Talmud su Esodo 21:36

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.

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.

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..

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.⁸⁷Ex. 21:36; a notorious bull is one who was known to gore “yesterday and the day before.” Babli 23b.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings⁸⁸In the Rome fragment: כהפליג נגיחות, “if it spread out its gorings”., that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days⁸⁹In the Babli, 24a, R. Meïr is credited with the argument that if three different gorings on three different days make a bull notorious then three gorings on the same day certainly will have the same effect. The plural “bulls” in the next sentence negates this interpretation in the Yerushalmi which might follow the Mekhilta and attributes that argument to R. Yose (Note 86).
The Babli, 37a, notes that a bull can be declared notorious on alternate days if it was observed to gore on days 1,3,5 and was tame on days 2,4.. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days⁹⁰The question is not answered, probably because it never arose in practice.? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed⁹¹In the Babli, Niddah 68a, the opinion attributed here to R. Ada is Rav’s and that of Rav Huna is Levi’s. Since the Babli follows Rav but the opinion of Rav Ada is discredited in the Yerushalmi, the Talmudim come to opposite conclusions.: A menstruating woman⁹²The text here is incomprehensible; one has to insert two words from the parallel Babli text. Lev. 15:19 decrees that a menstruating woman is impure for seven days; then she may immerse herself in a miqweh and is pure. But if she has a disccharge “many days outside her period”, she is declared זָבָה “suffering from flux”, and Lev. 15:25–30 decrees that after she is healed she has to undergo a period of purification and a Temple ceremony to regain purity. Since “days” mean a minimum of two, “many days” mean a minimum of three (cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical problems in Jewish tradition, in: Ph. Longworth, ed., Confrontations with Judaism, London 1966, pp. 171–196.) Therefore it is clear that one deals here with a menstruating woman who checks herself on the seventh day and finds herself impure. She therefore cannot become pure at the end of the seventh day but falls under the severe rules of the sufferer from flux only if she has a discharge during three consecutive days. 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 certainly is niddah⁹³Instead of niddah, “the menstruating woman”, this has to be read zavah, “the woman suffering from flux” instead; cf. the preceding Note.. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah^93,Instead of niddah, “the menstruating woman”, this has to be read zavah, “the woman suffering from flux” instead; cf. the preceding Note.⁹⁴She has to follow the rules of zavah but, if the Temple will be miraculously rebuilt overnight, she would not bring a sacrifice.. 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 he 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.