Talmud do Wyjścia 22:12

New Paragraph. “If damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, “he who injures an animal has to pay for it⁶⁴Lev. 24:18, incorrect quote. In the Babli, 10b, R. Ammi (Immi) explains יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה “pay for it” by יַשְׁלִימֶנָּה “shall supplement it,” i. e., pay the difference between the value of the living animal and the carcass. This argument has to be read into the quote here.,” he has to pay the diminution in value. Bar Pedaiah said, “if it was torn, he shall bring it up to the place of the carcass, for which he does not have to pay.⁶⁵Ex. 22:12. The sentence has become unintelligible because it mixes quote and two distinct interpretations. Verses 9–12 refer to the person who undertook to watch over another’s property and is paid for his services. If there was a loss because of theft, the watchman has to pay because he failed to prevent the theft (v. 11). If livestock was lost to predatory animals, the watchman “has to bring it עד”. The masoretic vocalization עֵד means (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15 in the name of R. Joshia; Babli 11a) that witnesses who testify that the loss was caused by a lion or similar large animal against which the watchman was powerless, will free the watchman from his obligation to pay. He will have to pay for losses caused by smaller animals which attack by stealth. The other interpretations read עַד, either עַד I “until”, or עַד III “torn, robbed by the enemy”. In the Babli, 11a, and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai22:12, Abba Shaul reads “he shall bring the torn,” meaning that he does not have to pay for the residual value of the carcass. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15, R. Jonathan reads “he has to bring the owners to the place [of the attack]” to support his claim that the attack was by a large animal against whom he was powerless. The insertion of “up to the place” into Bar Pedaiah’s quote follows R. Jonathan, but his interpretation is that of Abba Shaul.” Rebbi Nasa said, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed. If only the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina was given but not that of Bar Pedaiah, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he should not have to pay anything but for bodily damage he has to pay the diminution in value⁶⁶Since the verse in Lev. only requires payment by a person who attacks an animal, not if the damage was caused by negligence.. Therefore, Bar Pedaiah’s quote is necessary. But if only the quote of Bar Pedaiah was given but not that of Rebbi Ḥanina, I would have said that if he made the damage possible⁶⁷By his negligence. he has to pay the diminution in value, but for bodily damage he has to pay the whole⁶⁸As one would understand from Lev. 24:18 without R. Immi’s interpretation.. Therefore, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.