesterday and the day before’? For if it mended its ways for three days one after the other it is judged to be tame.” We were thinking of saying that practice follows Rav Huna, who ruled following both of them. This is confirmed by Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Meir for the tame bull and Rabbi Judah for testimony.
Mishnah
7 How is the bull of the person causing the damage treated in the domain of the person who suffers the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, crushed or kicked, in the public domain he pays half the damages. In the domain of the person who suffers the damage, Rabbi Ṭarphon said, full damages, but the Sages say, half damages. Rabbi Ṭarphon said to them: Where He was lenient with damage by tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is exempt, He was strict with them in the domain of the person who suffers the damage, where full damages must be paid. And He was strict about damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages. Isn’t it logical that we should be strict in this case in the domain of the person who suffers the damage, so that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is enough for the conclusion of an argument from the lesser to the greater to be like its premise. Since in the public domain one pays half damages, in the domain of the person who suffers the damage it is also half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Where He was lenient with damage by tooth or foot in the public domain, He was strict about damage by the horn. Where He was strict with damage by tooth or foot in the domain of the person who suffers the damage, isn’t it logical that we should be strict in the case of damage by the horn? They said to him, it is enough for the conclusion of an argument from the lesser to the greater to be like its premise. Since in the public domain one pays half damages, in the domain of the person who suffers the damage it is also half damages.
Halakhah
“The bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person who suffers the damage,” etc., to the end. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rabbi Ṭarphon: “In the domain of the person who suffers the damage, Rabbi Ṭarphon said, full damages, but the Sages say, half damages.”
Mishnah
8 A human is always notorious: whether by mistake or intentionally, whether awake or asleep, if he blinded another person or broke vessels, he pays full damages.
Halakhah
“A human is always notorious,” etc. Rabbi Isaac said: The Mishnah applies when both of them were asleep. But if one was asleep and another came to sleep near him, the one who came to sleep near him is the notorious one.
Mishnah
1 If somebody puts his jar down in the public domain and another person stumbles over it and breaks it, the second person does not have to pay. If he was hurt, the owner of the amphora has to pay his damages.
Halakhah
“If somebody puts his jar down in the public domain,” etc. Isn’t it usual for a person to put things in the public domain? Rav said, this applies if it was filling the entire public domain. But if it does not fill the entire public domain, isn’t it usual to put things in the public domain? Samuel said, either if it was filling the entire public domain or if it was at a corner. Rabbi Eleazar said, even if it does not fill the entire public domain and even if it was at a corner, for it is not usual for a person to put things in the public domain.
If it was filling the entire public domain, then if he took it from here and put it down there, he would create a “pit.” But couldn’t he take a stick and break it, or step over it, and if it broke, it broke? Let us hear from the following: If a bull mounted another and the latter’s owner came to pull his own away, or the bull slipped away, and the attacker fell down and died, he is exempt from payment. If he pushed the attacker and it then fell down and died, he must pay. Couldn’t he tell him, if you had not interfered, I would have paid your damages? But he could answer, if I had not interfered, you would have paid me only half the damage! And what if it was notorious? It is not in your power to drag me through the courts.
Somebody put down an amphora in the public domain, and then another person came and put another one close to the first. If the first person comes to take his own and moves the second and puts it down in another place, he would create a “pit.” But couldn’t he take a stick and break it, or step over it, and if it broke, it broke? Let us hear from the following: If a bull came to mount another and the latter’s owner came to pull his own away, if he pulled it away before it could mount, and the attacker fell down and died, he is exempt from payment. If he pushed the attacker and it then fell down and died, he must pay. Rabbi Yose said, we can hear from this that if one saw a flood threatening in his irrigation canal, before the flood reached his field he is permitted to divert the water to another place. After the flood reached his field he is not permitted to divert it to another place. If the chrysargyros tax was imposed, before the collector of the chrysargyros arrives, one is permitted to say, X practices my trade, Y practices my trade. Once the collector of the chrysargyros has arrived, it is forbidden. It is permitted to bribe the quartermaster before the Roman soldiers arrive. After the Roman soldiers arrive, it is forbidden.
A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person put down another stone next to the first, and a third person stumbled over the first and struck the other. Who has to pay damages, the first or the second person? Let us learn from the following: “A bull pushed another ox, which then fell into a pit. The owner of the bull has to pay, and the ‘owner’ of the pit is exempt. Rabbi Nathan says, if the attacker was notorious, each of them pays half. If it was tame, the owner of the bull pays two thirds and the ‘owner’ of the pit a quarter.” Rabbi Ḥanania said, the baraita reads: The owner of the bull pays three quarters and the ‘owner’ of the pit a quarter.
A person put down a stone in the public domain, the wind blew it onto a private domain, and another person stumbled over it. Is the first responsible for damages?
A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person stumbled over it and made it roll into a private domain where a third person stumbled over it. Is the first responsible for damages?
Rabbi Joḥanan said: A person put down a stone and his load in the public domain, and a second person stumbled over it while holding a flask in his hand. Whether he stumbled over the stone and hit the ground or hit the stone and stumbled over the ground, the first has to pay damages to the person but is exempt from damages to the flask. Rabbi Joḥanan’s statement implies that for “pit” damages one is exempt from damages to vessels. But if he hit it while walking, he has to pay even for the flask.
Mishnah
2 If his jar broke in the public domain and another person slipped on the water or was hurt by one of its shards, he must pay. Rabbi Judah says, if it was intentional, he has to pay. If it was unintentional, he is exempt.
Halakhah
“If his jar was broken in the public domain,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, they disagree about the moment of the accident. But after the accident everybody agrees that he must pay. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the disagreement is both at the moment of the accident and afterwards. Rabbi Joḥanan objected to Rabbi Eleazar: If he does not have to pay at the moment of the accident, doesn’t it follow from the lesser to the greater that he does not pay afterwards? Why should he be exempt at the moment of the accident? Because a person declares his damaged property in the public domain ownerless. A baraita supports both of them, as it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that somebody who puts down his stone or his load in the public domain does not have to pay if another person stumbled over it, for on this condition Joshua distributed the Land.” Therefore, if Joshua had not distributed the Land on this condition, he would have to pay. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan, this applies if he intended to use the potsherds. In the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, if he intended to cause damage. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi La both say that Rabbi Judah agrees with the Sages that one has to pay if he declares his bull that gored in the public domain ownerless. Stationary damage cannot be compared to damage that moves.
Mishnah
3 One who pours out water in the public domain is liable for the damage if another person is hurt by it. One who hides a thorn or glass, or who fences his fence with thorns, or owns a fence that collapsed into the public domain, is liable for the damage if other people are hurt by it.
Halakhah
“One who pours out water in the public domain,” etc. Rav Huna said, this applies when he fell to the ground. But if his clothes were soiled, one is liable. Rav said, even if his clothes were soiled, he is not liable. Rav’s statement implies that one is not liable for ‘pit’ damages to vessels.
“If somebody hides a thorn or a piece of glass in another person’s wall, and the owner of the wall then tears it down and a third person is hurt, he is liable. The pious people of earlier times used to bury them in their fields, deeper than three handbreadths, so that the plow would not lift them up.”
“He fences his fence with thorns.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, explain it according to everybody, if it grew outward. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeira: Why don’t we explain it following Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah, who said, three handbreadths next to a domain are counted with the domain? He answered, why are you not satisfied with what Rabbi Joḥanan said? Explain it according to everybody, if it grew outward.
“A fence that collapsed into the public domain.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion, since Rabbi Meir said, one is liable for damage caused by inaction. It is the following: “If he was given a deadline by which to cut the tree or demolish the wall and they collapsed, if it happened within the deadline, he is not liable. After the deadline, he is liable.” How long is a deadline? Rabbi Hoshaia stated: 30 days.
Mishnah
4 If somebody takes his straw and his pressed olives out into the public domain to compost, he is liable for any damage another person might suffer because of it. Anybody may take it and acquire it. If somebody turns over cow droppings in the public domain, he is liable for any damage another person might suffer because of it.
Halakhah
“If somebody takes his straw and his pressed olives out,” etc. What does he acquire? The House of Yannai said, the increase in value. Samuel said, the material itself.
Ḥizqiah said, this applies only if he turned it over to acquire it. Ḥizqiah’s statement implies that movable property can be acquired by turning it over. But could it be acquired by dragging? Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this is reasonable for pillars and hard hides. But one does not acquire soft hides unless one lifts them up.
Rabbi Aḥa said, wouldn’t that be obvious from the reasoning of the rabbis? Is the rebellious son liable for double restitution for his first theft? Or, since he is warned of a capital offense, should he be exempt? Let us learn from the following: If somebody steals another person’s wallet and carries it out on the Sabbath, he is liable, since he is already liable for the theft of the wallet before he violates the holiness of the Sabbath. Isn’t he warned of a capital offense, and yet you say he is liable! Here too, even though he is warned of a capital offense, you say that he has to be liable. Rabbi Yannai bar Ishmael said, Rabbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion, as we have stated: One who carries out is guilty even if he did not put it down. Similarly, one who carries out is guilty even if he did not pick it up with the intent to carry it out, for warning is possible only at the moment he carries it out. It was stated: If he was dragging it until he left, he is exempt, since the liability for the capital crime and for restitution falls on him at the same time. Therefore, if both liabilities do not fall on him at the same time, he is liable. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it as large pouches, which are usually dragged. One cannot infer anything from this.
