תלמוד על שמות 21:35

HALAKHAH: “There are four main categories of damages,” etc. The bull means the horn, as is written: “If a man’s bull smite another person’s bull,⁹Ex. 21:35.” etc. So far a harmless animal¹⁰It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused.. From where a notorious [dangerous] one¹¹For which full damages have to be paid.? “Or it was known that it be a goring bull,¹²Ex. 21:36.” etc. The pit, “if a man open a pit,” etc.; “the pit’s owner has to pay,³A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex. 21:33–34.” etc. The devourer: “If a person causes a field or a vineyard to be despoiled by sending his animals;¹³Ex. 22:4. The meaning of יַבְעֵר is in doubt because of lack of parallels. It might as well be referring to damage by excessive grazing as to destruction by trampling.” this is the foot as it is written¹⁴Is. 32:20. The same explanation of Ex. 22:4 by Is. 32:20 is in the Babli, 2b.: “Those who send the foot of bull and donkey.” And it is written¹⁵Is. 5:5.: “Remove its cover and it will be despoiled,” 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 written⁵Ex. 22:5.: “If fire starts and finds thistles,” etc.

HALAKHAH: “For tort victims one estimates with best quality land,” etc. “By an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property³A statement by R. Aqiba in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 14, also quoted by the Babli, 48b..” Rebbi Abba bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Yose, where do we hold⁴What does the statement about Temple property mean?? If to qualify as damages, is that not what we stated “his neighbor’s ox⁵Ex. 21:35; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3. The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a.” but not the ox of Temple property? If for bodily damages, is that not what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A private person can claim damages but not the Temple⁶The formulation is ambiguous; it also could mean that the Temple never pays damages.? But we must deal with one who said, I obligate myself to give 100 minas to the Temple, ⁷The following clause is missing in the quote of the passage by Tosaphot Giṭṭin 49a, s. v. שור, and in the Constantinople edition of the Yerushalmi. If one accepts the text as it stands, one has to explain that the person making the vow thought that he could pay his vow in cash, but before he could do this, he had to pay damages and now he is short of cash. If one does not read the clause, then there is a straightforward statement that debts to the Temple in all cases are privileged like debts for damages (a statement considered and rejected by the Babli, 49a). The interpretation of the Babli, that damages inflicted on Temple property always must be paid in full, is incompatible with the Yerushalmi. when his ox went and did damage. You should not say, [the Temple] is a creditor and should collect from average quality land. Therefore, it was necessary to say that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land, by an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Full and partial damages are collected from encumbered property.” One understands full damages⁸Ex. 21:36 requires the owner of an animal with a history of causing damages to pay all damages in full. If the animal’s owner cannot pay cash, the Mishnah decrees that the damages be liquidated by the best available land, even if mortgaged.. Are partial damages not collected from the animal’s body⁹Ex. 21:35 requires the damages inflicted by an animal which never before had caused damage to be paid from proceeds of a sale of the animal itself.? Rebbi Yose said, explain it when it was a docile ox which did damage and then his owner went and sold it. Its body already was encumbered to the injured party¹⁰The “encumbered property” mentioned in the baraita is not mortgaged land but the animal causing the damage, which can be repossessed by the owner of the damaged property from a buyer of the agressive animal.. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he converted it¹¹The owner of the injured animal did not insist on immediate payment but agreed that the debt be liquidated as if it were a loan. into a loan. Then it should be foreclosed only by average quality land! Since the debt originated in a damage claim, he may collect from best quality.