Rujukan Talmud untuk Keluaran 21:24: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Jerusalem Talmud Demai & Bava Kamma

It is written: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth¹⁰Lev. 24:20, speaking of payment for either animal or man..” At another place, He says: “Do not be softhearted.¹¹Deut. 19:21, 25:12.” One refers to inadvertent acts, the other to intentional ones¹²Cf. Sifry Deut. 293. The quote Deut. 19:21 refers to the punishment of the perjured witnesses. Since in injury cases the false accuser wanted to extort money and therefore would have to pay money, it is concluded that Deut. 25:12 which prescribes punishment for intentional injury also must mean payment of money. Therefore Lev. 24:20 refers to payment for unintentional injury.. 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]¹³Text missing in the Leiden ms., supplied from E and supported by the Genizah text. 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”¹⁴Deut. 19:19, referring to the punishment of perjured witnesses. The quote is confirmed by all three ms. sources but probably the reference should be to Lev. 23:19: “As a person injures another, so should be done to him”. The Babli, 84a, in quoting a similar baraita refers to Lev. 24:22: “A uniform law shall it be for you”; cf. also Sifra Emor Pereq 20(7).? This indicates that he only pays money.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit⁴⁷He wants to prove that the different categories mentioned in the biblical text are necessary; one cannot be subsumed under the other.. Since for the pit, which is not usually moving, one has to pay full damages, not so much more for the bull which usually is moving⁴⁸But for damages inflicted through goring by an animal which has no history of doing so the owner pays only half, Ex.. 21:35.? Either since for the pit one pays full damages, also the bull pays full damages, or since the bull pays half damages, also for the pit one should have to pay half damages⁴⁹This is the preceding argument in a different formulation. Since the rules of payment are different for bull and pit, they cannot be subsumed under one rule.. 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 was it stated here? Because there are many things⁵⁰The later text shows that one should read here: “Because there are many things to be stated;” the differences between the rules for bull and pit are many.. Similarly, the seat is not like the bed and the bed is not like the seat⁵¹In the rules of impurity of the sufferer from gonorrhea, Lev. 15:4–5 proclaims the impurity of his bed and v. 6 that of his seat. Why do seat and bed have to be mentioned separately? In the baraita of R. Ismael (Sifra, Introduction 5) the rules common to seat and bed are declared valid for any implement used for human rest, as illustration of the third hermeneutical rule “a principle derived from one paragraph”.. One understands that the seat is not like the bed. The seat a square ṭephaḥ large can become impure; the bed four ṭephaḥim large can become impure⁵²Babli Me‘ilah 18a. While textiles in general can become impure, small snippets cannot. Cloth being woven cannot become impure unless it has a size which makes it usable. This depends on the intended use. Cloth intended as cover of a seat becomes impure once it contains a square of side length of one handbreadth (probably 9.1 cm); for the cover of a bed one requires a square of four handbreadths.. Because He declared a bed four ṭephaḥim large as impure, would a seat a square ṭephaḥ large become impure⁵³There is no logical necessity here. The rules for the impurity of beds are detailed in Sifra Meṣora‘, Pereq Zabim, Pereq 2, Parašah 2; those for seats are in Pereq 3:1–4.? If the seat had not been written, I would have inferred seat from bed. Why was 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 candles⁵⁴Baraita of R. Ismael (Sifra, Introduction 6) as illustration of the second part of the third hermeneutical rule “a principle derived from two paragraphs”; the main argument is in Sifry Num. 1. In Num. 5:1–4, Moses is instructed to command the Children of Israel to remove lepers, sufferers from gonorrhea, and those impure from the impurity of the dead from the camp. It is noted that the command was executed immediately. In Num. 8:3 it is stated that Aaron lit the lights in the Sanctuary exactly as the Eternal had commanded Moses. R. Ismael infers that everywhere in the Pentateuch, a command is to be executed immediately (and permanently).. 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 was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated⁵⁵As Ravad notes in his Commentary to Sifra, these differences are nowhere noted.. So what is equal about them is that they are “command” here and in future generations, so everything by “command” is for here and for future generations⁵⁶Quoted in Sifra Ṣaw 1:1, Emor Parašah 13:1;. Rebbi La said, it is necessary that all⁵⁷The four categories mentioned in the Mishnah. be written; and the bull teaches that the owners have to deal with the cadaver⁵⁸Ex. 21:36, speaking of the bull with a history of goring, requires the owner of the goring bull to pay full damages and concludes “the cadaver shall be his.” This “his” (and the parallel in v. 34) is interpreted as “the claimant’s” in Babli 10b,53b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 11,12; Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai p. 186. The argument is that since full damages are due, one could assume that the payor had acquired the carcass and no mention of it would be necessary.. But it is written, “and the cadaver shall be his”, and it is written for the pit, “and the cadaver shall be his”⁵⁹This seems to disprove R. La’s statement. If the same rule is explicit for the agressive goring bull and the pit, one would have to assume that it does not hold for any other kinds of damages.! Rebbi Ismael said, this excludes real estate which cannot be moved⁶⁰This is difficult to understand since real estate cannot fall into a pit. In Tosephta 6:14, one excludes payment for broken vessels if there is no residual value in the pieces.; it excludes a human because there can be no usufruct from him in death⁶¹Similarly in Tosephta 6:14; Babli 53b.. But the fire teaches for all of them that one is responsible for accidents⁶²This is another commentary on R. La’s statement. Also damages for losses by fire teach another principle. Since Ex. 22:5 reads “If fire gets out of control … the person who started the fire has to pay,” even if he started the fire perfectly legally on his own property. This establishes general liability for damages caused by accident. A similar text is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 14. The Babli, 26b, derives a similar principle from Ex. 21:24–25..

There⁷¹Mishnah Baba Qama 3:3., we have stated: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain and a third party was hurt, is liable for damages.” It was also stated⁷²Tosephta Baba Qama 2:8: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain in order to acquire it, and another person was hurt by it, he is liable, and it is forbidden because of robbery. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is not robbery to impair the public domain.” The person who acquired the dung is liable but, since he acquired it, one is forbidden to take it from him, but he may take it from the owner of the cattle since it was in the public domain and an obstacle to travelers.: “It is forbidden because of robbery.” Cahana⁷³It is impossible to decide whether Cahana here is Rav Cahana I, a companion of Rav in Babylonia, or Rav Cahana II; see note in Berakhot p. 247. said, only if he turned it over in order to acquire it. But if he did not turn it over in order to acquire it, about that one does not speak. But as regards damages, there is no difference whether he turned it over in order to acquire it or he did not turn it over in order to acquire it; if a third party was hurt, he is liable for damages⁷⁴This contradicts statements of Ḥizqiah in Yerushalmi Baba Qama 3:3, fol. 3c, and of R. Eleazar in Babli Baba Qama 29b.. And here, you say so? Rebbi Abun said, there it is written (Ex. 21:34): “The one responsible for the pit⁷⁵An unauthorized open pit in the public domain. shall pay,” the one responsible for the damage shall pay. But here (Deut. 14:22): “You shall give tithes,” you give tithes from your property but not from other people’s property.