One raises an objection from the Mishnah. Sometimes one raises it in support of Rabbi Joḥanan, sometimes in support of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. “A person may eat once and be liable for four purification offerings and one reparation offering: an impure person who ate suet that was leftover sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. Rabbi Meir says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out on the Sabbath. They told him, that is not the same category.” When they objected in support of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he carried it out on the Sabbath, there is no putting down. Why did they say, that is not the same category? When they objected in support of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Why is he not liable if he carried it out on the Day of Atonement? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Akiva, as it was stated: What is the source that if one unintentionally worked on a Day of Atonement that fell on the Sabbath, he is liable for each one separately? The verse says, “it is Sabbath,”Leviticus 23:3 “it is the Day of Atonement.”Leviticus 23:28 Rabbi Ishmael said, he is liable only once. If he carried it out on the Sabbath and put it down, why did they say, “that is not the same category”? I would explain that he ate it. Isn’t eating putting it down? Therefore, it is only reasonable that if he carried it out on the Sabbath, he should be liable. Then if he carried it out on the Day of Atonement, why should he not be liable?
Mishnah
5 Two potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and the second stumbled over the first. The first is liable for the damage done to the second. One came with an amphora, the other came with a beam. If the jug of the one was broken by the other’s beam, he is not liable, since each of them had the right to walk there.
Halakhah
“Two potters were walking one behind the other,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan asked: Does one give the first time to get up? Rabbi Yose said, it is obvious to Rabbi Joḥanan that one gives the first time to stand up. But his question concerns the second one onward: does one give the second time to stand up? Let us learn from the following: “Potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. They are liable for damage to humans but not liable for damage to vessels. But if they warned one another, none are liable. Donkey drivers were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. Donkeys were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. Even if there were 100, all are liable.” Some Tannaim state, none are liable. Rabbi La said, the one who says ‘liable’ means if their owner let them lie down. The one who says ‘not liable’ means if they fell, since animals are not responsible for accidents. “If a donkey’s feet were bad, one is not allowed to step over it.” What does ‘to step over it’ mean? They step on its body and pass by. “If one was free and the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way over the free one. If one was unloaded and the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way over the unloaded one. If both were loaded or both unloaded, let them come to an agreement. Two carriages or two ships, one empty and the other loaded: the loaded one has the right of way over the unloaded one. If both were unloaded or both loaded, let them come to an agreement.” “The person entering the bath house gives precedence to the person leaving. The person leaving the toilet gives precedence to the person entering.”
“One came with an amphora, another came with a beam.” Rabbi Zeira asked: If they switched and caused damage, what is the rule? Let us learn from the following: “Five people sat on a couch. Another came and sat on it, and it broke. He pays for all of them. But if it broke because of all of them, they are all liable.”
Mishnah
6 If the carrier of the beam was in front and the carrier of the amphora behind, and the jar broke on the beam, he is not liable. But if the carrier of the beam stopped walking, he is liable, unless he said to the carrier of the amphora, “Stop!” If the carrier of the amphora was in front and the carrier of the beam behind, and the jar broke on the beam, he is liable. But if the carrier of the amphora stopped walking, he is not liable, unless he said to the carrier of the beam, “Stop!” The same applies if one carries fire and the other flax.
Halakhah
“If the carrier of the beam,” etc. Didn’t Rav say, this applies if he filled the entire public domain? One answered, since he stopped, he is like a street corner.
Mishnah
7 Two were walking in the public domain, or one was running and one was walking, or both were running. If they caused damage to each other, neither of them is liable.
Halakhah
“Two were walking,” etc. “Yose the Babylonian said, If one ran in the public domain and caused damage, he is liable. Late Friday evening he is not liable.” They said, Yose the Babylonian is Yose ben Judah, who is Yose the Small. Why is he called Yose the Small? Because he was the last of the pious.
Mishnah
8 If somebody split wood in a private domain and caused damage in the public domain, or in the public domain and caused damage in a private domain, or in a private domain and caused damage in another private domain, he is liable.
Halakhah
“If somebody split wood in a private domain,” etc. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter flew off and injured him, he is liable. If he died, he does not go into exile. But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rabbi Yose said applies if he had seen him, and what Rabbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him, “Come in,” it becomes like a courtyard of partners, about which Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But didn’t Rav say, this applies if he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.
Mishnah
9 Two tame bulls that injured each other: one pays half the excess damage. If both are notorious, one pays the excess damage in full. One tame and one notorious: the notorious one against the tame pays the excess damage in full, and the tame one against the notorious pays half the excess damage. Similarly, two people who injured each other pay the excess damage in full. A person and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a person: one pays the excess damage in full. A person and a tame animal: the person against the tame animal pays the excess damage in full, and the tame animal against the person pays half the excess damage. Rabbi Akiva says, a tame animal that injured a person also pays the excess damage in full. A bull worth a mina that gored a bull worth 200, and the carcass is worthless: he takes the bull. A bull worth 200 that gored a bull worth 200, and the carcass is worthless: Rabbi Meir said, about this case it was said: “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.”Exodus 21:35 Rabbi Judah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold “and they shall also split the carcass.”Exodus 21:35 What case is this? A bull worth 200 that gored a bull worth 200, and the carcass is worth 50 zuz, in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half of the carcass.
Halakhah
“A bull worth a mina,” etc. “A bull worth a mina that gored a bull worth a mina and lowered its value by 50 zuz: he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury, and therefore, if the bull died or lost value, he has only that bull. A bull worth a mina that gored a bull worth 200 and lowered its value by 50 zuz, and then the second bull counterattacked and injured it by three gold denars: the first pays half a gold denar to the second. A bull worth 200 that gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and is now worth 400, but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz. If it gained value before the trial, it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it lost value, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rabbi La said, the baraita reads: The aggressor gained value. If it gained value before the trial, it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it lost value, it is judged as at the time of the trial.
What is Rabbi Meir’s reason? The verse says, “they shall sell the living bull and split its proceeds.”Exodus 21:35 How does Rabbi Judah support “and they shall also split the carcass”Exodus 21:35? This teaches that each one loses half the damages.
Mishnah
10 A person may be liable for the action of his bull but not liable for his own action, or not liable for the action of his bull but liable for his own action. If his bull shamed someone, he is not liable, but if he shamed someone, he is liable. If his bull blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is not liable, but if he himself blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is liable. If his bull injured his father or his mother, he is liable, but if he himself injured his father or his mother, he is not liable. If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable since he will be tried for a capital crime.
Halakhah
“Two tame bulls,” etc. Ben Pedaia said: Those who destroy are not liable, except for one who makes a fire and one who causes a wound. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one who makes a fire only if he needs the ashes, and one who causes a wound only if he needs the blood. But didn’t we state, “His bull”? Does his bull need ashes?
Mishnah
11 If a bull was chasing another bull, which was injured, and one says, your bull did the damage, but the other says, it was hurt by a rock, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If two bulls were chasing another bull and each of them says, your bull did the damage, neither of them is liable. But if they belonged to one owner, he is liable for both of them. If one was large and the other small, and the person who suffered the damage says that the large one did the damage but the person causing the damage says that the small one did the damage, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If two were injured, one large and one small, and the bulls doing the damage were two, one large and one small, and the person who suffered the damage says that the large one injured the large one and the small one the small one, but the person causing the damage says that the small one injured the large one and the large one the small one; or one was tame and one notorious, and the person who suffered the damage says that the notorious one injured the large one and the tame one the small one, but the person causing the damage says that the tame one injured the large one and the notorious one the small one, the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Halakhah
“A person may be liable for the action of his bull,” etc. Rabbi Yudan asked: How is the case tried? Let us learn from the following: “Two persons threw two pebbles and broke two jugs, one full of wine and one full of oil. Each of them said, I broke the one full of wine. Both of them pay for the wine. One empty and one full: each of them said, I broke the empty one. Both of them pay for the empty one. If they broke one amphora and each of them said, you broke it, neither of them is liable.”
Mishnah
1 A bull that gored four or five bulls, one after the other, should pay for the last of them. If there is anything left, it goes back to the one before. If there is still anything left, it goes back to the one before that. The later one always has the advantage. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Simeon says, if a bull worth 200 gored a bull worth 200 and the carcass is worthless, each one takes a mina. If it then gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100 and the earlier ones each take 50. If it then gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before it takes 50 zuz, and the first two each take a gold denar.
Halakhah
“A bull that gored four or five bulls,” etc. Rabbi Yannai said, Rabbi Meir attacks him from two sides: However you take it, if it is yours, give it to me. If it is not yours, hand it over to me so that I can satisfy my claim. But didn’t Rabbi Eleazar say, the duty to guard against damages is like the duty to guard what one has acquired? Rabbi Judah told him, it was handed over to him for his damages, but it remains a pledge.
