Wyjścia 21:33 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Jerusalem Talmud Gittin, Bava Kamma & Jerusalem Talmud Terumot

MISHNAH: There are four main categories of damages¹Most rules of payment for damages may be derived from the examples of damages treated in Ex. 21–22, as explained in the Halakhah.: The bull²An agressive bull goring with his horns; Ex. 21:28–32;35–36., and the pit³A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex. 21:33–34., and the devourer⁴Damage caused by an animal other than goring: feeding (“the tooth”) and trampling (“the foot”), Ex. 22:4. The Aramaic root בעי is found in Pseudo-Jonathan to Num. 22:2 as translation of Hebrew לחך “to devour”. The unusual expression מַבְעֶה is used to subsume two legal terms under one., and the setting on fire⁵Ex. 22:5.. The bull is not like the devourer, nor the devourer like the bull⁶Since goring, trampling, and devouring are all ascribed to the same animal, the question arises why the bull has to be mentioned in two different categories both in the Mishnah and in the biblical text. The details are given only in the Babli: An animal which gores is intent on causing damage; therefore the rules are different for known agressive or generally not agressive animals since these require different levels of supervision. But the rules for damage caused by feeding and trampling are the same for all animals.; neither of them who are alive is like the pit⁷It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched. which is not alive, nor either of them which move in causing damage is like the fire⁷It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched. which does not move in causing damage. The common theme of them is that they are usually causing damage and you are obligated to watch them, and if damage was caused the person causing the damage is obligated to pay the damages in best quality land⁸If the person causing the damage cannot pay, the person collecting damages can foreclose the culprit’s land with the highest value per unit of surface area. As biblical law, this applies to damages caused by unattended animals, Ex. 22:4..

“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.

“If I partially set up for damage claims” “as if I had set up for any claims.” This is the pit⁸⁸Tosephta 1:1., as it was stated⁹³Tosephta 6:8; Babli 10a (missing in Munich ms.), 51a.: If somebody dug a pit ten handbreadths deep⁹⁴Since it is stated later in the Halakhah that an animal might be killed if it falls into a pit ten handbreadths deep, it is clear that here it must be assumed that the first digger stopped short of a full ten handbreadths. The second digger then turned an obstacle which might cause damage into an obstacle which endangered the life of animals. In Tosephta and Babli one reads “nine handbreadths”. and another came and deepened it another handbreadth, the latter is responsible. Rebbi⁹⁵This also is the reading of the Babli and one Tosephta ms. In the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and the editio princeps: R. Jehudah. says, one goes after the latter in case of death and after the former for damages. Rebbi Isaac says: So is the baraita: After the latter in case of death and after both of them for damages⁹⁶This is the Babli’s version of Rebbi’s statement. For material damage, anybody who digs in the public domain and does not securely cover the pit is liable for damages.. If he dug [a pit] ten handbreadths deep and another person came, whitewashed and lined it, both of them are liable⁹⁷Tosephta 6:9, Babli 51a.. Is he liable because he whitewashed and lined it⁹⁸In Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 11, and Babli the second one is liable not because he improved the pit but because he did not cover it correctly when he had finished his work, as Ex. 21:33 states: “If somebody would open a pit or dig a pit without covering it.” Therefore, the last one to work on the pit is liable if he failed to cover it.? When he told him, whitewash this (house) [pit]⁹⁹The text in brackets is that of the original scribe (correct); that in parentheses is the corrector’s, copied in editio princeps (incorrect). and acquire it¹⁰⁰By ḥazaqah, cf. Ketubot 5:5, Note 100., for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the prevention of damages follows the rules of guarding an acquisition¹⁰¹Any transfer of property is at the same time transfer of liability for that property.. Rebbi Simon said, explain it when he was digging in the dunes¹⁰²Where a simple pit would have disappeared in a short time. The second person by installing permanent walls only created the danger.. And it was stated: If each of them dug ten, or each one twenty, or each one a hundred, they are all liable^93,Tosephta 6:8; Babli 10a (missing in Munich ms.), 51a.¹⁰³In the Babylonian sources, one person digs ten, the next enlarges it two twenty, the third digs down to 100.. How deep does it have to be¹⁰⁴To require a cover to protect the digger from damage suits; Tosephta 6:12.? To be deadly, ten handbreadths¹⁰⁵This is undisputed in both Talmudim. If an animal is killed falling into a pit less than ten handbreadths deep, it is purely a matter of material damage.. To do damage, anything. Symmachos says¹⁰⁶He disagrees only with the statement that any pothole in the public domain is cause for a damage suit; he requires a minimal size., three in depth and four in width. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower says, the length of the animal which falls in. What means the length of the animal which falls in? Whether chicken or camel.