## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma Chapter 4

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

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שְׁוָורִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה יְשַׁלֵּם לָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן. אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מוֹתָר יַחֲזִיר לְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מוֹתָר יַחֲזִיר לְשֶׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו הָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִשְׂכָּר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה שָׁוָה כְּלוּם זֶה נוֹטֵל מְנָה וְזֶה נוֹטֵל מְנָה. חָזַר וְנָגַח לְשׁוֹר אַחֵר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מְנָה וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו זֶה נוֹטֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲמִשִּׁים. חָזַר וְנָגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מְנָא וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז וּשְׁנַיִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דֵּינָרֵי זָהָב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A bull which gored four or five bulls, one after the other¹, should pay for the last of them²; it gored *n* bulls, worth *a*1*, a*2*,* … *,a*n. The owner of the last bull claims *a*n/2 from the owner of the bull gored as the penultimate. If *a* - *a*n/2 0, the owner of that bull satisfies himself up to the amount *a*n-1/2. If *a* - *a*n/2 - *a*n-1/2 0, the preceding owner can satisfy himself up to *a*n-2/2, and so on until all of the proceeds *a* are used up. In practically all cases, the owner of the attacking bull ends up with nothing. If there is anything left, it should revert to the penultimate. If then there is anything left, it should revert to the one before the penultimate. The later one is always advantaged, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon³/2; the owner of the penultimate victim then is a 50% owner of the remaining *a*/2, and so on. In this way, the owner of the *j*-th bull gored gets *a*/2; the owner of the attacking bull is left with the same amount as the one given to the owner of the first victim, *a*/2.
If the values of the bulls are distinct, the last owner takes *a*n/2, the one before him
min(*a*n-1/2, *a*/2-*a*n/4)
and so on. says, if a bull worth 200 gored a bull worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, each one takes a mina. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100 and the preceding each take 50. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100, the preceding one takes 50 *zuz*4, and the two first ones each a gold denar⁵.

footnotes:
¹ A tame bull went on a goring spree before it could be declared notorious in court. The damage which it caused has to be liquidated by the rules of the tame bull; i. e., the bull has to be sold and from the proceeds half the damages have to be paid.
² According to R. Meïr, a bull which gored becomes the property of its victim’s owner. The original owner has a claim to the excess of the sale price over the claim for restitution.Assuming that the bull was worth a
³ He holds that the original owner and the owner of the victim become co-owners of the attacking bull. The last owner takes a
⁵ 25 silver denars.


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

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שְׁוָורִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. בָּא עָלָיו רִבִּי מֵאִיר מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. שֶׁלָּךְ הוּא תְּנֵיהוּ לוֹ. אֵינוֹ שֶׁלָּךְ תְּנֵיהוּ לִי שֶׁאַגְבֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כִּשְׁמִירַת קִנְיָין. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוּדָן. וּמְסָרוֹ לוֹ לִנְזָקָיו וְאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A bull which gored four or five bulls,” etc. ⁶ to Mishnah 4:1. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi Meïr attacks him⁷ from two sides: As you take it, if it is yours⁸, give it to me. If it is not yours⁹, hand it over to me that I may satisfy my claim. But did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the guarding of damages parallels the guarding of acquisitions¹⁰ 1, Note 352). Therefore, the potential owner of the bull cannot be liable for the damages done by an animal not in his actual possession.? ¹¹ Rebbi Jehudah told him, it was delivered to him for his damages but it remains a pledge¹².

footnotes:
⁶ The basic explanation of this paragraph is given by Nachmanides, Milḥamot Hashem,
⁷ The arguments given to the owner of the bull gored last against the owner of the bull gored as the penultimate.
⁸ As explained in Note 2.
⁹ But you are part owner as claimed by R. Simeon.
¹⁰ The property rights given by the Torah to the owner of the dead bull is one of ownership, not possession (cf. Qiddušin
¹¹ In the Babli, 26b, this is labelled as R. Aqiba’s opinion.
¹² Since he becomes owner for monetary gain, he is obligated for damages as if he were a paid trustee. The second argument attributed to R. Meïr really is valid only if the penultimate owner actually took possession of the offending bull.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:1:3)

וּמַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. מַקְדִּישׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. שְׁנֵיהֶן מַקְדִּישִׁין אוֹתוֹ. הוֹקִיר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. הוֹקְרָה לָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הוֹקְרָה לַשֵּׁינִי. עָשָׂה שָׂכָר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. הַשָּׂכָר לָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הַשָּׂכָר לִשְׁנֵיהֶן. הִשְׁבִּיחַ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. הִשְׁבִּיחַ לָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הִשְׁבִּיחַ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, dedication is between them. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the first [owner]¹³ may dedicate¹⁴ 5:5, Notes 105–106; Tosephta 5:1; Babli 33b).. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, [only] both together may dedicate it¹⁵. If it went up in price. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, it increased for the first. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, it increased for the second. If it was rented out, in Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the rent belongs to the first. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, [the rent] belongs to both of them. If it improved¹⁶, in Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the improvement belongs to the first. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, the improvement belongs to both of them.

footnotes:
¹³ In this paragraph, one assumes that the bull gored only once. The first owner is the original one; the second is the the owner of the dead bull.
¹⁴ The second owner is co-owner, but as long as he did not actually take possession of the bull, the first can pay him off as mortgage-holder and be both owner and in possession. Therefore, only he may dedicate since nobody can dedicate what is not in his possession (cf. Ketubot
¹⁵ While the bull is still in the possession of the first, ownership belongs to the second. They can only act together. The same reasoning applies to the following examples.
¹⁶ Cf. Chapter 3, Note 130.


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

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. כְּמָה דְרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. קָנָה. כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. קָנָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁרִבִּי יוּדָן אוֹמֵר. קָנָה לַחַי קָנָה לַמֵּת. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא לַמֵּת בִּלְבַד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon stated the same. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, he acquired, so Rebbi Simeon said, he acquired¹⁷, only that Rebbi Jehudah says, he acquired the living and the dead¹⁸; but Rebbi Simeon says he only acquired the (dead)¹⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁷ The owner of the injured animal becomes part owner with the owner of the attacker.
¹⁸ Chapter 3, Note 135; Tosephta 3:3. The owner of the attacker also becomes part owner of the carcass.
¹⁹ This certainly should read: the living. R. Simeon only discusses the case that the carcass be without value; this skirts the issue of ownership of an injured animal.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:1:5)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לַכִּיס. הוֹתִירוּ אוֹ פָחֲתוּ כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים בְּשֶׁנָּטְלוּ מַרְגָּלִית. דִּיכוֹל מֵימַר לֵיהּ אִילּוּלֵא עֲשַׂרְתֵּי דֵינָרַיי לֹא הֲוִיתָה מְזַבִּין כְּלוּן. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֵחָלֵק מֵבִיאִין לָאֶמְצָע וְחוֹלְקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר וַאֲפִילוּ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֵחָלֵק. דִּיכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ פְּרַגְמָטַּיָּא דִידָךְ סַגִּין וְאַתְּ מַנְעָה מַזְבִּנְתָּא. אֲנָא פְּרַגְמָטַּיָּא דִידִי קָלִיל וַאֲנַא הֲפַךְ וּמִתְהַפֵּךְ בְּדִידִי וּמַטִּי בָךְ. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהָיְתָה פְּרַגְמָטַּייוֹ נְתוּנָה כָאן. הָיְתָה פְּרַגְמָטַּייוֹ נְתוּנָה בְּרוֹמֵי. דִּיכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. עַד דְּאַתְּ סְלִיק לְרוֹמֵי אֲנַא הֲפַךְ וּמִתְהַפֵּךְ בְּדִידִי הָכָא וּמַטִּי בָךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁰ 10:4. The text and its relation to the corresponding one in *Ketubot* 10:4 is explained there in Notes 73–75. There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital} one adds together and splits {proportionally to the capital invested}. Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly here and make as much as you do.