What is the difference between them? Rabbi Joḥanan said, dedication is the difference between them. In Rabbi Judah’s opinion, the first owner may dedicate. In Rabbi Meir’s opinion, only both together may dedicate it. If it went up in price, in Rabbi Judah’s opinion, it went up for the first. In Rabbi Meir’s opinion, it went up for the second. If it was rented out, in Rabbi Judah’s opinion, the rent belongs to the first. In Rabbi Meir’s opinion, the rent belongs to both of them. If it improved, in Rabbi Judah’s opinion, the improvement belongs to the first. In Rabbi Meir’s opinion, the improvement belongs to both of them.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon said the same thing. Just as Rabbi Judah said, he acquired it, so Rabbi Simeon said, he acquired it, except that Rabbi Judah says, he acquired the living and the dead, but Rabbi Simeon says he acquired only the living.
There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained, they would split in this way.” Rabbi Abun said, the statement seems reasonable if they bought a precious stone, because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that is usually divided, one adds together and divides. Rabbi Eleazar says, even things that are usually divided are divided evenly, because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over quickly and make as much as you do. That works if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turned mine over quickly here and made as much as you do.
It was stated: Three who invested together and suffered a theft absorb the loss in the same way. But wasn’t it stated: If those precious stones were stolen, it is half for each one? Rabbi Shammai said, tetradrachmas are large and can be divided exactly, but stones are small, and it is impossible to know which part of it belongs to whom. Because of the doubt, each one takes in proportion to his investment. Why do you say that we are dealing with theft? Maybe it deals only with what is left? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, even if you say that we are dealing with theft, wouldn’t fairness suffer? Suppose one invested 50 and the other 150. If 50 was stolen, would the one with 50 lose nothing?
There, we have stated: “If the ox gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before it 50, and the first two each a gold denar.” Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The same holds for profits. Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Zeira’s statement disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar. Rabbi Mani said, I asked this before Rabbi Yudan. He said to me, doesn’t Rabbi Eleazar agree that if they agreed between themselves that each takes according to his contribution? With oxen it is as if they agreed. He went and said this before Rabbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rabbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly. Rabbi Zeira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.
Mishnah
2 A bull that is notorious for its kind but not notorious for other species, notorious for humans but not notorious for animals, notorious for small ones but not notorious for large ones, pays full damages for what it is notorious for, but half damages for what it is not notorious for. They asked before Rabbi Judah: If it was notorious on the Sabbath but not on weekdays? He answered, it pays full damages on Sabbaths but half damages on weekdays. When does it become tame again? If it changed its ways for three Sabbath days.
Halakhah
“A bull that is notorious for its kind,” etc. Once it has killed one person, isn’t it notorious? Rav said, this applies if it killed three Gentiles. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if it chased three times and it was judged that every chase was for goring.
If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second day gored dogs and the third day gored pigs, would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, was not let out the second day, and was let out the third day and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed about this: A woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she is certainly a niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is a niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and said, it is certain. Then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.
Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Meir for the tame animal and Rabbi Judah for testimony.
We wanted to ask, what is Rabbi Judah’s reason? Because it sees us in clean clothes, it changes its behavior.
Mishnah
3 The bull of an Israelite that gored a bull of Temple property, or a bull of Temple property that gored a bull of an Israelite, is not liable, since it was said “his neighbor’s bull”Exodus 21:35, not a bull of Temple property. The bull of an Israelite that gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable. The bull of a non-Jew that gored a bull of an Israelite pays full damages, whether tame or notorious.
Halakhah
“The bull of an Israelite that gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles.”Habakkuk 3:6 He permitted the Gentiles’ money. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mount Paran.”Deuteronomy 33:2 He appeared before the Gentiles. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan said, following their laws. Rabbi La said, this was not said about this topic, but about what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they agreed to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. It was about that that Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, following their laws.
It happened that the Roman government sent two officials to study Torah with Rabban Gamliel. They learned Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practice and homilies from him. At the end, they told him: All of your teachings are beautiful and praiseworthy, except two things that you say: “A Jewish woman shall not act as midwife to a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may act as midwife for a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman shall not nurse the child of a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may nurse for a Jewish woman with her consent. What was robbed from a Jew is forbidden, but from a Gentile it is permitted.” At that moment Rabban Gamliel ruled that what was robbed from a Gentile is forbidden, because it desecrates the Name. “The bull of an Israelite that gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable,” etc. But we will not inform the government of this. Even so, by the time they reached the Ladder of Tyre, they had forgotten everything.
Mishnah
4 If the bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, he is liable. If the bull of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If the bull of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute came to hear, the insane person became sane, or the minor came of age, it becomes tame again. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadium is not killed, since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.
Halakhah
“If a bull of a sane person,” etc. The Mishnah reads: The bull of a deaf-mute, the bull of an insane person, the bull of a minor.
Didn’t we state: “If the bull of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”? That covers testimony taken in the presence of the owner who then handed it over to the guardian. What if testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian who then handed it over to the owner? Let us learn from the following: “If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages.” Rabbi Eleazar said, this is Rabbi Yose’s opinion, since Rabbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rabbi Yose’s opinion, he should pay in full. This is when he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. This is when he knew that it was apt to gore. It was stated: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, and he handed it back to the owners before judgment was given, he is not liable. After judgment was given, he is liable. Rabbi Jacob said, even after judgment was given but before it was stoned, he is not liable.”
Rabbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, but only to their benefit, but if it turns out to their detriment, it is to their detriment. Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor after the fact, neither for benefit nor for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them.” An ox is different, for fear that it will continue to cause damage.
If a bull of orphans and guardians went out and did damage, what is the rule? Rabbi Joḥanan said, the damage is paid from the orphan’s property. For if you say from the guardians’, nobody will ever agree to become a guardian. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the guardians’. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina follows Abba Shaul and Rabbi Joḥanan the rabbis, as it was stated there: “A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father must take an oath. If he was appointed by the court, he does not take an oath,” for the court will look into him. “Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around.” A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father does not take an oath, for it would be as if he took a pledge from him. If he was appointed by the court, he must take an oath, since a person will do a great deal to be called trustworthy.
Abba bar Rab Huna said: This implies that somebody who hit another person’s animal, which as a result went and did damage, is responsible for the damage caused.
Mishnah
5 If a bull gored a person who then died, if it is notorious, the owner pays weregilt. If it is tame, he is not liable for weregilt. In both cases they have to be killed. The same holds for a son or a daughter. If it gored a male or female slave, the owner pays 30 tetradrachmas, whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold denar.
Halakhah
“A bull that gored a person,” etc. It was stated: “But the owner of the bull is free,”Exodus 21:28 free from half the weregilt. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva said to him, Rabbi, isn’t it already destined for the harsher penalty of stoning? He answered him, I said this only about one that intended to kill an animal but killed a person, etc. Before he raises an objection to Rabbi Eliezer, shouldn’t he raise one to himself? Rabbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it. But some want to say, from what we learn from Rabbi Eliezer, who said, I said this only about one that intended to kill an animal but killed a person, a Gentile but killed an Israelite, a stillborn but killed a viable child, he is not liable. How does Rabbi Akiva explain “the owner of the bull is free”Exodus 21:28? Free from paying for a slave. Doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,”Exodus 21:30 the verse speaks of the notorious. Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned,”Exodus 21:29 and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.”Exodus 21:32 Just as with “the bull” mentioned there the verse speaks of the notorious, so with “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here the verse speaks of the notorious. But isn’t it written, “The bull shall surely be stoned”Exodus 21:28? It is better to interpret “the bull shall be stoned” following “the bull shall be stoned” than to interpret “the bull shall be stoned” following “the bull shall surely be stoned.”
Rabbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac on this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rabbi Zeira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the passage refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I might think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave. The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free,”Exodus 21:28 free from paying for a slave. Rabbi La said, everywhere you are stricter about a slave than about anything else, since even if he is covered in scabs one pays thirty tetradrachmas. I would have said the same also for a male or female slave. The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free,”Exodus 21:28 free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are stricter about a notorious animal than about a tame one. Would you be stricter here about a tame one than about a notorious one? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable, but bulls that act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they would be liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free,”Exodus 21:28 free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free,”Exodus 21:28 free from paying for a slave. But isn’t it written, “If people quarrel”Exodus 21:22? People, but not bulls. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, the baraita reads: Men who act unintentionally are liable, but bulls that act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they would be liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free,”Exodus 21:28 free from paying for a slave. But isn’t it written: “When they quarrel,”Exodus 21:22 “when they brawl”Exodus 21:18. Isn’t quarreling the same as brawling? Just as there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional. Or, just as here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.
What is the source for damages for a slave? The verse says, “or it gores a son, or it gores a daughter ... and if a slave,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Samuel bar Isaac disagreed. One said, the addition may not be more than the main thing. But the other said, he has to pay the entire damages.
