## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma Chapter 1

###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:1)

**משנה:** אַרְבָּעָה אָבוֹת נְזִיקִין הַשּׁוֹר וְהַבּוֹר וְהַמַּבְעֶה וְהַהֶבְעֵר. לֹא הַשּׁוֹר כַּהֲרֵי הַמַּבְעֶה וְלֹא הַמַּבְעֶה כַּהֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר. לֹא זֶה וָזֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן רוּחַ חַיִים כַּהֲרֵי הָבּוֹר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ רוּחַ חַיִים לֹא זֶה וָזֶה שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק כַּהֲרֵי הָאֵשׁ שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַזִּיק וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** There are four main categories of damages¹ 21–22, as explained in the Halakhah.: The bull² 21:28–32;35–36., and the pit³ 21:33–34., and the devourer⁴ 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 fire⁵ 22:5.. The bull is not like the devourer, nor the devourer like the bull⁶; neither of them who are alive is like the pit⁷ which is not alive, nor either of them which move in causing damage is like the fire⁷ 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 land⁸ 22:4..

footnotes:
¹ Most rules of payment for damages may be derived from the examples of damages treated in Ex.
² An agressive bull goring with his horns; Ex.
³ A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex.
⁴ Damage caused by an animal other than goring: feeding (“the tooth”) and trampling (“the foot”), Ex.
⁵ Ex.
⁶ Since 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.
⁷ It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched.
⁷ It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched.
⁸ If 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:2)

**הלכה:** אַרְבָּעָה אָבוֹת נְזִיקִין כול׳. הַשּׁוֹר זֶה הַקֶּרֶן. דְּכְתִיב כִּי יִגֹּף שׁוֹר אִישׁ אֶת שׁוֹר רְעֵהוּ וגו׳. עַד כְדוּן בְּתָם. בְּמוּעָד מְנַיִין. אוֹ נוֹדַע כִי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא וגו׳. הַבּוֹר. כִּי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר וגו׳ בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם וגו׳. הַמַּבְעֶה. כִּי יַבְעֵר אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶרֶם וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה. זֶה הָרֶגֶל. דִּכְתִיב מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחַמּוֹר. וּכְתִיב הָסֵר מְסוּכָּתוֹ וְהָיָה לְבָעֵר. זֶה הַשֵּׁן. פְּרוֹץ גְּדֵירוֹ וְהָיָה לְמִרְמָס. זֶה הָרֶגֶל. וְהַהֶבְעֵר. דִּכְתִיב כִּי תֵצֵא אֵשׁ וּמָצְאָה קוֹצִים וגו׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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,⁹ 21:35.” etc. So far a harmless animal¹⁰. From where a notorious [dangerous] one¹¹? “Or it was known that it be a goring bull,¹² 21:36.” etc. The pit, “if a man open a pit,” etc.; “the pit’s owner has to pay,³ 21:33–34.” etc. The devourer: “If a person causes a field or a vineyard to be despoiled by *sending* his animals;¹³ 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 written¹⁴ 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 written¹⁵ 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 written⁵ 22:5.: “If fire starts and finds thistles,” etc.

footnotes:
⁹ Ex.
¹⁰ It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused.
¹¹ For which full damages have to be paid.
¹² Ex.
³ A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex.
¹³ Ex.
¹⁴ Is.
¹⁵ Is.
⁵ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:3)

אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. אַרְבָּעָה אָבוֹת נְזִיקִין. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר. נֶזֶק צַעַר רִיפּוּי שֶׁבֶת וּבוֹשֶׁת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה. מַה דְתַנִּינָן אֲנָן לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקִין. מַה דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה בֵּין לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקִין בֵּין לְנִיזְקֵי גוּפוֹ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי שָׁאַל. הֵיךְ תַּנִּינָן. אַרְבָּעָה אָבוֹת נְזִיקִין. אִם הַכֹּל אָמוּר בְּשׁוֹר אֶחָד נִיתְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאִם הַכֹּל אָמוּר בְּשׁוֹר שְׁלֹשָׁה נִיתְנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה. אֶלָּא כְּמַה דְאִישְׁתָּעֵי קִרְיָיא אִישְׁתָּעְיַית מַתְנִיתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
We have stated: “Four main categories of damages.” But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thirteen¹⁶: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame¹⁷ 21:19. “Suffering” means [payment for]bodily pain; “shame” refers to [payment for] mental anguish caused by loss of face.; the unpaid trustee, and the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter¹⁸ 7:9 (based on *Ex.* 22:6–12). The unpaid trustee does not pay if he can swear that he did not use the property; the borrower pays for everything; the paid trustee and the renter have to pay for what was lost or stolen but may swear that it was not their fault if the damage was caused by an act of God or forcible robbery.. Say now, what we stated [refers to] responsibility for damages¹⁹ Sinai 133 (2004) 174–180 (Hebrew); but the relation was already noted by Eliahu Fulda.]. All damages payable for actions of one’s animals are really fines for the owner’s negligence in watching his animal.. What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated [refers to] both responsibility for damages and bodily injury²⁰. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: How can we state “four main categories”? If everything was said about one bull; let us state “three,” if it was said about three bulls, let us state “five”²¹! But as it is presented in the verse, thus it is presented in the Mishnah¹ and *tooth* are interpretations of one and the same verse, they are counted as one in the Mishnah.²³ 2:4 (Note 192)..

footnotes:
¹⁶ Tosephta 9:1; Babli 4b in the name of R. Hoshaia. The list contains 9 items; together with the 4 mentioned in the Mishnah there are 13.
¹⁷ These five kinds of payment are due for injuries suffered at the hands of another person, Mishnah 8:1; it is based on Ex.
¹⁸ These four entries do not refer to kinds of payments for damages but to the obligations of persons who hold other people’s property in case that property is lost, stolen, or damaged, as specified in Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a
¹⁹ A literal translation would be: “Qualification for damages”. The reference is to Mishnah 2: “Anything which I am obliged to guard, I qualify [myself as responsible] for damages.” [Noted by S. Pinchas, New explanations of some unclear passages in the Yerushalmi,
²⁰ In the Babli, 4b, this explanation is attributed to Samuel.
²¹ Of the categories of damages indicated in the Mishnah, three refer to actions of cattle: goring, trampling, and feeding. If one classifies the damages according to their origins, there should be three (cattle, humans, fire); if by categories there should be five.
¹ Since foot
²³ A similar expression is used in Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:4)

