Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Exodo 21:34: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma & Jerusalem Talmud Demai

A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person put down another stone next to the first, a third person stumbled over the first and struck the other²⁴He is injured by the second stone but would not have been injured had he not stumbled over the first.. Who has to pay damages, the first or the second person? Let us hear from the following²⁵Tosephta 6:1; quoted also in the Babli, 53a.: “A bull pushed another ox which then fell into a pit. The owner of the bull has to pay²⁶Under the rules of “horn”, full damages if the ox was notorious, half damages if it was tame (Tosaphot 53a, s.v. בעל).; the ‘owner’²⁷The pit or any obstacle classified as “pit” is in the public domain; it is not property of the person who created the obstacle. But the verse, Ex.21:34, calls him “owner of the pit”. In the language of the Babli (29b, Pesaḥim 6b) “it is not a person’s property but the verse treats it as if it were his property.” The biblical expression is used as a technical term to denote liability. of the pit is free. Rebbi Nathan says, if the attacker was notorious, each of them pays one half²⁸As explained in the Babli, R. Nathan holds that the ‘owner’ of the pit, the place where the attacked animal died, is the primary payor and, under the rules of “pit”, has to pay 100% of the damages. Then he has regress on the owner of the attacking bull for half of his cost.; if it was tame, the owner of the bull²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. pays two thirds³⁰In all of Talmudic literature, the expression “n parts” means “n parts of n+1”, following Egyptian arithmetic practice. In the statement here, all commentators, from Eliahu Fulda to S. Lieberman, claim that “two parts” means “two parts out of four”, i. e., one half. This contradicts Talmudic practice. One has to accept the statement of R. Ḥanina (in the Rome ms.: R. Isaac) that the text is corrupt and has to be corrected. Only the corrected text is mentioned in Babli and Tosephta. and the ‘owner’ of the pit²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. a quarter.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, so is the baraita: The owner of the bull²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. pays three quarters and the ‘owner’ of the pit²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. a quarter³¹As explained in the Babli, the ‘owner’ of the pit has regress on the owner of the tame bull only for half the damages. Since the owner of a notorious bull has to pay ½, the owner of a tame bull pays ¼ of the damages to the ‘owner’ of the pit who had paid all damages to the owner of the animal which was killed.. (A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person put down another stone next to the first, a third person stumbled over the first and struck the other. Who has to pay damages, the first or the second person?)³²Dittography of the corrector for the printed edition, faithfully reproduced in the Venice print.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: A person put down a stone and his load in the public domain, a second person stumbled over it while he held a flask in his hand. Whether he stumbled over the stone and hit the ground or hit the stone and stumbled over the ground, [the first] has to pay damages to the person but is free from damages to the flask³⁴Since Ex. 21:34 limits damages under the category of “pit” to humans and livestock, excluding its load (Mishnah 5:9; Tosephta 6:14; Babli 28b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 11).. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that for “pit” damages one is free from damages to vessels. But if he hit it in walking³⁵If the person was not injured by the obstacle classified as “pit”, the ‘owner’ of the pit is liable for damages. Babli 28b., he³⁶The ‘owner’ of the “pit”. has to pay even for the flask.

There⁷¹Mishnah Baba Qama 3:3., we have stated: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain and a third party was hurt, is liable for damages.” It was also stated⁷²Tosephta Baba Qama 2:8: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain in order to acquire it, and another person was hurt by it, he is liable, and it is forbidden because of robbery. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is not robbery to impair the public domain.” The person who acquired the dung is liable but, since he acquired it, one is forbidden to take it from him, but he may take it from the owner of the cattle since it was in the public domain and an obstacle to travelers.: “It is forbidden because of robbery.” Cahana⁷³It is impossible to decide whether Cahana here is Rav Cahana I, a companion of Rav in Babylonia, or Rav Cahana II; see note in Berakhot p. 247. said, only if he turned it over in order to acquire it. But if he did not turn it over in order to acquire it, about that one does not speak. But as regards damages, there is no difference whether he turned it over in order to acquire it or he did not turn it over in order to acquire it; if a third party was hurt, he is liable for damages⁷⁴This contradicts statements of Ḥizqiah in Yerushalmi Baba Qama 3:3, fol. 3c, and of R. Eleazar in Babli Baba Qama 29b.. And here, you say so? Rebbi Abun said, there it is written (Ex. 21:34): “The one responsible for the pit⁷⁵An unauthorized open pit in the public domain. shall pay,” the one responsible for the damage shall pay. But here (Deut. 14:22): “You shall give tithes,” you give tithes from your property but not from other people’s property.