אַ֥ךְ אִם־י֛וֹם א֥וֹ יוֹמַ֖יִם יַעֲמֹ֑ד לֹ֣א יֻקַּ֔ם כִּ֥י כַסְפּ֖וֹ הֽוּא׃ (ס)
אױב אָבער ער װעט זיך האַלטן אַ טאָג אָדער צװײ טעג, זאָל ער ניט באַשטראָפֿט װערן; װאָרום דאָס איז זײַן געלט.
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
30The entire Halakhah is also Nazir 9:5, explained there in Notes 163–186 with due attention given to the differences in reading in Sanhedrin. If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Let us hear from the following: If people quarrel, if people brawl. Is not brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, if people quarrel, if people brawl? To apply the rules of the intended to the unintended and of the unintended to the intended. One understands from the intended to the unintended. Of the unintended to the intended? It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma
Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something85A baraita. from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them86Ex. 21:28 discusses the tame bull which kills a human. Verses 29–32 deal with the notorious bull which is killing. Verses 35–36 then deal with both kinds of bulls as damaging goods.. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave87Since the payment for killed slaves is not treated as weregilt but as payment of damages to the owner for the loss of his slave, might it not be trated as part of the rules for payment of damages?; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said88A different but parallel argument is in the Babli, 42b., everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother)89It seems that one has ro read: “a male or female slave”. the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for fetuses90There is an obvious lacuna here which is filled by E: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: “but the owner of the bull is free,” free from paying for fetuses.
The scribe’s error was induced by the repetition of the same text. For the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah, cf. Note 71.
The payment for fetuses refers to Ex. 21:22: If quarelling people unintentionally hit a pregnant woman who then has a miscarriage, they have to indemnify her husband. The argument in the text presupposes the statement later in the text: “ ‘people’ but not bulls.” (cf. Midrash Haggadol to Ex. 21:22) This exempts the owner of a notorious bull from payment if it causes a miscarriage. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the owner of a tame bull should pay. Why should R. Eleazar b. Azariah have to mention it?. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave92It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave92It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “If people quarrel93Ex. 21:22.”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave92It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “When they quarrel93Ex. 21:22.,” “when they brawl94Ex. 21:18, specifying the payments due for intentionally inflicted injuries.”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl95There is missing the corresponding rhetorical question “and fight the same as quarrel”? It is in E. The arguments are used to impose the payments mentioned in Ex. 21:18 for intentional injuries on the unintentional injuries mentioned in 21:22, and vice-versa (Nazir 9:5, Notes 183–184; Sanhedrin 9:3, 27a l. 58; Midrash Haggadol21:22).? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this96Which of the two contradictory arguments is to be accepted? Neither.? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.
The scribe’s error was induced by the repetition of the same text. For the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah, cf. Note 71.
The payment for fetuses refers to Ex. 21:22: If quarelling people unintentionally hit a pregnant woman who then has a miscarriage, they have to indemnify her husband. The argument in the text presupposes the statement later in the text: “ ‘people’ but not bulls.” (cf. Midrash Haggadol to Ex. 21:22) This exempts the owner of a notorious bull from payment if it causes a miscarriage. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the owner of a tame bull should pay. Why should R. Eleazar b. Azariah have to mention it?. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave92It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave92It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “If people quarrel93Ex. 21:22.”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free72Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave92It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “When they quarrel93Ex. 21:22.,” “when they brawl94Ex. 21:18, specifying the payments due for intentionally inflicted injuries.”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl95There is missing the corresponding rhetorical question “and fight the same as quarrel”? It is in E. The arguments are used to impose the payments mentioned in Ex. 21:18 for intentional injuries on the unintentional injuries mentioned in 21:22, and vice-versa (Nazir 9:5, Notes 183–184; Sanhedrin 9:3, 27a l. 58; Midrash Haggadol21:22).? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this96Which of the two contradictory arguments is to be accepted? Neither.? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.