תּוֹלְדוֹת הַקֶּרֶן. נְגִיחָה נְגִיפָה נְשִׁיכָה רְבִיצָה בְעִיטָה דְחִיָיה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק מַקְשֵׁי. נְגִיפָה נְגִיחָה עִיקָּר הֵן וְאַתְּ עֲבִיד לוֹן תּוֹלְדוֹת. אֶלָּא מַתְחִיל בָּעִיקָּר וּמְסַיֵים בְּתוֹלְדוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The derivatives of the horn²⁴ 7 (9d l. 61), “pushing” is missing. In the Babli, 2b, the list is even shorter. In *Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim* 12, the formulation of the list is attributed to R. Josia. The Babli’s list is also in *Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, Mišpaṭim,* p. 278.: Goring²⁵21:28,31) used to describe the attack by an animal on a human., hitting²⁶ 22:35, used for attacks on other animals., biting²⁷, wallowing, kicking, and pushing²⁸. Rebbi Isaac asked: Hitting and goring are fundamental²⁹, and you call them derivative? But he starts with the fundamentals and ends with the derivatives³⁰.

footnotes:
²⁴ In a differently formulated version in Šabbat
²⁵ The biblical expression (Ex.
²⁶ Ex.
²⁷ Since the animal bites with the intent of causing damage, biting is put in the category of goring, “horn”, rather than under feeding, “the mouth”.
²⁸ Pushing with its body, not its horns.
²⁹ Anything mentioned in the biblical text is fundamental; any damage not mentioned in the biblical text is a derivative of one of the biblical causes.
³⁰ In the Babli, this is a declarative statement.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:5)

תּוֹלְדוֹת הַבּוֹר. כָּל פִּירְקָא תְלִיתָיָיא דְתַנִּינָן בִּנְזִיקִין. רִבִּי תַנֵּי. הִנִּיחַ גַּחֶלֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּצְלוּחִיתוֹ בְיָדוֹ. נִשְׂרְפוּ כֵלָיו וְנִשְׁבְּרָה צְלוּחִיתוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַצְּלוּחִית מִשּׁוּם בּוֹר וְעַל הַכֵּלִים מִשּׁוּם אֵשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Derivatives of the pit: The entire third Chapter of Mishnah *Neziqin*³¹ Chapter 3. The “pit” is the paradigm for any obstacle put in the public domain by a private person.. Rebbi stated: Somebody put a glowing coal in the public domain, another person came and stumbled over it while a flask was in his hand³². If as a consequence that person’s clothing was singed and the flask in his hand was broken, he³³ is obligated for the flask because of ‘pit’, and for the garments because of ‘fire’.

footnotes:
³¹ Bava qamma
³² A typical scenario discussed in Chapter 3.
³³ The person who caused the accident by leaving the burning coal in the public domain.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:6)

תּוֹלְדוֹת הָרֶגֶל. תַּנֵּי. בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיקָה בֵּין בְּיָדָהּ בֵּין בְּרַגְלָהּ בֵּין בְְּקַרְנָהּ בֵּין בְּעוֹל שֶׁעָלֶיהָ בֵּין בְּשָׁלִיף שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בֵּין בָּעֲגָלָה שֶׁהִיא מוֹשֶׁכֶת. מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. וְהַמַּזִּיק בַּכַּרְמְלִית מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Derivatives of the ‘foot’: It was stated³⁴: For an animal which entered a private property³⁵ 22:4 limits strict responsibility of the owner to an animal of his which causes damage “on another person’s field”; full damages for *foot* and *tooth* are due only for damages caused on private property of a person other than the animal’s owner. and caused damage, whether by its forefoot, or by its hindfoot, or by its horn³⁶, or by the yoke on it, or by a sack on it, or by the carriage it was drawing, one pays full damages. And one who causes damage in a *karmelit* pays full damages³⁷ is a part of the public domain not really accessible to the public. The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use for walking because of stairs extending from houses or the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as path for use by the farmers working adjacent fields. For the rules of the Sabbath, *karmelit* is neither private nor public..

footnotes:
³⁴ Tosephta 1:6; a different version in the Babli 17b.
³⁵ Since Ex.
³⁶ Not by goring but by causing damage walking.
³⁷ This sentence refers to the topic of Chapter Two and states that the notion of “private domain” for torts is not identical with the same notion for property rights. Karmelit


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:7)

תּוֹלְדוֹת הַשֵּׁן. הֲווֹן בְעַיָין מֵימַר. פָּרָה שֶׁאָכְלָה שְׂעוֹרִים וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁאָכַל כַּרשִׁינִין וְכֶלֶב שֶׁלִּיקְלֵק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲזִיר שֶׁאָכְלָה בָשָׂר כּוּלְּהוֹן תּוֹלְדוֹת הַשֵּׁן אִינּוּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. כּוּלְּהוֹן עִיקַּר שֵׁן אִינּוּן. וְהָא תַאנֵי. תּוֹלְדֹת הַשֵּׁן. בְּשֶׁדָּרְסָה עַל גַּבֵּי נוֹד מָלֵא שֶׁמֶן. וּבְסִיכָה גּוּפָהּ נֶהֱנֶה כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן הַשֵּׁן אוֹכֶלֶת וְהַגּוּף נֶהֱנֶה. אוֹף הָכָא נֶהֱנֶה גוּפָהּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת וּפוֹלֶטֶת עֲשָׂבִים מַהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה אִם הַמַּנִּיחַ גַּחֶלֶת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא מִתְהַלֶּכֶת הִיא מַזֶּקֶת. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּמַנִּיחַ סַכִּין סְמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן. הָאֵשׁ נוֹגֵעַ מִצַּד אֶחַד וְנִתְחַלְחֵל כּוּלּוֹ. אוֹף הָכָא. אָדָם נוֹגֵעַ מִצַּד אֶחַד וְנִתְחַלְחֵל כּוּלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי בּוֹר מָלֵא מַיִם וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה גְדִי קָטָן וְנִכְנְסוּ מַיִם דֶּרֶךְ אָזְנָיו וְנִתְחַלְחֵל כּוּלּוֹ. וָכָא נִתְחַלְחֵל כּוּלּוֹ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת וּמְעַקֶּרֶת עֲשָׂבִים בְּגוּפָהּ וּבְקַרְנָהּ מַהוּ. שִׁינּוּי הוּא. דַּרְכָּהּ לָכֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Derivatives of the tooth. They wanted to say that if a cow ate barley³⁸, or a donkey ate leeks, or a dog licked olive oil, or a pig³⁹ ate meat, all of these are derivatives of the tooth. Rebbi Isaac said, all these are of the essence of the tooth. But did we not state “derivatives of the tooth”? If it stepped on a skin full of oil⁴⁰, since its body enjoys anointing. As one says in general, the tooth eats and the body enjoys, so also here the body enjoys. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If in walking if was disgorging grasses⁴¹, what is the rule? Rebbi Yose said, just as one who puts a burning coal to⁴²., that the hot coal was put on the border but not strictly inside the public domain. the public domain, it causes damage as far as it moves⁴³. What does this mean? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if somebody puts a knife close to the public domain⁴⁴. As you say there, if the fire touches one side, it trembles in its entirety, so also here, a human touches⁴⁵ on one side and trembles in his entirety. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: If a pit is full of water and a small lamb fell in, if water enters its ears it trembles in its entirety, so here it trembles in its entirety. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If in walking it tore out grasses with its body or its horns, what is the rule? Is this out of the ordinary? It is its common behavior⁴⁶.

