Talmud su Esodo 21:24

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.

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.