Mishnah
6 A bull that was rubbing itself against a wall that then fell on a person, or that intended to kill an animal but killed a person, a Gentile but killed a Jew, a stillborn but killed a viable child, is free from prosecution.
Halakhah
“A bull that was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,”Leviticus 24:17 to include a blow that is potentially deadly. Some Tannaim state, even if it is not deadly. Rabbi La said, even if it is deadly, if a third person came and killed him, the killer is guilty. “And it killed a man or a woman,”Exodus 21:29 just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But doesn’t a man inherit from his wife? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, this is how Rabbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explained it: One teaches here about weregilt, which is due after death.
If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to gore, Rav said, it is a sale made in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered. “He shall give weregilt for his person.” Some Tannaim state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaim state: The person who suffered the damage. According to the one who said, the person who suffered the damage, assume the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion. If you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required, the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. According to the one who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable. If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable.
Mishnah
7 A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans, a bull under a guardian, a wild bull, a bull of Temple property, a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs, these are subject to the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says that a wild bull, a bull of Temple property and a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs are not subject to the death penalty since they have no owners.
Halakhah
“A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rabbi Judah’s reason? “Its owners had been warned and did not guard it.”Exodus 21:29 These have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rabbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages, Rabbi Meir declares liable but Rabbi Judah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rabbi Pedat in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: How does one rule in practice? He said to him, following Rabbi Hoshaia, that in matters of damages Rabbi Meir declares liable but Rabbi Judah declares not liable. Therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.
Mishnah
8 If one dedicates a bull that is being led out to be stoned, it is not dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is forbidden. If its owner dedicated it before sentence was pronounced, it is dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is permitted.
Halakhah
“A bull that is being led out to be stoned,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was being led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be false, Rabbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, the owner gave it up in error. Similarly, if a slave was being led out to be killed when his witnesses were found to be false, Rabbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, the owner gave him up in error.
Mishnah
9 If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee, or a borrower, or a paid trustee, or a lessee, they take the owner’s place. A notorious animal pays full damages, a tame one half damages. If he tied it with a rope and locked it in as he should, and then it broke out and caused damage, he is liable, whether it is tame or notorious. Rabbi Judah says, for the tame he is liable, for the notorious he is not liable, since it was said: “if its owner would not guard it,” but it was guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says, this one can be guarded only by the knife.
Halakhah
“If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rabbi Meir, that guarding against damages is on the level of an unpaid trustee. Rabbi Judah said that guarding against damages is on the level of a paid trustee. Rabbi Eleazar said, the words of Rabbi Meir are: If one handed a bull over to an unpaid trustee, and it went off and did damage, he is not liable. If it went out and was torn by a beast, he is not liable. With a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable. If it went out and was torn by a beast, he is not liable. Rabbi Eleazar said, the words of Rabbi Judah are: If one handed a notorious bull over to an unpaid trustee, and it went off and did damage, he is liable. If it went out and was torn by a beast, he is not liable. With a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable. If it went out and was torn by a beast, he is liable. Rabbi Eleazar said, wasn’t it guarded? But the Torah declared him liable. Rabbi Eleazar said, for every guarding the Torah requires, even if it was done by enclosing it in an iron wall, one fulfills it only by personal presence. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified to guard. If so, he is not liable. Otherwise he is liable.
Mishnah
1 A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or after, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, and it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.
Halakhah
“A bull gored a cow,” etc. Do all cows miscarry? Shouldn’t we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not argue from the majority. Rabbi Yose said, in another case they did argue from the majority in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rabbi Aḥa stated: “If a camel was in heat among camels and one of them is found dead, I say that the one in heat certainly killed it.”
And Rabbi Yannai said, the Mishnah reads: He pays half the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow. Rabbi Yose said, each of them gives half. What is the difference between them? If the calves died. According to the one who said, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter of the damage from the calf, each one pays his share of the damage. According to the one who said, he pays half the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow, one pays the damage, but the other says, I did not want these, here they are in front of you.
“And similarly, if a cow gored an ox,” etc. Rabbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rabbi Immi: Is that because it is in doubt? Then if it were certain, would each one give half? Would I say that a person’s foot is the whole person? Would each one give half? He said to him, the Mishnah deals with a notorious animal. “Its foot is sold to you”: he sold half. “Its second foot is sold to you”: he sold half of the remaining half. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, all these traditions are Levi’s.
Mishnah
2 If a potter put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner broke them, the owner is not liable. If the animal was hurt, the owner of the pots is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.
Halakhah
“If a potter put his pots,” etc. If he put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and broke them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that ‘horn’ is not liable in a courtyard that belongs to neither party.
Mishnah
3 If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner ate them, the owner is not liable. If the animal was hurt, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.
Halakhah
“If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard,” etc. If he put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and ate them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that ‘tooth’ is not liable in a courtyard that belongs to neither party.
Mishnah
4 If somebody put his bull in a private courtyard without permission and the owner’s bull gored it or his dog bit it, the owner is not liable. If it gored the owner’s bull, he is liable. If it fell into his cistern and made its water stink, he is liable. If his father or son was inside, he pays weregilt. But if he put it in with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says, in all these cases, only if he agreed to watch.
Halakhah
“If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place, if it gored, hit, bit, wallowed or kicked, he pays full damages. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable. For goring, hitting, biting, wallowing, kicking or pushing, a tame bull pays half the damages, a notorious one full damages from storage.”
Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rabbi. Rav Zeira said, practice follows Rabbi. Rabbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” he implies “and I will watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” he implies “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rabbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: “If somebody gathers sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” Rabbi Isaac said, are sheaves in a field like vessels in a house? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it as one that has a lock.
Mishnah
5 If a bull intended to hurt another bull but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he is not liable. But if a man intended to hurt a neighbor but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children. How does he pay for the children? One estimates the worth of the woman before and after she gave birth. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, but a woman’s value increases after giving birth! Rather, one estimates how much the children would have been worth and gives the value to the husband. If she does not have a husband, it goes to his heirs. If she was a freedwoman or a proselyte, he is not liable.
Halakhah
“If a bull intended,” etc. A bull that intended to attack another. Then if it intended to hit the woman, is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another bull? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana said, because he needed to state the next clause: “But if a human intended to hurt another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”
It was stated: “I am selling you a fertile slave woman.” Her children increase her value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, this is buttocks.” It is written: “If quarrelling men hit a pregnant woman and she loses her children.”Exodus 21:22 Abba Yose ben Ḥanan said, from “and she loses her children,” wouldn’t I know that she was pregnant? Then why does the verse say “pregnant”? It tells you that he is not liable unless he hits her at the place of her pregnancy. Therefore, if he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, he is not liable. “As the woman’s husband will impose on him.” Do I understand this even if the pregnancy is not his? The verse says, “pregnant.” It tells you that he pays only to the one who caused the pregnancy. Rabbi Uqba asked, if somebody sleeps with his mother or his sister, isn’t he also the one who caused the pregnancy? The verse says “husband,” someone who may be called “husband.” This excludes those who cannot be called “husband.”
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’ One understands “eye.” But tooth? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the baraita reads: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’
Mishnah
6 One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why does it say “a pit”? Just as a pit must be ten handbreadths deep to be life-threatening, so anything must be ten handbreadths deep to be life-threatening. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were injured, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, or in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, or in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.
Halakhah
“One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written, “If a man opens a pit,”Exodus 21:33 and “if a man digs a pit.” One pit is for damages, the other pit for death. Rabbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This applies not only if he dug it. What is the source for when he bought it, inherited it or was given it as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquires a pit.” Does one have the right to give up ownership of his source of damage in the public domain? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it following Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah who said, three handbreadths next to a domain are like that domain.
Rabbi Mana asked: Can the depth be treated like the height? How is that? The one who comes from above sees it. But what about the one who comes from below?
Mishnah
7 A pit dug by two partners: if the first went by and did not cover it, and the second also did not cover it, the second is liable. If the first covered it and the second came and uncovered it, the second is liable. If the first covered it, and the second came, found it uncovered, but did not cover it, the second is liable. If he covered it appropriately but an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is liable. If it fell forward because of the noise of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward because of the noise of the digging, he is not liable. If an ox and its equipment fell in and the equipment broke, or a donkey and its equipment fell in and the equipment was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment. If the ox that fell in was deaf, insane or young, he is liable. If a son or daughter, a male or female slave fell in, he is not liable.
Halakhah
“A pit dug by two partners,” etc. How is a pit of two partners possible? Rabbi Yannai said, explain it if they both together put in the last stone. And why did they not explain it as each of them digging ten handbreadths? Because he wants to explain it as a pit ten handbreadths deep belonging to two partners.
“If the first went by and did not cover it, and the second also did not cover it, the second is liable.” Rabbi Abba bar Bizna, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One gives him time to cut cedars from Lebanon. That can be strict and it can be lenient. Sometimes he is close to the Lebanon, sometimes he is far from the Lebanon.