footnotes:
³⁸ Babli 19b. It will be established later that the owner of an animal is guilty of negligence if he does not prevent his animal from causing foreseeable damage. But if the animal shows unusual, not foreseeable, behavior, he pays only half the damage caused by it. One might assume that if an animal eats anything that does not belong to its regular feed the owner should pay only half of the damages. This is rejected; all edibles are potential feed for all animals.
³⁹ Rashba reads: “A cat ate a large piece of meat”.
⁴⁰ The animal steps on a container of olive oil, breaks it, and by this has its foot drenched in oil. One has to judge this under the rules of damage by “tooth”, not “foot”.
⁴¹ Usually ruminants lie down while ruminating. Kosher animals are all ruminants. If an animal was ruminating while walking, losing some of its cud in walking and thereby causing damage: is this foreseeable or not foreseeable damage?
⁴² The expression מניח ל is very unusual. One would have expected either מניח ב or an additional word like מַנִּיחַ סָמוּךְ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבּים “puts close to the public domain”. This may be intended here, viz
⁴³ The animal is expected to cause damage anywhere it moves; the damage is foreseeable.
⁴⁴ And somebody in the public domain is hurt by it. He shows that this damage has to be judged under the rules of damage by fire.
⁴⁵ The knife.
⁴⁶ The animal’s owner is responsible for the entire damage.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:8)

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. אִם לֹא נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר הָיִיתִי לָמֵד שׁוֹר מִן הַבּוֹר. מָה אִם הַבּוֹר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק חַיָיב לְשַׁלֵּם. שׁוֹר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. אוֹ מָה הַבּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם אַף הַשּׁוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אוֹ מָה הַשּׁוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק אַף בּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר הָיִיתִי לָמֵד שׁוֹר מִן הַבּוֹר. אוֹ אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹר הָיִיתִי לָמֵד בּוֹר מִן הַשּׁוֹר. וְלָמָּה תְנִינָתָהּ הָכָא. דְּאִית לֵיהּ מִילִּין סַגִּין. כֵּן. לֹא הֲרֵי מוֹשָׁב כַּהֲרֵי מִשְׁכָּב וְלֹא הֲרֵי מִשְׁכָּב כַּהֲרֵי מוֹשָׁב. נִיחָא לֹא הֲרֵי מוֹשָׁב כַּהֲרֵי מִשְׁכָּב. אִם מוֹשָׁב בְּטֶפַח יִטְמָא יִטְמָא מִשְׁכָּב בְּאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטִּימֵּא מִשְׁכָּב בְּאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים יִטְמָא מוֹשָׁב בְּטֶפַח. אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר מִשְׁכָּב הָיִיתִי לָמֵד מִשְׁכָּב מִן הַמּוֹשָׁב. אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר מוֹשָׁב הָיִיתִי לָמֵד מוֹשָׁב מִן הַמִּשְׁכָּב. וְלָמָּה תְנִינָתָהּ הָכָא. דְּאִית לִתְנוּיֵיה סַגִּין מִילִּין. כֵּן. לֹא פָרָשַׁת נֵירוֹת כַּהֲרֵי פָרָשַׁת שִׁילּוּחַ טְמֵאִין וְלֹא פָרָשַׁת שִׁילּוּחַ טְמֵאִין כַּהֲרֵי פָרָשַׁת נֵירוֹת. אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר פָּרָשַׁת שִׁילּוּחַ טְמֵאִין הָיִיתִי לָמֵד פָּרָשַׁת שִׁילּוּחַ טְמֵאִין מִפָּרָשַׁת נֵירוֹת. וְלָמָּה תְנִינָתָהּ הָכָא. דְּאִית לִתְנוּיֵיה סַגִּין מִילִּין. כֵּן. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁהֵן בְּצַו מִיַּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת. אַף כָּל שֶׁהוּא בְּצַו מִיַּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. צָרִיךְ הוּא שֶׁיֵּאָמֵר לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְהַשּׁוֹר מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּעָלִין מִיטַּפְּלִין בִּנְבֵילָה. דִּכְתִיב וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ וּכְתִיב בַּבּוֹר וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מִיטַּלְטְלִין. יָצָא אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ הֲנָיָיה בְמוֹתוֹ. וְהָאֵשׁ מְלַמֶּדֶת עַל כּוּלְּהֹן שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב עַל הָאוֹנְסִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 pit⁴⁷. 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 moving⁴⁸ 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 damages⁴⁹. 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 things⁵⁰. Similarly, the seat is not like the bed and the bed is not like the seat⁵¹ 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 impure⁵² 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 impure⁵³ 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 candles⁵⁴ 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 stated⁵⁵ 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 generations⁵⁶ 1:1, *Emor Parašah* 13:1;. Rebbi La said, it is necessary that all⁵⁷ be written; and the bull teaches that the owners have to deal with the cadaver⁵⁸ 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”⁵⁹! Rebbi Ismael said, this excludes real estate which cannot be moved⁶⁰; it excludes a human because there can be no usufruct from him in death⁶¹. But the fire teaches for all of them that one is responsible for accidents⁶² 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..

footnotes:
⁴⁷ He wants to prove that the different categories mentioned in the biblical text are necessary; one cannot be subsumed under the other.
⁴⁸ But for damages inflicted through goring by an animal which has no history of doing so the owner pays only half, Ex..
⁴⁹ This 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.
⁵⁰ The 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.
⁵¹ In the rules of impurity of the sufferer from gonorrhea, Lev.
⁵² Babli Me‘ilah
⁵³ There is no logical necessity here. The rules for the impurity of beds are detailed in Sifra Meṣora‘, Pereq Zabim, Pereq 2, Parašah 2;
⁵⁴ Baraita
⁵⁵ As Ravad notes in his Commentary to Sifra,
⁵⁶ Quoted in Sifra Ṣaw
⁵⁷ The four categories mentioned in the Mishnah.
⁵⁸ Ex.
⁵⁹ This 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.
⁶⁰ This 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.
⁶¹ Similarly in Tosephta 6:14; Babli 53b.
⁶² This is another commentary on R. La’s statement. Also damages for losses by fire teach another principle. Since Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:9)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. אָדָם שֶׁחָבַל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ תְּחִילָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְנַעֲשֶׂה נִזָּק חַיָיב. דִּכְתִיב וּמַכֶּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה. יְשַׁלֵּם פְּחָתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said: This means that a person who injured another first has to pay even if he later becomes injured, as is written: “He who injures an animal has to pay for it,” he has to pay the diminution in value⁶³.

