תּלמוד אויף שמות 22:12

New Paragraph. “If damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, “he who injures an animal has to pay for it⁶⁴Lev. 24:18, incorrect quote. In the Babli, 10b, R. Ammi (Immi) explains יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה “pay for it” by יַשְׁלִימֶנָּה “shall supplement it,” i. e., pay the difference between the value of the living animal and the carcass. This argument has to be read into the quote here.,” he has to pay the diminution in value. Bar Pedaiah said, “if it was torn, he shall bring it up to the place of the carcass, for which he does not have to pay.⁶⁵Ex. 22:12. The sentence has become unintelligible because it mixes quote and two distinct interpretations. Verses 9–12 refer to the person who undertook to watch over another’s property and is paid for his services. If there was a loss because of theft, the watchman has to pay because he failed to prevent the theft (v. 11). If livestock was lost to predatory animals, the watchman “has to bring it עד”. The masoretic vocalization עֵד means (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15 in the name of R. Joshia; Babli 11a) that witnesses who testify that the loss was caused by a lion or similar large animal against which the watchman was powerless, will free the watchman from his obligation to pay. He will have to pay for losses caused by smaller animals which attack by stealth. The other interpretations read עַד, either עַד I “until”, or עַד III “torn, robbed by the enemy”. In the Babli, 11a, and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai22:12, Abba Shaul reads “he shall bring the torn,” meaning that he does not have to pay for the residual value of the carcass. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15, R. Jonathan reads “he has to bring the owners to the place [of the attack]” to support his claim that the attack was by a large animal against whom he was powerless. The insertion of “up to the place” into Bar Pedaiah’s quote follows R. Jonathan, but his interpretation is that of Abba Shaul.” Rebbi Nasa said, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed. If only the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina was given but not that of Bar Pedaiah, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he should not have to pay anything but for bodily damage he has to pay the diminution in value⁶⁶Since the verse in Lev. only requires payment by a person who attacks an animal, not if the damage was caused by negligence.. Therefore, Bar Pedaiah’s quote is necessary. But if only the quote of Bar Pedaiah was given but not that of Rebbi Ḥanina, I would have said that if he made the damage possible⁶⁷By his negligence. he has to pay the diminution in value, but for bodily damage he has to pay the whole⁶⁸As one would understand from Lev. 24:18 without R. Immi’s interpretation.. Therefore, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.

HALAKHAH: “If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr that watching for damages is on the level of an unpaid trustee¹³⁰The unpaid trustee has to pay only if anything happens because of his negligence. Therefore, it seems that R. Eleazar refers to R. Meïr’s position as articulated in Tosephta and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Note 127.; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee¹³¹The paid trustee has to pay for any damage which it was in his power to prevent. R. Jehudah frees the person guarding a notorious bull from being liable only because of an exemption granted by the verse.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull¹³²In E and Rashba: “a tame bull”. This seems to be required by the next paragraph. to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable¹³⁰The unpaid trustee has to pay only if anything happens because of his negligence. Therefore, it seems that R. Eleazar refers to R. Meïr’s position as articulated in Tosephta and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Note 127.; if it went out and became torn¹³³The bull is attacked and severely damaged by another., he is not liable¹³⁴In E and Rashba: “is liable”. In Rashba’s explanation, the person who accepts the duty to watch over an animal becomes liable if the animal is damaged.
The text of L seems to be preferable since the unpaid trustee is freed from liability if he can swear that the damage was not caused by his negligence.. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable¹³⁵It seems that one has to read: “is liable”. The clause is missing in Rashba’s quote.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah: If one handed over a notorious bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable¹³⁶Since even the paid shepherd does not have to pay for the torn, by Ex. 22:12.. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable¹³⁷Even though Ex. 22:12 frees the paid trustee from paying for a torn animal, here he should have prevented the bull from getting out in the first place.. Rebbi Eleazar said, was it not watched? But the Torah declared him liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, for every guarding required by the Torah, even if it was done by enclosing in an iron wall, one only qualifies by personal presence¹³⁸Mechanical devices cannot replace personal supervision. Even the unpaid trustee will be liable if he relies on a mechanical device instead of his personal supervision.. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.