“If he covered it appropriately.” How well does it have to be covered? It is as we have stated there: “So that it can withstand a wagon full of stones driving over it.”
Rabbi Yannai said, in front of him, whether forward or backward, he is liable. Outside, forward he is liable, backward he is not liable.
“If an ox and its equipment fell in and the equipment broke, or a donkey and its equipment and the equipment was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment.” Samuel said, this applies when it was stunned by the foul air, but if it hit the ground, he is liable. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, even if it hit the ground, he is not liable: The Torah exempted from liability when it fell down. “An ox or a donkey fell in there,”Exodus 21:33 “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment, “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment. For it seemed logical: If for a pit of damages, where one is not liable for death, one is liable for vessels, wouldn’t it be logical that for a pit ten handbreadths deep, for which one is liable for death, one should be liable for vessels? The verse says, “an ox or a donkey fell in there,” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment, “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment.
“If the ox that fell in was deaf, insane or young, he is liable.” Rabbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah reads: a deaf ox, an insane ox, an underage ox. “If a son or daughter, a male or female slave, he is not liable.”
Mishnah
8 The ox and every domestic animal are equally subject to the rules of falling into a pit, keeping away from Mount Sinai, paying double restitution, returning lost property, unloading, muzzling, interbreeding and the Sabbath. Wild animals and birds follow the same rules. Then why does it say “ox or donkey”? The verse speaks of the usual case.
Halakhah
“The ox and every domestic animal are equally subject to the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.”Exodus 21:33 Keeping away from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.”Exodus 19:13 Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey”Exodus 22:3. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them.”Deuteronomy 22:1 Unloading, “you must remove it.” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing.”Deuteronomy 25:4 Interbreeding, “you shall not breed your animal as kilaim.”Leviticus 19:19 The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest.”Exodus 23:12
“Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Samuel said, the sea goose is kilaim with the domestic goose. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah does not say so, but an ox and a bison are kilaim with each other, and a donkey and a wild donkey are kilaim with each other. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, Rabbi stated a complete Mishnah: “Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, and I brought this from the House of Levi: A rooster with a pheasant and a rooster with a peahen are kilaim even though they resemble each other.
Mishnah
1 He who brings a flock into a corral and locks them in as he should, but they managed to get out and caused damage, is liable. If they broke out in the night or robbers broke in and they managed to get out and caused damage, he is not liable. If robbers let them out, the robbers are liable.
Halakhah
“He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.
So far if [the corral] was fenced in on four sides. If it was fenced in on three sides and breached on one side, and [an animal] left through the breach, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “If his wall fell in from the noise of earthquakes or thunder and he rebuilt it as required, he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.” The only problem is if three better built walls fell together with it.
It was stated: Rebbi Joshua said, four persons are not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive them until they pay up: A person who knows testimony beneficial to another but does not testify is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up. A person who hires false witnesses against another and collects is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up. A person who bends standing grain towards a fire or who makes a breach in a fence for animals is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up.
“If robbers let it out, the robbers are liable.” Rav Hoshaia said, if they let it out as part of their robbery. But if they let it out to get lost, the robbers are not liable.
Mishnah
2 If he left it in the sun or handed it over to a deaf-and-dumb, an insane, or an underage person, he is liable. If he handed it over to a shepherd, the shepherd takes his place. If it fell into a garden and caused damage, it pays for what it profited. If it entered in due course, it pays for what it damaged. How does it pay for what it damaged? One estimates a bet se’ah of the field; how much was it worth and how much is it worth. Rebbi Simeon says, if it ate ripe produce it pays for ripe produce, whether one or two se’ah.
Halakhah
It was stated: “If a shepherd handed his flock over to another shepherd, the first is liable, the second is not liable.” Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, since he handed it over to a responsible person, he is not liable.
“If he handed it over to a shepherd, the shepherd takes his place. If it fell into a garden and caused damage, he pays for what it profited.” Rav Huna said, if it fell on vegetables. But if it stood up and grazed, he pays for what it damaged.
“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.
It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.
A person stole a hard date. The case came before Samuel who said to him, go and estimate for him at the top of the date palm. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was a preserve of unripe dates.
Mishnah
3 If somebody stacks his sheaves on another person’s field without permission and the field’s owner’s animals ate them, he is not liable. If it was damaged by it, the owner of the stack is liable. But if he stacked his sheaves with permission, the field’s owner is liable.
Halakhah
If somebody stacks his sheaves on another person’s field without permission.” R. Isaac said, are sheaves on a field like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.
Mishnah
4 He who causes a fire through the hand of a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person is not liable in human law but liable in Heaven’s law. If he causes it through a hearing person, the hearing person is liable. If one person brings the fire and another one the wood, the one bringing the wood is liable. If one brings the wood and another one the fire, the one bringing the fire is liable. If another person came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned is liable. If the wind fanned it, none of them is liable.
Halakhah
“He who sets a fire,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, if he handed him a glowing coal. But if he handed him an open flame he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, coal and flame are the same. It is difficult according to Ḥizqiah, for if somebody saw another person’s glowing coal rolling by and did not extinguish it, is he not free from liability? They said, explain it if he handed him an ownerless glowing coal, or also an ownerless flame, and one cannot infer anything.
Some Tannaĩm state: וְלִיבָּה. Some Tannaïm state: וְנִיבָּה. He who says וְלִיבָּה. As it is written, “in the flaming fire”. He who says וְנִיבָּה, “it was in my heart like burning fire.”
There, they say, the Mishnah speaks of a catastrophic wind, but in case of normal wind he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even in case of normal wind he is not liable; for sometimes it blows, sometimes it does not blow.
Mishnah
5 He who sets a fire which consumes wood, or stones, or dust, is liable since it is said: “If fire gets out of control and finds thorns, etc.” If it crossed a wall four cubits high, or a public road, or a brook, he is not liable.
Halakhah
“He who sets a fire which consumes wood,” etc. Since thorns are flammable, do I only include flammable material? The verse says, “a stack”. Since a stack of sheaves is particular in that it was harvested, do I only include harvested material? The verse says, “standing grain.” Since all of these are particular in that they are flammable, do I only include flammable material? If it swept his furrow or damaged his stone, from where? The verse says, “or the field.” Should it only have mentioned thorns, standing grain, and stack, but not mentioned field? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah this is acceptable since he says, he pays for everything inside. But according to the rabbis, who say that he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley sheaves, why did it mention “field”, why did it mention “stack”?
“If it crossed a wall four cubits high, or a public road, or a brook, he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah speaks of burning fire. But if it is wind-whipped everybody agrees that he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah speaks of wind-whipped fire, but if it is burning he is not liable.
Mishnah
6 If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,” everything depends on the setting of the fire.
Halakhah
“If somebody starts a fire inside his property,” etc. “It happened that a fire crossed the Jordan, because it was a firestorm. How far may a fire spread? Rebbi Eliezer says sixteen cubits like a public road, if there is wind thirty cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says thirty cubits, if there is wind fifty cubits. Rebbi Aqiba says 50 cubits, if there is wind a hundred cubits. It happened in Arabia that a fire jumped more than three hundred cubits. When is this? If it jumps. But if there is wood or it burns continuously, he is liable even up to a mil. If it crossed a river or a pond eight cubits wide, he is not liable.”
Mishnah
7 He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves which contains implements, Rebbi Jehudah says, he has to pay everything contained in it but the Sages say, he pays only for a stack of wheat sheaves or a stack of barley sheaves. If a goat was tied to it, and a slave was nearby, and they were burned, he is liable. If a slave was tied to it, and a goat was nearby, and they were burned, he is not liable. But the Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that one who sets fire to a building has to pay everything contained in it since people regularly store things in houses.
Halakhah
“He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.
Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift.
Mishnah
8 If a spark came from under a hammer and caused damage, he is liable. If a camel was loaded with flax and while it walked in the public domain the flax entered a store, was lit by the storekeeper’s light, and set the building on fire, the camel’s owner is liable. If the store owner put his light outside, the store owner is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, in case of a Ḥanukkah light he is not liable.
Halakhah
“If a spark is coming from under a hammer,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah stated: In case of a Ḥanukkah light he is not liable because he acted with permission. But the Sages say, in any case he is liable, as, e. g., those who build huts in front of their stores on Tabernacles because it is permitted; but if somebody else is hurt by them, he is liable.”
Mishnah
1 The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent than that of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution since the obligation to make double restitution applies both to living things and to inanimate objects; but the obligation of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution only applies to oxen and sheep, as it is said: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep,” etc. He who steals from a thief does not pay double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay quadruple or quintuple restitution.
Halakhah
“The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.] Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof.
Rebbi Abbahu asked: Why did we not state that double restitution is due if a claim of theft is made in a partnership, where quadruple or quintuple restitution does not apply?
It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”, but not from the woman’s house? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay] quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; [when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second, to both of them? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him and the second thief decides to return it, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.