footnotes:
⁶³ The statement of R. Yose belongs to the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah, that if damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages. The sentence starting with “as is written” does not belong to R. Yose’s text.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:10)

פִּיסְקָא. וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַכֶּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה. יְשַׁלֵּם פְּחָתָהּ. בַּר פְּדָיָיה אָמַר. אִם טָרֹף יִטָּרֵף יְבִיאֵהוּ עֵד מְקוֹם הַטְּרֵיפָה לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי נָסָא. צוֹרְכָה לְהָדָא דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְצוֹרְכָה לְהָדָא דְּבַר פְּדָיָיה. אִילּוּ אִיתְאֲמָרַת דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְלֹא אִיתְאֲמָרַת דְּבַר פְּדָיָיה. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. לְהֶכְשֵׁר נִזְקֵיהּ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם. לְנִזְקֵי גוּפָה יְשַׁלֵּם פְּחָתָהּ. הֲוֵי. צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֵּאָמֵר דְּבַר פְּדָיָיה. אוֹ אִילּוּ אִיתְאֲמָרַת דְּבַר פְּדָיָיה וְלֹא אִיתְאֲמָרַת דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. לְהֶכְשֵׁר נִזְקֵיהּ יְשַׁלֵּם פְּחָתָהּ. לְנִיזְקֵי גוּפָה יְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. הֲוֵי. צוֹרֶךְ שֶׁיֵּאָמֵר דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְצוֹרֶךְ שֶׁיֵּאָמֵר דְּר׳ פְּדָיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 it⁶⁴ 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.⁶⁵ 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 Ioḥai*22:12, 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 value⁶⁶ 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 possible⁶⁷ he has to pay the diminution in value, but for bodily damage he has to pay the whole⁶⁸ 24:18 without R. Immi’s interpretation.. Therefore, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ Lev.
⁶⁵ Ex.
⁶⁶ Since the verse in Lev.
⁶⁷ By his negligence.
⁶⁸ As one would understand from Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:11)

רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. אֵין שָׁמִין לֹא לַגַּנָּב וְלֹא לַגַּזְלָן וְלֹא לַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶלָּא לִנְזָקִין. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אַף לַשּׁוֹאֵל אֵין שָׁמִין. וְאַבָּא מוֹדֶה לִי. וּמָאן הוּא אַבָּא. רִבִּי אוֹ אַבָּא בַּר אֲבוּהַ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. נַעֲשֶׂה עִיקָּר טְפֵילָה. אָתָא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. אֵין שָׁמִין לֹא לַגַּנָּב וְלֹא לַגַּזְלָן וְלֹא לַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶלָּא לִנְזָקִין. וְהַשּׁוֹמְרִין כִּנְזָקִין הֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁶⁹ Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates⁷⁰ neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower but only for damages, and I⁷¹ am saying that even for the borrower one does not estimate, and Abba agrees with me. Who is Abba? Rebbi⁷² or Rabba bar Abuha⁷³. Rav Ḥisda said, this treats the main event as an accessory⁷⁴ 22:13, it should be obvious that he has to pay in full by biblical standards. One cannot understand why Samuel would treat the case of the borrower as an appendix to the laws of torts.. There came⁷⁵ Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower⁷⁶97a, comes to the opposite conclusion. but only for damages, and watchmen fall under the rules of damages⁷⁷.

footnotes:
⁶⁹ A consistent text is in the Babli, 11a.
⁷⁰ Thiefs, robber, and borrowers who broke what they borrowed have to pay the entire damage which they caused, without deduction for the residual value of what they might return of the things they took.
⁷¹ This is Samuel speaking. After he reported the traditional opinion, he adds his own extension of the rule.
⁷² This certainly should read: “Rav”, who in the Babli is recorded as having ruled in an actual case that the borrower has to pay in full.
⁷³ Rav Abba, a slightly younger contemporary of Samuel and, like Samuel, teacher of R. Naḥman bar Jacob.
⁷⁴ Since the borrower has to pay for accidental damage, Ex.
⁷⁵ Here the name of a Galilean Amora who adopted the positions of Rav Jehudah and Samuel is missing.
⁷⁶ The Babli, 11a and Bava meṣi‘a
⁷⁷ As explained in the preceding paragraph.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:1:12)

רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. הָּאַנָּס וְהַגַּנָּב וְהַגּוֹזְלָן מָהוּ לָשׁוֹם לָהֶן. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֵין שָׁמִין לֹא לַגַּנָּב וְלֹא לַגּוֹזְלָן. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין שָׁמִין לָהֶן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר מָמָל. חַיִים שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם. חַיִים וְלֹא מֵתִים. עַד כְּדוֹן גְּנֵיבָה. גְּזֵילָה מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵילָה כַּאֲשֶׁר גָּזַל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁸1:4, Notes 466–468. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: Does one estimate for the extortionist, the thief, and the robber? He anwered him: one estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber. From where that one does not estimate for them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double⁷⁹ 22:3; the thief has to pay in full if he cannot return the stolen animal in the shape in which he stole it.;” alive, not dead. That refers to theft; from where for robbery? Rebbi Abin said, “he shall return the robbed object in the state in which he robbed it.⁸⁰ 5:23. The explanation adds one letter to the biblical text, changing the somewhat redundant description וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזַל “let him return the robbed object which he robbed” into וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה כַּאֲשֶׁר גָּזַל “let him return the robbed object *in the state in* which he robbed *it*.””

footnotes:
⁷⁸ There exists a parallel text, from a different redaction, in Qiddušin
⁷⁹ Ex.
⁸⁰ Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:2:1)

**משנה:** כָּל שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִשְׁמִירָתוֹ הִכְשַׁרְתִּי אֶת נִזְקוֹ. הִכְשַׁרְתִּי בְּמִקְצָת נִזְקוֹ חַבְתִּי בְתַשְׁלוּמֵי נִזְקוֹ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר כָּל נִזְקוֹ. נְכָסִים שֶׁל בְּנֵי בְרִית וּנְכָסִים הַמְיוּחָדִים חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** ⁸¹ Anything I am obligated to watch⁸² I did set up for damage claims. If I partially set up for damage claims I am liable for claims as if I had set up for any claims⁸³. ⁸⁴,” i. e., the laws of restitution only apply to profane objects. Properties of people of the covenant⁸⁵ and private property, except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage⁸⁶; but property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage⁸⁷ falls under the rules of restitution.

