Шмот 21:30 Связанные отрывки

HALAKHAH: “For tort victims one estimates with best quality land,” etc. “By an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property³A statement by R. Aqiba in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 14, also quoted by the Babli, 48b..” Rebbi Abba bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Yose, where do we hold⁴What does the statement about Temple property mean?? If to qualify as damages, is that not what we stated “his neighbor’s ox⁵Ex. 21:35; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3. The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a.” but not the ox of Temple property? If for bodily damages, is that not what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A private person can claim damages but not the Temple⁶The formulation is ambiguous; it also could mean that the Temple never pays damages.? But we must deal with one who said, I obligate myself to give 100 minas to the Temple, ⁷The following clause is missing in the quote of the passage by Tosaphot Giṭṭin 49a, s. v. שור, and in the Constantinople edition of the Yerushalmi. If one accepts the text as it stands, one has to explain that the person making the vow thought that he could pay his vow in cash, but before he could do this, he had to pay damages and now he is short of cash. If one does not read the clause, then there is a straightforward statement that debts to the Temple in all cases are privileged like debts for damages (a statement considered and rejected by the Babli, 49a). The interpretation of the Babli, that damages inflicted on Temple property always must be paid in full, is incompatible with the Yerushalmi. when his ox went and did damage. You should not say, [the Temple] is a creditor and should collect from average quality land. Therefore, it was necessary to say that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land, by an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property.”

“His field¹²Ex. 22:4: “If a person destroys a field or a vineyard through animals by sending his livestock to graze on another’s field, the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall give in payment.” This is the basis of the Mishnah requiring that damages be paid with best quality real estate.”, except if it was mortgaged¹³“His field” excludes third-party interests.. “His vineyard”, except Temple property. Where do we hold¹⁴What relation can Temple property have with damages due from a private person?? If somebody caused damage and then dedicated to the Temple, that is what we have stated¹⁵Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:2: “If somebody dedicated his property to the Temple while he owed a ketubah to his wife or a debt to a creditor, neither the woman nor the creditor can collect from the Temple; but the redeemer redeems on condition to pay the ketubah to the woman or the debt to the creditor. If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the redeemer] adds another denar and redeems these properties on condition to pay the debt to the creditor.” In order to combine two conflicting principles, viz., that vows cannot be used to escape obligations towards third parties, and that Temple obligations override all others, it is decreed that the Temple has to put the dedicated properties up for sale but collects only for the amount by which the value of the properties exceeds the obligation, with the third party buyer accepting the obligation to pay off the liens on the property. (It has to be a third party buyer since the person making the dedication would have to add another 25% to the redemption amount, Lev. 27:19.) Claims for damages have to be handled in the same way.: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas.” If somebody dedicated to the Temple and then caused damage, that is what we have stated: “ ‘His neighbor’s ox⁵Ex. 21:35; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3. The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a.’ but not the ox of Temple property.” Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if an ox of Temple property grazed on a private field. Rebbi Mana told him, we require Temple real estate and you say “on a private field”? But we must hold about one who said: I am obligating myself for 100 minas to the Temple; then went and caused damage. You should not say that between damages and a loan given before witnesses¹⁶Not in documented form; the witnesses do not sign anything. Such a loan is not a mortgage and is not privileged. damages are privileged, and here damages are privileged against the Temple; therefore it was necessary to say “his vineyard”, except Temple property¹⁷The statement about Temple property is not to exclude Temple property from damage claims but to privilege Temple property relative to all civil claims..

If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to be goring. Rav said, it is an acquisition in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered¹⁰⁷According to Rav, the buyer can force the annulment of the sale and receive his money back. According to Samuel, since a bull can be sold either for meat or for work, it is up to the buyer to specify for which use he is buying since for livestock there do not exist generally valid criteria of quality. (Ševi‘it 5:8, Notes 70,71; Babli 46a, Bava batra 92a).. “He shall give weregilt for his person.¹⁰⁸Ex.. 21:30. It is not clear to whom the verse refers in mentioning “his”, cf. Ketubot 3:10, Note 151 and all sources quoted there, in particular Babli 40a.” Some Tannaїm state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaїm state: The person suffering the damage. Following him who said, the person suffering the damage, [assume] the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion¹⁰⁹The bull of owner A injured a person who was prevented by the bull of owner B to seek immediate medical attention; the person then died.. If you say that damages are fully required¹¹⁰Damages are due even though weregilt was paid., the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required¹¹¹There is no claim for damages if there is one for weregilt., the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. Following him who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable¹¹²Since the action of B’s bull was strictly defensive, he is not an attacker.. If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable¹¹³If neither of them can be held criminally liable, neither of them can be held financially liable..