Mishnah
2 He who stole according to the testimony of two people and slaughtered or sold according to their testimony or the testimony of two others, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and sold on the Sabbath, stole and sold to pagan worship, stole and slaughtered on the Day of Atonement, stole from his father, slaughtered, or sold, and then his father died, stole, slaughtered, and then dedicated it to the Temple, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and slaughtered for medical purposes or for the dogs, he who slaughtered and it turned out torn, he who slaughtered a profane animal in the Temple courtyard, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Simeon frees from liability in these two cases.
Halakhah
Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two alternatives are presented to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.
Mishnah
3 One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.
Halakhah
“A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.
“One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. So far if the witnesses for theft and those for slaughter came together. If witnesses for theft appeared but were not accepted and after that came witnesses for slaughter. One tells them “witnesses for theft already had appeared but were not accepted, but on the strength of your testimony we shall accept them.” If the witnesses for slaughter turn out to be perjured, they pay because of the witnesses for theft. Rebbi Ḥizqiah does not say so but: So far if the witnesses for theft and those for slaughter came together. If witnesses for slaughter appeared but were not accepted and after that came witnesses for theft. One tells them “witnesses for slaughter already had appeared but were not accepted, but on the strength of your testimony we shall accept them.” If the witnesses for theft turn out to be perjured, they pay because of the witnesses for slaughter.
Mishnah
4 A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses, who slaughtered or sold by the testimony of a single witness or his own confession, pays double restitution but does not have to pay quadruple or quintuple. One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath, or stole and slaughtered for idolatry, or stole from his father and after his father’s death slaughtered or sold, or stole, dedicated it, and afterwards slaughtered or sold, pays double restistution but not quadruple or quintuple. Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty he has to pay quadruple or quintuple, but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.
Halakhah
“One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath,” etc. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional error about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Who stated it? [Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty he has to pay quadruple or quintuple, but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.”
Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Matton asked: If somebody redeems a string of dry figs from the Temple treasurer, does it become ṭevel for tithes? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Did we not state about him who “stole, dedicated it, and afterwards slaughtered or sold”? As you say there, the one who dedicates is not like a seller, so one who redeems is not like a buyer. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implies that selling is like redeeming. They said, he has the choice of redeeming and eating it.
Rebbi Eleazar said: If they saw him slaughtering a black ox in a forest, it is prima facie evidence that it was stolen. Could you not assume that it was lying down? Explain it if they saw him dragging it.
There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale.
Mishnah
5 One who sold it except for a one percent interest in it, or had a partnership interest in it, one who slaughtered and it became a carcass in his hand, or one who stabs or tears out, pays double restitution but not quadruple or quintuple. He who stole on the owner’s property but slaughtered or sold off their property, or stole off their property and slaughtered or sold on their property, or stole and slaughtered or sold off their property has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. But if he stole and slaughtered or sold on their property, he is not liable.
Halakhah
“One who sold it except for a one percent interest in it,” etc. “He who stole on the owner’s property,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: It he sold it in halves, what is the rule? If he sold half of it to one person and the other half to another, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “If he sold it except for its forefoot, except for its hindfoot, except for its horn, except for its shearings, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, except for its horn he pays double restitution, except for its shearings he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi says, except for a vital organ he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution; except for a non-vital organ he is not liable.”
Mishnah
6 If he was drawing it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had led it outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable. If he gave it for his first-born son, to his creditor, to an unpaid guardian or a borrower, to a paid guardian or a renter, and that person was drawing it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had led it outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.
Halakhah
“If he was drawing it to lead it out but it died,” etc.; “If he gave it for his first-born son,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, if somebody would explain to me the following, I would carry his בנרייה: What means “is not liable”? Is he not liable for his obligation or not liable for theft?
Mishnah
7 One does not raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel but one raises them in Syria and in the non-arable tracts in the Land of Israel. One does not raise chickens in Jerusalem because of the sacrifices, nor may Cohanim in the Land of Israel do so because of purities. A Jew may not raise pigs, and a person should not raise a dog unless it is tied by a chain. One does not set traps for pigeons unless thirty stadia distant from any settlement.
Halakhah
“One does not raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel,” etc. Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil.
It was stated: “One does not raise chickens in Jerusalem because of the sacrifices, nor may Cohanim in the Land of Israel because of purities.” I could think also in Jerusalem in this way, but it might follow what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, “Jerusalem the built-up” etc., the city which joins Israel one to the other.
It is written: “They are impure for you”. Why does it say “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden [by the Torah is forbidden for trade, but everything whose prohibition] is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work.
“A person should not raise a dog unless it is tied by a chain.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said: About anybody who raises a biting dog the verse says: “He who refuses kindness to his neighbor,” etc.
“One does not set traps for pigeons unless distant thirty stadia from any settlement.” [Here, you say thirty stadia.] But there, you say 50 cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they feed within fifty cubits; they fly even four mil.
Mishnah
1 One who injures another person owes him under five categories: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment. How are damages determined? If he blinded his eye, or cut off his hand, or broke his leg, one considers it as if he were sold as a slave; how much was he worth and how much is he worth now. Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound, one estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.
Halakhah
“One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he severed his hand and returned and severed the arm, does he have to pay additionally for the pain inflicted the first time?
It is written: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” At another place, He says: “Do not be softhearted.” One refers to inadvertent acts, the other to intentional ones. He could mention the inadvertent but not mention the intentional. But if the inadvertent had been mentioned but not the intentional, I would have said that for the inadvertent act he shall pay money, for the intentional [have his hand cut off. Therefore it was necessary to mention the intentional. Or if the intentional had been mentioned but not the inadvertent, I would have said that for the intentional act he shall pay money, for the inadvertent] he should not pay at all. Therefore it was necessary to mention both inadvertent and intentional. And if he blinded a blind man or cut off the arm of an amputee, how could one fulfill: “Do to him as he intended to do to his brother”? This indicates that he only pays money.
“Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound.” How is this? If he wounded him so that he lost blood, it already is written: “A wound for a wound.” Why does the verse say “a contusion”? To tell you that if he burned him with a spit on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the sole of his foot and it swelled, or he put snow or ice on him at a place which is not visible, he has to pay his medical expenses.
“One estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one sees a person and asks him, how much would you give that such pain would not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Mar Uqba said, the Mishnah is “how much a person would ask to be paid,” and you say so? But one sees a person and asks him, how much would you ask that such pain not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Ben Azai said, one gives food invalidity. What is food invalidity? Before that, I was eating lentils and vegetables but now I can only eat eggs and chicken. What he asks one gives him. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, a Roman who was sick would not go into battle until he could eat all he had been missing those days.
Mishnah
2 Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.
Halakhah
“Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule? Since it is written: “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable]. It was stated in another baraita: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon says, in this paragraph Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”
Mishnah
3 Loss of earnings. One considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins since he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot. Embarrassment. Everything depends on the person embarrassing and the one embarrassed. One who embarrassed a naked person, or embarrassed a blind person, or embarrassed a sleeping person is liable, but the sleeper who embarrassed is not liable. If a person fell from a roof and caused damage and embarrassed, he is liable for the damage but not liable for the embarrassment since is was said: “She reached out with her hand and grabbed him at his private parts;” one is not liable for embarrassment unless if was intended.
Halakhah
“Loss of earnings. One considers him,” etc. Here you say, “one considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins.” But there, you say, “if he was earning a mina per day, he pays him a mina; a tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma.” Rebbi Isaac said, there are two kinds of inability to work. If he hit him on his hand and cut it off, one does not consider him as if he earned a mina a day but one considers him as if he were a lame person watching pumpkins, because he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot. But if he burned him on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the flat of his head and it swelled, or he put on him snow or cold water at a place which is not visible, then he has to pay his medical expenses.
It was stated: “She reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife. Another Tanna stated, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped with permission. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped without permission. It was stated: Not the wife of two men.
Mishnah
4 This is more severe regarding a human than an ox since a human pays damages and pays for unborn children, but the ox pays only damages and does not pay for unborn children. A person who hits his father or mother without causing a concussion or who causes injury on the Day of Atonement is liable for everything. He who injures a Hebrew slave is liable for everything except for lost earnings if he is his own. He who injures another person’s Canaanite slave is liable for everything. Rebbi Jehudah says, slaves have no claim for embarrassment.
Halakhah
“This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.
Mishnah
5 It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person: Anybody who injures them is liable but they who cause injury are not liable. It is bad to meet a woman or a slave: Anybody who injures them is liable but they who cause injury are not liable, but they might have to pay later. If the woman was divorced or the slave manumitted, they have to pay. A person who hits his father or mother causing a concussion or who causes injury to a fellow man on the Sabbath is not liable for anything since he is tried for his life. One who injures his own Canaanite slave is not liable for anything.
Halakhah
“It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded the eye of his slave and broke his tooth, for that is what the master said, and they are found to be perjured, they pay to the slave. How can they say this about the case? Rebbi Nasa said, those might say the following: We testify about X that [the slave] came to his hand unimpaired and left with two injuries. Then he gains his freedom with the first and he has to pay him for the second.
Mishnah
6 He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina. If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz, with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor. Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.