footnotes:
⁸¹ Compared to the Mishnah in the Babli and in the independent Mishnah mss., this Mishnah is very much abridged. The Halakhah in parts refers to the longer version.The Mishnah is explained in detail in the Tosephta 1:1.
⁸² E. g., cattle or a pit in the ground.
⁸³ If there was a shallow pit in the ground and a person came and deepened it to become a real danger, that person becomes liable for any damages caused by the pit.
⁸⁴ Missing here: “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta
⁸⁵ Damages to Gentile property cannot be prosecuted in rabbinic court.
⁸⁶ Where usually the property owner cannot be sued.
⁸⁷ Who might have to share the cost of damages.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:2:2)

**הלכה:** כָּל שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִשְׁמִירָתוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. זֶה הַשּׁוֹר וְהַבּוֹר. וְהָאֵשׁ לֹא תָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִין כֵּינִי הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו הַהַתְרָיָיה בְדַעַת זוֹ וְלוֹקֶה. מַאי כְדוֹן. הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו נֶזֶק צַעַר רִיפּוּי שֶׁבֶת וּבוֹשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Anything I am obligated to watch I did set up for damage claims,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁸⁸: This refers to cattle and pit. But he did not state “fire”⁸⁹. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the fire set up for damage claims⁹⁰? Rebbi Yose said, if the fire were [more than] damage claims, should he not accept warning according to this opinion and be whipped⁹¹? How is this? The fire in setting up for damage claims he accepts [responsibility] for damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame¹ 21:19. “Suffering” means [payment for]bodily pain; “shame” refers to [payment for] mental anguish caused by loss of face.⁹².

footnotes:
⁸⁸ Tosephta 1:1.
⁸⁹ The same question in the Babli, 9b.
⁹⁰ If a person is injured by fire, even if the fire was started completely legally, he is treated as being injured by the direct action of the person starting the fire. This responsibility exceeds by far the responsibility of a rancher to watch his herd or of the person digging a pit in the public domain.
⁹¹ Injuring another person is a criminal act subject to prosecution. We do not find that a person making a legal fire might be criminally prosecuted.
¹ These five kinds of payment are due for injuries suffered at the hands of another person, Mishnah 8:1; it is based on Ex.
⁹² This is the excess liability which puts fire in a category different from cattle and pit.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:2:3)

הִכְשַׁרְתִּי בְּמִקְצָת נִזְקוֹ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר כָּל נִזְקוֹ. זֶה הַבּוֹר. דְּתַנֵּי. חָפַר בּוֹר עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּבָא אַחֵר וְעָמַק בּוֹ טֶפַח הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָיב. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אַחַר הָאַחֲרוֹן לְמִיתָה וְאַחַר הָרִאשׁוֹן לִנְזָקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן לְמִיתָה וְאַחַר שְׁנֵיהֶן לִנְזָקִין. חָפַר בּוֹ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּבָא אַחֵר וְסִיָידוֹ וְכִיָירוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָיבִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסִיָידוֹ וְכִיָירוֹ יְהֵא חַיָיב. בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ. סוֹד אֶת הַ(בַּיִת) [בּוֹר] הַזֶּה וּקְנֵה אוֹתוֹ. דָּמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כִּשְׁמִירַת קִנְיָין. אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּחוֹפֵר בַּחוֹלוֹת. דְּתַנֵּי. חָפַר זֶה עֲשָׂרָה וְזֶה עֲשָׂרָה זֶה עֶשְׂרִים וְזֶה עֶשְׂרִים זֶה מֵאָה וְזֶה מֵאָה כּוּלְּהֹן חַיָיבִין. כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּרָן לְהָמִית. עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וּלְהַזִּיק. כָּל שֶׁהוּא. סוּמַכוֹס אוֹמֵר. לְעוֹמְקוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. לְאוֹרְכּוֹ וְרָחְבּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר הַקַּפָּר אוֹמֵר. כִּמְלוֹאוֹ שֶׁלַּנּוֹפֵל. וּמָהוּ מְלוֹאוֹ שֶׁלַּנּוֹפֵל. אֲפִילוּ תַרְנְגוֹל וַאֲפִילוּ גָמָל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If I partially set up for damage claims” “as if I had set up for any claims.” This is the pit⁸⁸, as it was stated⁹³: If somebody dug a pit ten handbreadths deep⁹⁴ and another came and deepened it another handbreadth, the latter is responsible. Rebbi⁹⁵ R. Jehudah. says, one goes after the latter in case of death and after the former for damages. Rebbi Isaac says: So is the *baraita:* After the latter in case of death and after both of them for damages⁹⁶. If he dug [a pit] ten handbreadths deep and another person came, whitewashed and lined it, both of them are liable⁹⁷. Is he liable because he whitewashed and lined it⁹⁸ 11, and Babli the second one is liable not because he improved the pit but because he did not cover it correctly when he had finished his work, as *Ex.* 21:33 states: “If somebody would open a pit or dig a pit without covering it.” Therefore, the last one to work on the pit is liable if he failed to cover it.? When he told him, whitewash this (house) [pit]⁹⁹ (incorrect). and acquire it¹⁰⁰ cf. *Ketubot* 5:5, Note 100., for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the prevention of damages follows the rules of guarding an acquisition¹⁰¹. Rebbi Simon said, explain it when he was digging in the dunes¹⁰². And it was stated: If each of them dug ten, or each one twenty, or each one a hundred, they are all liable¹¹⁰³. How deep does it have to be¹⁰⁴? To be deadly, ten handbreadths¹⁰⁵. To do damage, anything. Symmachos says¹⁰⁶, three in depth and four in width. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower says, the length of the animal which falls in. What means the length of the animal which falls in? Whether chicken or camel.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ Tosephta 1:1.
⁹³ Tosephta 6:8; Babli 10a (missing in Munich ms.), 51a.
⁹⁴ Since it is stated later in the Halakhah that an animal might be killed if it falls into a pit ten handbreadths deep, it is clear that here it must be assumed that the first digger stopped short of a full ten handbreadths. The second digger then turned an obstacle which might cause damage into an obstacle which endangered the life of animals. In Tosephta and Babli one reads “nine handbreadths”.
⁹⁵ This also is the reading of the Babli and one Tosephta ms. In the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and the editio princeps:
⁹⁶ This is the Babli’s version of Rebbi’s statement. For material damage, anybody who digs in the public domain and does not securely cover the pit is liable for damages.
⁹⁷ Tosephta 6:9, Babli 51a.
⁹⁸ In Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim
⁹⁹ The text in brackets is that of the original scribe (correct); that in parentheses is the corrector’s, copied in editio princeps
¹⁰⁰ By ḥazaqah,
¹⁰¹ Any transfer of property is at the same time transfer of liability for that property.
¹⁰² Where a simple pit would have disappeared in a short time. The second person by installing permanent walls only created the danger.
¹ Tosephta 6:8; Babli 10a (missing in Munich ms.), 51a.
¹⁰³ In the Babylonian sources, one person digs ten, the next enlarges it two twenty, the third digs down to 100.
¹⁰⁴ To require a cover to protect the digger from damage suits; Tosephta 6:12.
¹⁰⁵ This is undisputed in both Talmudim. If an animal is killed falling into a pit less than ten handbreadths deep, it is purely a matter of material damage.
¹⁰⁶ He disagrees only with the statement that any pothole in the public domain is cause for a damage suit; he requires a minimal size.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:2:4)

