출애굽기 21:36 탈무드 참조: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Jerusalem Talmud Gittin & Bava Kamma

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: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement⁶The Babli refers the Mishnah to a disagreement in Mishnah 4:10 about a bull which was tied down with a rope and locked in, where R. Meïr does not absolve the owner from liability but R. Jehudah does. It is asserted that the Mishnah in the version of the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. is R. Jehudah’s, but the Mishnah in the version of the Yerushalmi is R. Meïr’s.. Rebbi Eleazar said, it⁷The long version of the Mishnah. is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”⁸Only for a notoriously goring bull does Ex. 21:36 require that the animal be under the control of a human 24 hours a day; Babli 55b. It follows that for damages classified as “tooth” or “foot”, even R. Meïr may agree to the long version of the Mishnah.. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said⁹In the case of Mishnah 4:10; the text is Tosephta 5:7; cf. Chapter 4 Note 127., in no case is he liable¹⁰R. Jehudah would agree with the short version of the Mishnah..

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.