Halakhah
“He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma.” “Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel,” etc. Rav Qarni stated: For a kick, one. For an elbow, three. For sqlvnqyt fifteen. Somebody said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who puts an Elder to shame has fully to pay for his shame. A person insulted Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him a pound of gold.
“If one spat on him and the spit touched him.” How far does the spit have to reach? On his body, on his garments? But what is the rule if he spat and the spittle did not reach him? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that somebody who insults another person verbally is not liable.
Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “You killed my ox, you cut down my fruit trees,” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. He said to him, certainly you state that to the rabble. He answered, it is my fault, they said the following: “We testify against X that he killed ox Y” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. [He said, that was stated.]
Mishnah
7 Even though he did pay, he will not be forgiven unless he asks for forgiveness, as it is said: “Now return the man’s wife since he is a prophet.” From where that the person asked to forgive shall not be cruel? It is said: “Abraham prayed to the Omnipotent, etc.”
Halakhah
“Even though he did pay,” etc. [And so you find with Job’s friends. “Now yourselves take seven bulls and seven rams, etc.” “Eliphas the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Ṣophar the Naamite went and did, etc.” What does it say at the end? “The Eternal changed Job’s fortunes.” When? “When he was praying for his neighbor, etc.” “The Eternal doubled everything that Job had had.”]
It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rabban Gamliel. Since it says that “He will give you mercy etc.”, let the following be a sign in your hand: Whenever that you show mercy, the Omnipresent will have mercy on you. If you do not show mercy, the Omnipresent will not have mercy on you. Rav said: If a person misbehaved towards another and asked for pardon but the other did not respond, let him assemble a row of people and ask for pardon, as it is written: “Form a row of men, etc.” If he does so, what is written there? “He redeemed his soul from the pit, not to go to destruction etc.” Rebbi Yose said, that is if he did not defame, but the defamer is never pardoned.
Mishnah
8 If one says: Blind my eye, cut off my hand, break my leg, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable. Tear my garment, break my pitcher, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is not liable. Do that to another person, on condition not to be liable, he is liable whether about his person or his money.
Halakhah
“If one say: Blind my eye, cut off my hand,” etc. “If he says, blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which really means “no”. But for a “yes” which does mean “yes” he is not liable. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar is about the family’s loss of standing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which means “yes”. But for a “yes” which means “no”, he is liable. The statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish imples that one estimates the relatives’ loss of standing. It was stated: “If Gentiles forced a Jew and took from him another person’s money in his presence, he is not liable. If he handed it over, he is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, that means if they simply demanded “money”. But “X’s money”, he is not liable even if he handed it over.
Mishnah
1 One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments, pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it, he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.
Halakhah
“One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils,” etc. Here, you say that bleaching is a change, and there you say that bleaching is not a change. If you say that bleaching is a change, if he made it into wool flakes. If you say that bleaching is not a change, if he left it unchanged. We find bleaching without flakes. Are there flakes without bleaching? Rebbi Yudan said, it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay their value at the time of the robbery. If somebody robbed raw hide and cleaned it, can you say that he turned it into flakes? Again it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay the value at the time of the robbery.
“One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged. If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Isaac asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement. But if he built at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates for him but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter. One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”
Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that if he robbed a fattened animal and it became thin, he has to replace the fat. Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that if he robbed a thin animal and fattened it, he has to return it as is.
Because it became pregnant at his place and calved he pays its value at the time of the robbery. Who stated this? Rebbi Jacob, as it was stated: “This is the principle about which Rebbi Jacob said: About any robbed object which exists as before and was not changed from the state in which it was created, he tells him: Here is your property before you. And the thief always pays the value at the time of theft.”
Mishnah
2 If he robbed an animal and it aged, slaves and they aged, he has to pay their value at the time of the robbery. Rebbi Meīr says, he may say about slaves: Here is your property before you.
Halakhah
“If he robbed an animal and it aged,” etc. Rav Huna said, if he robbed a calf and it became a bull; but if he robbed a bull and it aged, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Rav Qarna stated: Even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull before he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple the value of a calf. The father of Samuel bar Immi said in the name of Rav Jehudah: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr.
Mishnah
3 If he robbed a coin and it was split, fruits and they rotted, wine and it spoiled, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. A coin and it was declared invalid, heave and it became impure, leavened matter and Passover passed, an animal which was used for sin, or which became disqualified from the altar, or which was taken out to be stoned, he tells him: Here is your property before you.
Halakhah
“If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.
Rebbi Yudan did not go to the house of assembly. He met Rebbi Mana and asked him, what was new for you in the house of study today? He told him, such and such a subject. He replied, is that not a Mishnah, “heave and it became impure”? He replied, explain it if it became impure by itself and you cannot infer anything.
Ḥilfai said, if he swore to him before Passover, then after Passover he pays him for fully useable leavened matter. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who quoted this in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is there anybody who disagrees with Ḥilfai so that he would not have to pay for fully useable leavened matter? Everybody agrees about leavened matter that he has to pay for fully useable leavened matter.
Mishnah
4 If one gave something to artisans to repair and they broke it, they are liable. If one gave a chest, a box, or a cupboard to a woodworker to repair and he broke it, he is liable. And the builder who contracted to take down a wall is liable to pay if he ruined the stones or caused damage. If he was taking it down on one side when if collapsed on the other side he is not liable, but when it happened because of the pounding he is liable.
Halakhah
“If one gave something to artisans to repair and they broke it,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if he put in the last nail to acquire the rights to his utensils.
Mishnah
5 If one gave wool to the dyer and the vat burned it, he gives him the value of his wool. If he dyed it poorly, if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value. To dye it red and he dyed it black, black and he dyed it red, Rebbi Meïr says, he gives him the value of his wool. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value.
Halakhah
“If one gave wool to the dyer,” etc. Rav Huna said, if chemicals burned it, but if the vat burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if chemicals burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.
What means “if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses”? A person gave to another five lots of wool, five portions of dye, and ten minas for his wages. He told him, dye it red, but the other dyed it black. He told him, if you had dyed it red, it would have been worth 25 minas, now that you dyed it black it is worth only 20 minas. You lost yours, I did not lose mine. Rebbi Jonah said, you can understand from here that if a person gave to another eight denars to buy for him wheat in Tiberias but he bought for him in Sepphoris, he may say to him, if you had bought for me in Tiberias there would have been 25 modii; now that you bought in Sepphoris there are only 20 modii. You lost yours, I did not lose mine.
It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.
Rebbi Samuel bar Abba objected before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did we not state: “Both the person who dedicates and the one who vows his own valuation exclude their wives’ and children’s clothing.” He answered, nobody thought to include their wives’ and children’s clothing. But did we not state: “My valuation on myself”; at the moment when he said, my valuation on myself, he only obligated himself for fifty tetradrachmas. If he says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge what is worn by my wife and children? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: One who says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge a particular thing, one cannot use that particular thing as a pledge. Rav Hoshaia in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This implies that one does not foreclose valuations from movables by biblical decree but only from the rabbis.
Mishnah
6 He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man and swore to him should deliver it to him even in Media. He should deliver neither to [the victim’s] son nor to his agent, but he may deliver to an agent of the court, and if [the victim] had died, he has to make restitution to his heirs. If he had returned the capital but not the fifth, or [the victim] had forgiven him the capital but not the fifth or had forgiven him both except for less than a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he need not follow him. If he had returned the fifth but not the capital, or [the victim] had forgiven him the fifth but not the capital or had forgiven him both except for a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he has to follow him. If he paid the capital but swore on the fifth, he pays a fifth for the fifth until the capital becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth. And so “for a deposit, or a partnership, or robbery, or if he oppressed his neighbor, or found lost property and denied it, and swore falsely,” has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.
Halakhah
“He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Until the last fifth becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth. Rebbi Jonathan said: By handing over the fifth, the fifth becomes capital. This only applies with witnesses and at the time of sacrifices.
Mishnah
7 Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’. If witnesses testify against him that he ate it, he pays the capital. If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was stolen’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’. If witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he pays double restitution. If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. He who robbed from his father and swore to him when he died has to pay capital and fifth to his sons or brothers. But if he refuses, or does not have the money, he takes a loan and the creditors come and make themselves paid.
Halakhah
“Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’,” etc. It was stated: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband. If one accepted from a slave, he should return it to him; if he died, he should return it to his master. From an underage child, he should return it to him, if he died he should return it to his father, and make it a safe investment. If any of these said at the moment of their death, it should be given to X because it is his property, one should follow his interpretation.” Rebbi Zebida in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only before witnesses. As the following: When Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana’s wife was dying, she said, these rings belong to my daughter. But he said no, they are mine. The case came before Rav who said, people are not given to lying at the time of their death.
Mishnah
8 If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me, when he dies he can inherit from him. During my lifetime and after my death, when he dies he cannot inherit from him but should give it to his sons or his brothers, and if he has nothing he may take a loan; the creditors come and make themselves paid.
Halakhah
“If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.