פִּיסְקָא. נְכָסִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הַנְּכָסִין הַלָּלוּ נִיקְנִין עִם נְכָסִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי. וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר. לְהָבִיא קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסַאי אוֹמֵר. לֹא הָיָה בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא עַל הַבְּכוֹר בִּלְבַד. וּמַה בֵינֵיהוֹן. מָאן דָּמַר שְׁלָמִים כָּל שֶּׁכֵּן מַעֲשֵׂר. וּמָאן דָּמַר מַעֲשֵׂר הָא בְּכוֹר לֹא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֶחָד קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָיב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתֶן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִיחֵשׁ. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בַּיי וְכִיחֵשׁ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁירִין וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים פְּסוּלִין. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָיב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתֶן אֲפִילוּ הֵן לַיי קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִחֵשׁ וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בַּיי וְכִחֵשׁ וְלֹא בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִחֵשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of *sancta*.¹,” i. e., the laws of restitution only apply to profane objects.¹⁰⁷” As it was stated: “These properties¹⁰⁸ is not quoted elsewhere, it is not known what “these properties” are. Some commentators want to read הַנְּכָסִים שֶּׁחִלְּלוֹ “properties which he redeemed” (from the Temple administrator). This is very farfetched. are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of *sancta*¹⁰⁹ 1:6), other property can be acquired together with Temple property under the same rules. For example, if the Temple treasurer sold some Temple property together with his own, the entire transaction is legal if done under Temple rules. Similarly, if a person acquires two animals, one dedicated as “Heaven’s property” (elevation, purification, or reparation offering) subject to the laws of misappropriation of *sancta*, the other as “simple sacrifice” (well-being sacrifice) which remains private property, the holier sacrifice determines the rules..” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This¹¹⁰ follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated¹¹¹ 22(3); Babli *Bava qama* 12b–13a, *Temurah* 8a; a related text in Tosephta 7:21. Partial quotes in *Bava batra*123b, *Qiddušin* 52b, *Sanhedrin* 112a, *Zebaḥim* 114a, *Bekhorot* 53b.: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal¹¹². 5:21.,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple *sancta*¹¹³ 5:21 reads: “If a person sins, commits fraud against the Eternal, and lies against his fellow …” it perfectly describes wrongdoing involving simple sancta which in one action represents wrong both against the Eternal and one’s fellow man.. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices¹¹⁴. Abba Yose ben Dosai¹²⁵ says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling¹¹⁶.” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes¹¹⁷. But he who says tithes¹¹⁷ excludes the firstling¹¹⁷. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple *sancta*; about any *sancta* for which he is responsible if alienated¹¹⁸., the first kind of vow is called נֶדֶר “vow”, the second kind is נְדָבָה “free offering”., I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied¹¹². 5:21.’; but about any *sancta* for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”¹¹⁹ in the Babli, *Bava meṣi‘a* 58a/b. Debts towards Heaven have to be discharged at the rate of 125%; those towards one’s fellow man by the rate of 100%.. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified *sancta*¹²⁰, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal¹²¹, I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated¹²², I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.

footnotes:
¹ Missing here: “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta
¹⁰⁷ The laws of torts are “between a man and his neighbor,” which exludes all Temple property and those sacrifices which do not remain the owner’s property.
¹⁰⁸ Since this baraita
¹⁰⁹ Since the Temple acquires and sells property by monetary transaction without any other act of acquisition (Qiddušin
¹¹⁰ He disagrees with the interpretation given and holds that the Mishnah means what it says; only sacrificial animals not under the laws of misappropriation of sancta are subject to the laws of torts.
¹¹¹ Sifra Wayyiqra Dibbura Deḥoba Pereq
¹¹² Lev
¹¹³ In the Babli: “Simple sancta which are his property.” The question raised is the status of firstlings and animal tithe, which are Heaven’s property in the hands of the rancher. Since Lev.
¹¹⁴ And all sacrifices following rules of well-being sacrifices, firstlings, and animal tithe. The firstling has to be given to a Cohen, the animal tithe is eaten by the rancher and his family in Jerusalem; in both cases the altar only receives the blood but no part of the meat.
¹²⁵ Since this statement is already implied by the preceding one.
¹¹⁶ Animal tithes.
¹¹⁷ It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.
¹¹⁷ It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.
¹¹⁷ It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.
¹¹⁸ If a person vows “an animal” as sacrifice and anything happens to the animal designated as sacrifice, he is obligated to provide a replacement; he is responsible for its alienation. But if he vows “this animal” and anything happens to it, he is not obligated to provide a replacement; he is not responsible for its alienation. In Lev
¹¹² Lev
¹¹⁹ An anonymous baraita
¹²⁰ Which for some reason are not accepted by the altar.
¹²¹ Most holy sacrifices which either are holocausts on the altar or whose meat is eaten by male Cohanim within the Temple precinct.
¹²² Even for well-being sacrifices, most of which is eaten by the donor’s family.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:2:5)

פִּיסְקָא. נְכָסִים שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלִּבְנֵי בְרִית. פְּרָט לְשׁוֹר שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁלְּנָכְרִי. מִנְּכָסִין הַמְיוּחָדִין. וְלֹא מִנִּיכְסֵי הֶפְקֵר. חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. נוֹהֲגִין הֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אִילּוּ תַנָּא. חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק וְשָׁתַק. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אֶחָד חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין וְאֶחָד חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן חַיֶיבֶת. וְלָמָּה תַנָּא. נוֹהֲגִין הֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. אֶלָּא זֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנָּא. חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק. אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵן נוֹהֲגִין בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. וְלָמָּה תַנָּא. נוֹהֲגִין הֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין חַיֶיבֶת וְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן פְטוּרָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶם חַיֶיבֶת. מָאן דָּמַר חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין חַיֶיבֶת וְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן פְטוּרָה. דִּכְתִיב מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲפִילוּ חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן חַיֶיבֶת. דִּכְתִיב וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר. מִכָּל מָקוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile¹²³. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued¹²⁴. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”¹²⁵? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter¹ 7:9 (based on *Ex.* 22:6–12). The unpaid trustee does not pay if he can swear that he did not use the property; the borrower pays for everything; the paid trustee and the renter have to pay for what was lost or stolen but may swear that it was not their fault if the damage was caused by an act of God or forcible robbery.¹²⁶. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them¹²⁷. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.¹²⁸ 22:4, speaking of damage inflicted by animals grazing (tooth) and trampling (foot). This paragraph only deals with damage caused by foot and tooth.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.¹²⁸ 22:4, speaking of damage inflicted by animals grazing (tooth) and trampling (foot). This paragraph only deals with damage caused by foot and tooth.”

