Talmud sobre Êxodo 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..