Mishnah
9 One who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, and [the proselyte] died, has to pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar as it is said: “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation etc.” If he was bringing the money and the reparation offering when he died, the money should be given to his sons and the reparation offering shall graze until it becomes disqualified, then be sold, and the amount be given for voluntary offerings. If he had given the money to the men of the watch when he died, the heirs cannot ask it back from them since it is said: “What a man give to a Cohen shall be the latter’s.”
Halakhah
“One who robbed from a proselyte,” etc. Ḥilfai and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, this is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as Rebbi Yose the Galiean explained: Of what does the verse speak? About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar. “If the man have no relative,” he who needs atonement is obligated; this excludes the one who does not need atonement. Rebbi Aqiba explained when he came from Zephyrium: About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar, as it is said: “If the man have no relative,” etc. The only person in Israel who has no relative is the proselyte. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is Rebbi Aqiba’s who said that the wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case.
Mishnah
10 If he gave the money to Yehoiarib and the reparation offering to Yedaiah, he has fulfilled his obligation. The reparation offering to Yehoiarib and the money to Yedaiah, if the offering still is alive it should be brought by Yedaiah; otherwise he was to come back and bring another reparation offering; for he who brings the robbed item before he brings the reparation offering has fulfilled his obligation, but he who brings the reparation offering before he brings the robbed item has not fulfilled his obligation. If he paid the capital but not the fifth, the fifth is no obstacle.
Halakhah
“If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.
Mishnah
1 If somebody robbed to feed his children and they inherited from him, they are not liable to pay; if it was mortgageable property they have to pay. One changes money neither from the chest of the publican nor the wallet of the tax collector and one does not accept charity from these, but one accepts from their house or from the market place.
Halakhah
“If somebody robbed to feed his children,” etc. It was stated: “A Jew who is engaged in lending with interest and repented, has to return it. If he died and left it to his children, about him the verse says ‘he prepares but the just will wear it.’ If he left them a cow or a stole, they have to return it.” He went and stated that for robberies.
“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.
If he robbed a stole and gave it to another person. Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, one takes away from the first one but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai said, one takes away even from the second. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, even Rebbi Ḥiyya will agree with this since Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one takes away even from the second.
If his vessels were switched at the artisan’s he may use them while he goes out and searches for his own. At a mourner’s house or at a wedding, he may not use them while he goes out and searches for his own. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥanan said, my uncle Rebbi Ḥiyya explained this only as in the case of one Bar Qora where everybody who takes from him takes by permission and everybody who puts something up there does so with permission.
“If thieves who stole by stealth repented, they have to make restitution. If one of a gang repented, he has to make restitution for himself. But if he traded for them, he has to make restitution for all of them.”
It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.
Mishnah
2 If the publicans took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or armed robbers took his garment and gave him another garment, they are his since the owners had given up hope of recovery. Things saved from a flood or from armed robbers are his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, a woman or a child are trusted if they say: “This swarm of bees came from here.” [The beekeeper] may enter another’s field to take his swarm; if he caused damage he has to pay what he damaged, but he cannot cut off a branch intending to pay for it. Rebbi Ismael, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s son, said: he may even cut a branch and pay for it.
Halakhah
“If the publicans took,” etc. It was stated: “Things saved from an army, or a fire, from a whirlpool in the sea, a whirlpool of a river, are his.”
“Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery.” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is about a swarm taken in flight and from a schoolboy, and only immediately. But if one left and returned, I am saying that he said it because of fear, or being seduced. It was stated: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, it is a stipulation by the court that this one may cut a branch and pay for it since on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.
Mishnah
3 If one recognizes his own vessels or books in the hand of another, if the theft was a known fact in town, [the other] shall swear to him how much he paid and take this amount. Otherwise he cannot be believed, for I am saying that he had sold the items to a third party and the other had bought them from there.
Halakhah
“If one recognizes his own vessels or books,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it would have been correct that they should not have to swear. Why did they say they have to swear? That homeowners should not be fences. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, only if it was a known fact that his books had been stolen. Rav said, he has to bring proof that he stayed there the night in question. Assi said, if he claims: “I bought them from X,” he is to be believed. A case came before Rebbi Nasa and he did not accept it. Does he disagree? They said, he was a known troublemaker; therefore he did not accept the case.
Mishnah
4 One comes with his amphora of wine, the other comes with his jug of honey. If the amphora of honey sprang a leak, if the other one poured out his wine and saved the honey into it, he only has his wages. But if he said, I shall save yours if you pay me the value of mine, he is liable to pay him.
Halakhah
“One comes with his amphora of wine,” etc. It was stated: “Two people are in the desert; in the hand of one is an amphora of water, in the other’s hand an amphora of honey. If the water amphora springs a leak it is a stipulation of the court that the other pour out his honey in order to save the water since water sustains life in the desert but not honey.” It was stated: “If a worker and a poor man climbed on a tree and broke a branch; if workers are supposed to climb the tree they are not liable, otherwise they are liable.”
Mishnah
5 If a river washed away his donkey and another’s donkey; his was worth a mina, the other’s 200. If he abandoned his own and saved the other’s, he only has his wages. But if he said, I shall save yours if you pay me the value of mine, he is liable to pay him.
Halakhah
“If a river washed away his donkey,” etc. It was stated: If he abandoned his to save the other’s, but the other’s climbed out by himself, he does not owe him anything. But if he abandoned his to save the other’s, and his own climbed out by himself, may he say, “I did not abandon hope of recovery”? Let us hear from the following: If a river washed away his donkey and he was crying: “I did not abandon hope of recovery!” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, as long as he is crying he did not abandon hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a presumption that he had abandoned hope.
Mishnah
6 Somebody had robbed a field which subsequently was taken by discharged veterans. If it is a provincial plague, he may tell him: Here is your property before you. But if it was because of the robber, he has to give him a field. If a river had washed it away, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. He who robbed from another, or took a loan from him, or accepted a deposit in a built-up area cannot give it back to him in the desert. [If it was given] with the intent to depart for the desert, he can give it back to him in the desert.
Halakhah
“Somebody had robbed a field from another person,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, but did they not say that “real estate cannot be robbed”? Why did they say, “he has to give him a field”? It is a fine by which they fined him. If the discharged veterans took it from the robber because of the robbed, could he tell him, in any case give me what is mine and let any claimant come and deal with me? Rebbi Johua ben Levi said, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor and the latter has to repay him except annona and head-tax. Rav said, he can tell him, you redeemed your pledge with my money.
Mishnah
7 He who says to another: I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me, but I do not known whether I returned it to you or did not return it, is liable to pay. But if he said to him: I do not know whether I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, or you deposited with me or did not deposit, he is not liable to pay.
Halakhah
“He who says to another: I robbed you,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wants to clear himself before Heaven. I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me; did I return it to you? The other party says, I do not know. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he is required to make good as a matter of law. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, still it is to become clear before Heaven. I took from the wallet and gave to you, and the other party says, I do not know. Rav Huna said, one tells him: You do not know but the other party knows.
Mishnah
8 If one stole a lamb from the flock and returned it, if it died or was stolen he is liable. If the owners were unaware both of the theft and the return, he is no longer liable after they counted the flock and found it complete.
Halakhah
“If one stole a lamb from the flock,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the owners knew of the theft, they have to be notified of the return. If they did not know of the theft, they do not have to be notified of the return. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if they did not know of the theft, they have to be notified of the return. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was similar to the case of a ram, they do not have to be notified of the return. What means “similar to the case of a ram”? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. Some say, a pandura. Some say, the bell-wether.
Mishnah
9 One does not buy wool, or milk, or lambs from shepherds, nor wood or fruits from orchard watchmen; but one may buy linen garments from women in Galilee, and calves in the Sharon. In all cases it is forbidden if they told to hide. One buys eggs and chickens everywhere.
Halakhah
“One does not buy from shepherds,” etc. It was stated: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband.”
Mishnah
10 Fibers which remain at the washer’s are his, but what the carder produces are the consignor’s. The washer takes three threads and they are his, more than that belong to the consignor. If it was black on a white background he takes all of them and they are his.
Halakhah
“Fibers which remain at the washer’s,” etc. Abba Hoshaia from Tireh was a washer. He made himself a tunic of a single kind of wool lest people say: He wears our property.
Mishnah
11 The tailor who had enough thread left to sew with it, and cloth three by three finger breadths, has to return if to its owners. What the woodworker takes off with a small plane is his, with a large one belongs to the consignor; if he works at the latter’s place even the chips are the consignor’s.
Halakhah
“The tailor who had enough thread left,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A needle full. The House of Rebbi Ḥiyya explained: Twice a needle full. Bar Qappara stated: The stitching with a needle. The House of Rebbi Yannai explained: twice the stitching of a needle. Do they disagree? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, a needle full, the House of Rebbi Ḥiyya explained: Twice a needle full. What Bar Qappara stated: the stitching with a needle, the House of Rebbi Yannai explained: twice the stitching of a needle.
Intertextual Commentary on Jerusalem Bava Kamma
0 commentaries
No commentary on this book yet.