footnotes:
¹²³ The Gentile cannot claim damages in a Jewish court. In particular, claims for half damages are only possible between Jewish parties; for all others it is all or nothing.
¹²⁴ Since any animal not belonging to the owner of the property is trespassing; the rancher does not have to interfere if his animals defend their territory.
¹²⁵ Since this statement is already implied by the preceding one.
¹ These four entries do not refer to kinds of payments for damages but to the obligations of persons who hold other people’s property in case that property is lost, stolen, or damaged, as specified in Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a
¹²⁶ If somebody received an animal under the terms of one of the four kinds of trusteeship and that animal did damage, the owner is responsible.
¹²⁷ The formulation “courtyard” instead of “property” indicates that in this case both animals are illegally in the place where the damage occurred.
¹²⁸ Ex.
¹²⁸ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:2:6)

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חָצֵר הַשּׁוּתָפִין חַיֶיבֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. וַאֲנָא דְאַיְיתִיתָהּ מֵהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. אַרְבָּעָה כְּלָלוֹת הָיָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר בִּנְזָקִין. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ רְשׁוּת לְנִיזָּק וּלְמַזִּיק כְּגוֹן פוּנְדָקֵי וַחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָפִין וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהֶן. עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הַרֶגֶל פָּטוּר. עַל הַנְּגִיחָה וְהַנְּגִיפָה וְהַנְּשִׁיכָה וְהָרְבִיצָה וְעַל הַבְּעִיטָה וְהַדְּחִיָיה אִם תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָיה. לַנִּיזָּק וְלֹא לַמַּזִּיק חַיָיב בַּכֹּל. לַמַּזִּיק וְלֹא לַנִּיזָּק פָּטוּר מִן הַכֹּל. וְהַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה כְּגוֹן בִּקְעָה וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הַרֶּגֶל פָּטוּר. עַל הַנְּגִיחָה וְעַל הַנְּגִיפָה וְהַנְּשִׁיכָה וְהָרְבִיצָה וְהַבְּעִיטָה וְהַדְּחִיָיה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A condominium courtyard is obligated¹²⁹. Rebbi Yasa said: and I deduced that from what Rebbi Hoshaia stated¹³⁰: Four principles about damages Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar enunciated in Rebbi Meїr’s name: Any place which is permitted to both the person who sustained the damage and the person who caused it, such as a hostelry or a condominium courtyard and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing by a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from [real estate] of the best quality. [Permitted] to the person who sustained the damage but not the person who caused it, he pays everyting. [Permitted] to the person who caused the damage but not the person who sustained it, he is free from everything. And everybody agrees that if neither of them had access, as a valley¹³¹ or public property¹³² and similar situations, he is not liable¹³³ for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing from a tame animal he pays half the damages¹⁰, for a notorious one he pays full damages from his storage room¹¹.

footnotes:
¹²⁹ Based on the preceding paragraph and the following Tosephta, one would have expected “free”, not “obligated”. I. Lewy emends the text in this sense, but R. Eliahu Fulda notes: “I do not feel empowered to emend.”
¹³⁰ Tosephta 1:9, Babli 14a.
¹³¹ בקעה “valley” is agricultural land accessible only by footpaths, without roadway. During the growing season it is clear that the only animals allowed there are the owners’ beasts used for agricultural work; one has to assume that the Tosephta refers to the time between harvest and new ploughing. In both Babylonian texts, the “valley” is classified as permitted to both parties.
¹³² It is difficult to understand what is meant; in both Babylonian texts, “public domain” is classified as permitted to both parties. One has to assume that what is meant is neither a public road nor commons, but public property barred to private animals, such as a park. In the Babylonian texts, the sentence refers to a courtyard owned by a third party.
¹³³ In both Babylonian texts: “is liable”.
¹⁰ It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused.
¹¹ For which full damages have to be paid.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:3:1)

**משנה:** שׁוּם כֶּסֶף שָׁוֶה כֶסֶף בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְעַל פִּי עֵדִים בְּנֵוּ חוֹרִין בְּנֵי בְרִית. וְהַנָּשִׁים בְּכְלָל הַנֶּזֶק וְהַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Estimation¹³⁴ and determination¹³⁵ of money’s worth is by a court based on testimony of free persons of the Covenant. Women are under the rule of torts¹³⁶ and sometimes both the person who causes and the one who suffers the damage pay¹³⁷.

footnotes:
¹³⁴ The estimation of the damage sustained.
¹³⁵ The determination of the value of land which the person liable for the damage has to pay.
¹³⁶ In contrast to minors and slaves who cannot be sued.
¹³⁷ In cases of damage through goring by a tame animal, when the owner of the animal only pays for half the damage. This is considered a fine; a restitution would be payment of full damages; the rules of fines do not apply to Gentiles.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:3:2)

