Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Exodo 22:5: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Bava Kamma & Jerusalem Talmud Peah

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..

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 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..