Talmud su Esodo 21:33

“His field,” except movables. “His vineyard,” except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession. “ ‘His field,’ except movables.” About those who did not claim movables from the start. Is this different from what we stated: There is not only real estate; from where if he wanted to pay money? The verse says: “Money he shall return to its owner¹⁸Ex. 21:33, speaking of somebody digging a hole in the public domain which then causes injury to another person’s animal. This damage has to be paid in money (or, in the Babli’s interpretation, in money’s worth). In the Babli, Baba Qama 7a, 14b, money is legal tender to liquidate all debts. The Yerushalmi gives the injured party the right to claim real estate in those cases in which the verse prescribed payment in real estate..” What did you mean to say that real estate is primary? Or¹⁹אי is Babylonian spelling for Galilean אוֹ “or”, אִין “if”, אֵי “not”. The first alternative applies here. should we say that money is primary? Then it should be irrevocably given to [the claimant] from the start! Do we not see rabbis who irrevocably give him real estate! “ ‘His vineyard,’ except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Nisa: If his father dug a cistern²⁰In the public domain, cf. Note 18. which caused injury during his father’s lifetime. Property fell to him after his father’s death²¹The injury claim was not paid during the father’s lifetime. By accepting the inheritance, the son became liable to pay the injury claim. If later he received inheritance from another source, e. g., grandparents, the later inheritance is not liable for claims stemming from a prior inheritance even if the son was the only known heir and therefore the grandparent’s property was potentially his.. I might say that this property should be encumbered for that damage; therefore, it was necessary to say “his vineyard” to except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession.

HALAKHAH: “Estimation and determination of money’s worth,” etc. ¹³⁸The Halakhah is a parallel, shorter version of Tosephta 1:2,3 and parallel beraitot in the Babli, 14b, 15a. One does not say that a cow be compensated for by a stole¹³⁹In Tosephta and Babli (and a Genizah fragment of the Yerushalmi): “a cow is compensated for by a stole and a stole by a cow”, explained in the Babli that the stole injured the cow and the cow tore the stole. This sentence is only an amplification of the expression “estimation of money’s worth”., but one appraises all property in court. “Money’s worth,” this teaches that the court only appraises mortgageable property¹⁴⁰The Babli, 14b, after a lengthy discussion comes to the conclusion that “money’s worth” in contrast to “money” means real estate whose value can only be established by appraisal, not by barter.. But if the person suffering damage appropriated movables, one appraises those¹⁴¹The two Babylonian sources point out that in case the person liable for damages had died, the injured party is absolutely barred from appropriating movables from the estate.. “By a court”, this teaches that one only appraises in court¹⁴²The two Babylonian sources insist that the only court competent in the matter is the permanent court of the community. This interpretation also has to be accepted in the Yerushalmi since imposing fines is restricted to judges qualified to sit in criminal cases.. “Based on testimony”, for one only appraises by testimony¹⁴³Since payment of half the damages has the status of a fine, not of restitution, the court cannot recognize an admission of liability by either of the parties since “nobody can be sentenced to a fine based on his confession” (Babli 14b).. “Of free persons of the Covenant”, this excludes Gentiles, and slaves, and persons disqualified for testimony¹⁴⁴While the same statement is also found in the Tosephta, it is clear that people disqualified for testimony, such as professional gamblers, are excluded by the requirement of testimony in court.. “Women are under the rule of torts”; since the verse¹⁴⁵Ex. 21–22. speaks only of men, it is necessary to include women: Rebbi Ismael stated, “these are the laws which you shall put before them¹⁴⁶The introductory sentence, Ex.21:1, is formulated gender neutral. In the Babli, 15b, this argument is attributed to R. Eleazar.” “And sometimes¹⁰It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused. both the person who causes and the one who suffers the damage pay”; they pay half the damage. From here, that one splits the damage; each one loses half the value of the damage.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written⁵⁶Ex. 21:33.: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death⁵⁷The verse mentions “opening” for a pit which is not deep enough to kill an animal, and “digging” for a pit deep enough to kill.. Rebbi 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 vessels⁵⁸In the next Halakhah one deduces “an ox but not an ox with his vessels” from the language of the verse. Why does this not apply to damages in case the animal survives the fall? No answer is given; it must be that the award of damages in this case is a matter of common, not biblical law.! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.⁵⁹Understanding יכרה as not derived from I כרה “to dig” but from II כרה “to buy” (Deut 2:6, Hos. 3:2); in the Babli (Soṭah 13a, Roš Haššanah 26a) this is charaterized as Phoenician.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain⁶⁰Since ‘pit’ is an obstacle in the public domain, how is it possible to acquire if from another person?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths]⁶¹Reading טפחים for דברים “things” in the text. close to a domain are like that domain⁶²This defines what means “close to another domain” in Mishnah 8 (Note 54). In the Babli, 50a, he requires a distance of at least 4 handbreadths. A private domain can be bought or inherited with all its liabilities..

MISHNAH: A pit dug by two partners; if the first went by and did not cover it, the second and did not cover it, the second is liable. If the first covered it, the second came and uncovered it, the second is liable. If the first covered it, the second came, found it uncovered but did not cover it, the second is liable. If he covered it appropriately⁶⁵This will be defined in the Halakhah. but an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable⁶⁶Ex. 21:33 explicitly absolves him if the pit is covered.. 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 excavation, he is liable, backward because of the noise of the excavation, he is not liable⁶⁷An animal falling backward is an unusual occurrence that cannot be foreseen; also in this case the animal fell on the ground and not into the pit.. If an ox and its equipment⁶⁸Harness and plough. fell in and broke, a donkey and its equipment⁶⁹Cover and saddle. was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment. If the ox falling in was deaf-mute, insane, or young, he is liable⁷⁰These categories do not apply to animals.; a son or daughter, a slave or slave-girl, he is not liable⁷¹Humans are supposed to watch where they are going..

“If an ox and its equipment⁶⁸Harness and plough. fell in and broke, a donkey and its equipment⁶⁹Cover and saddle. and was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment.” Samuel said, when it became disoriented because of the air⁸¹The bad air exuding from the pit., but if it hit the ground he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if it hit the ground, he is not liable⁸²In the Babli, 53a, Samuel’s statement is attributed to Rav, R. Joḥanan and Resh Laqish’s to Samuel. Since in the Babli practice follows Samuel and in the Yerushalmi R. Joḥanan, both Talmudim decide in the same way.: The Torah absolved from liability when it fell down. “An ox or a donkey fell in there;⁵⁶Ex. 21:33.” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment⁸³Cf. Halakhah 3:1, Note 34, and the references given there.. Since it looked logical: If a pit of damages⁵⁸In the next Halakhah one deduces “an ox but not an ox with his vessels” from the language of the verse. Why does this not apply to damages in case the animal survives the fall? No answer is given; it must be that the award of damages in this case is a matter of common, not biblical law., where one is not liable for death, one is liable for vessels; would it not be logical that for a pit ten handbreadths deep, for which one is liable for death, should one not be liable for vessels?⁸⁴Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 11 p. 288 l. 16. 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.

HALAKHAH: “The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.⁵⁶Ex. 21:33.” Separating from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.⁸⁸Ex. 19:13.” Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey⁸⁹Ex. 22:3, the penalty for the thief found with livestock.”. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them⁹⁰Deut. 22:1..” Unloading, “do remove⁹¹Ex.. 23:5..” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing⁹²Deut. 25:4..” Interbreeding, “your animal you shall not breed kilaim⁹³Lev. 19:19..” The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest⁹⁴Ex. 23:12..”