**הלכה:** שּׁוּם כֶּסֶף שָׁוֶה כֶסֶף כול׳. אֵין אוֹמְרִים תֵּצֵא פָרָה בְטַלִּית. אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִין בְּבֵית דִּין. שָׁוֶה כֶסֶף. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁמִין אֶלָּא נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת. וְאִם תָּפַשׂ הַנִּיזָּק בִּמְטַלְטְלִין שָׁמִין לוֹ מֵהֶן. בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין שָׁמִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין. עַל פִּי עֵדִים. שֶׁאֵין שָׁמִין אֶלָּא עַל פִּי עֵדִים. בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וּבְנֵי בְרִית. יָצְאוּ גּוֹיִם וַעֲבָדִים וּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת. וְנָשִׁים בְּכְלָל הַנֶּזֶק. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא תָפַשׂ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא אֶת הָאִישׁ צָרִיךְ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם. וְהַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק. מִיכַּן שֶׁמְּחַצִּין אֶת הַנֶּזֶק. מִיכָּן שֶׁזֶּה מַפְסִיד חֲצִי נֶזֶק וְזֶה מַפְסִיד חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Estimation and determination of money’s worth,” etc. ¹³⁸ in the Babli, 14b, 15a. One does not say that a cow be compensated for by a stole¹³⁹, but one appraises all property in court. “Money’s worth,” this teaches that the court only appraises mortgageable property¹⁴⁰. But if the person suffering damage appropriated movables, one appraises those¹⁴¹. “By a court”, this teaches that one only appraises in court¹⁴². “Based on testimony”, for one only appraises by testimony¹⁴³. “Of free persons of the Covenant”, this excludes Gentiles, and slaves, and persons disqualified for testimony¹⁴⁴. “Women are under the rule of torts”; since the verse¹⁴⁵ 21–22. speaks only of men, it is necessary to include women: Rebbi Ismael stated, “these are the laws which you shall put before them¹⁴⁶21:1, is formulated gender neutral. In the Babli, 15b, this argument is attributed to R. Eleazar.” “And sometimes¹⁰ both the person who causes and the one who suffers the damage pay”; they pay half the damage. From here, that one splits the damage; each one loses half the value of the damage.

footnotes:
¹³⁸ The Halakhah is a parallel, shorter version of Tosephta 1:2,3 and parallel beraitot
¹³⁹ In Tosephta and Babli (and a Genizah fragment of the Yerushalmi): “a cow is compensated for by a stole and a stole by a cow”, explained in the Babli that the stole injured the cow and the cow tore the stole. This sentence is only an amplification of the expression “estimation of money’s worth”.
¹⁴⁰ The Babli, 14b, after a lengthy discussion comes to the conclusion that “money’s worth” in contrast to “money” means real estate whose value can only be established by appraisal, not by barter.
¹⁴¹ The two Babylonian sources point out that in case the person liable for damages had died, the injured party is absolutely barred from appropriating movables from the estate.
¹⁴² The two Babylonian sources insist that the only court competent in the matter is the permanent court of the community. This interpretation also has to be accepted in the Yerushalmi since imposing fines is restricted to judges qualified to sit in criminal cases.
¹⁴³ Since payment of half the damages has the status of a fine, not of restitution, the court cannot recognize an admission of liability by either of the parties since “nobody can be sentenced to a fine based on his confession” (Babli 14b).
¹⁴⁴ While the same statement is also found in the Tosephta, it is clear that people disqualified for testimony, such as professional gamblers, are excluded by the requirement of testimony in court.
¹⁴⁵ Ex.
¹⁴⁶ The introductory sentence, Ex.
¹⁰ It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:4:1)

**משנה:** חֲמִשָּׁה תַמִּין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מוּעָדִין הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מוּעֶדֶת לֹא לִיגַּח וְלֹא לִיגּוֹף וְלֹא לִישּׁוֹךְ וְלֹא לִרְבּוֹץ וְלֹא לִבְעוֹט. הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת לוֹכַל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ. שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד וְשׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזּוֹק וְהָאָדָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Five harmless¹⁴⁷ and five notorious animals. An animal is not known to gore, nor to hit, nor to bite, nor to lie down, nor to kick. The tooth is known to eat what is appropriate for it¹⁴⁸. A notorious bull, a bull of the person who causes the damage on the property of the person who suffered the damage, and the human¹⁴⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ Domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, or goats) are not supposed to be agressive unless known to be so. The shephard is not required to watch the animals as if they were ready to be agressive. Even if it is known that an animal is prone to bite, one need not assume that it also will gore, hit with its body, kick with its feet, or lie down on other animals or vessels in order to cause damage. For each one of these categories, the danger from the animal has to be established separately; otherwise the owner only pays half of the damage caused.
¹⁴⁸ If a shepherd leads his flock through a market place, he must assume that his animals will eat any fruit or vegetables near them when they pass by, and he has to take appropriate precautions or pay full damages. But he does not have to assume that his animals will start to eat clay vessels or other inedible matter.A sentence is missing here, found in E, the Mishnah in the Babli, and the independent Mishnah: “The foot is notorious to break anything in its way.” As the Mishnah stands here, there are only four categories of notorious sources of damage.
¹⁴⁹ These three categories pay full damages under any circumstances.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:4:2)

**הלכה:** חֲמִשָּׁה תַמִּין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מוּעָדִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי טַרְפוֹן הִיא. בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק. רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר. נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Five harmless and five notorious animals,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this¹⁵⁰ follows Rebbi Ṭarphon: “In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages.”

footnotes:
¹⁵⁰ That any damage caused in another person’s domain has always to be paid in full. The quote is from Mishnah 2:7. In the Babli, 15b, the statement is attributed to Samuel who takes pains to make clear that the first half of the Mishnah not be in dispute.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:5:1)

**משנה:** הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי הַדּוֹב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלִיס וְהַנָּחָשׁ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מוּעָדִין. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי תַרְבּוּת אֵינָן מוּעָדִין. וְהַנָּחָשׁ מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם. מַה בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִגּוּפוֹ וְהַמּוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger¹⁵¹, and the panther¹⁵² “pole cat”. In the Babli, 16a, Rav Jehudah translates ברדלס by נפריזא which the later Rav Joseph explains as אפא, ὕαινα ὄφις “hyena-snake”. The latter explanation is excluded here by the Halakhah., and the snake, are notorious¹⁵³. Rebbi Eliezer says, when they are trained¹⁵⁴ they are not notorious; except for the snake which always is notorious¹⁵⁵. What is the difference between tame and notorious? The tame pays half the damages from its body¹⁵⁶ 21:35: “They shall sell the bovine and split the money.” and the notorious pays full damages from the storage room¹⁵⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁵¹ As in Arabic, the word denotes leopard, panther, or tiger, i. e., a predator with a striped or dotted fur.
¹⁵² Most moderns identify the word as Greek πάρδαλις “panther”, Arabic ابرد. Rashi everywhere translates putois
¹⁵³ The owner of dangerous pets is always 100% responsible.
¹⁵⁴ Trained circus performers.
¹⁵⁵ The snake charmer does not control his snakes the way a trainer controls his performing animals.
¹⁵⁶ Ex.
¹⁵⁷ I. e., from the owner’s valuables if he does not have enough cash.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/1:5:2)

**הלכה:** הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי וְהַדּוֹב כול׳. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אַף הַצָּבוּעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִיבִּי אָבִין. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בַּצָּבוּעַ זָכָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה כָּאֲרִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The wolf, and the lion, and the bear,” etc. It was stated¹⁵⁸: Rebbi Meїr says, also the hyena. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Meїr only said this for a male hyena which at times is as dangerous as a lion.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁸ Tosephta 1:4; Babli 16a.