footnotes:
²⁰ Mishnah Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:1:6)

תַּנֵּי. שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לַכִּיס וְנִגְנְבוּ כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין. וְהָתַנֵּי. בְּאֵילּוּ אֲבָנִים וְנִגְנְבוּ מֶחֱצָה לָזֶה וּמֶחֱצָה לָזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. סְלָעִים גַּסּוֹת הֵן וְאֶיפְשַׁר לִבְלוֹל לָצֵאת יְדֵי כוּלָּן. אֲבָל אֲבָנִים דַּקּוֹת הֵן וְלֵית יְדַע אִי מִן הָדֵין נְסַב אִי מִן הָדֵין נְסַב. מִסָּפֵק כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִיסוֹ. מַה חֲמִית בִּגְנֵיבָה מֵימַר אֲנָן קַיָימִין אוֹ אֵינָן קַיָימִין אֶלָּא בְּמִשְׁתַּיֵיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. בִּגְנֵיבָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. נִמְצֵאת מִידַּת הַדִּין לוֹקָה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ. דַּהֲוָה לְדֵין חֲמִשִּׁין וּלְדֵין מֵאָה וְחַמִשִׁין. נִגְנְבוּ חֲמִשִּׁין אִישְׁתַּכַּח דְּהָדֵין דַּחֲמִשִׁיתָה דְלָא מִפְּסָד כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: ²¹ 10:4. Three who invested together and suffered theft, absorb [the loss] in the same way²² 10:4 (Note 62).. But was it not stated: If those [precious] stones were stolen, half for each one²³. Rebbi Shammai said, tetradrachmas are large²⁴ and it is possible to subdivide exactly but stones are easy²⁴ and it is impossible to know which part in it belongs to whom. Because of the doubt, each one takes proportional to his investment. What did you see to say that we deal with theft, maybe one deals only with what is left²⁵? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say that we deal with theft, would not equity be hurt? Think of it, if one invested 50 and the other 150. If 50 was stolen, would not the one with 50 not lose anything²⁶ 10:4, the first 50 are claimed by both investors, the remaining 100 only by the second. Therefore, the first gets 25, the second 125; each one loses 25. If the loss were distributed proportional to the investment, the first investor would take 37.5, the second 113.5. It is a matter of opinion which method be more equitable.?

footnotes:
²¹ Tosephta Ketubot
²² The distribution algorithm described in Ketubot
²³ Each of the investors absorbs the same amount of loss.
²⁴ Probably one should interchange the positions of “large” and “easy”. Money can be divided easily and exactly; precious stones are a one or nothing affair as noted in the preceding paragraph.
²⁴ Probably one should interchange the positions of “large” and “easy”. Money can be divided easily and exactly; precious stones are a one or nothing affair as noted in the preceding paragraph.
²⁵ Which is money and therefore easily distributed.
²⁶ This is difficult to understand. There are 150 left and the sum total of the claims is 200. By the method of Mishnah Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:1:7)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָאַחֲרוֹן נוֹטֵל מְנָה וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. וּשְׁנַיִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דֵּינָרֵי זָהָב. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְכֵן לְשָׂכָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא דְרִבִּי זֵירָא פְלִיגָא עַל דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנִי. קַשְׁיָיתָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. אָמַר לִי. לֹא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לָעְזָר שֶׁאִם הִתְנוּ בֵינֵיהֶן שֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִיסוֹ וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִיסוֹ. שְׁוָורִים כְּמוּתָנִין הֵן. חָזַר וְאָמְרָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּפֵירוּשׁ פְּלִיגֵי. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. סְתַמָּן חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. סְתַמָּן זֶֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִיסוֹ וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי כִיסוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁷ 10:4, Notes 76–79. There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones each a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

footnotes:
²⁷ Cf. Ketubot


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

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לְמִינוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. מוּעָד לָאָדָם וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לַבְּהֵמָה. מוּעָד לַקְּטַנִּים וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לַגְּדוֹלִים. אֶת שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה מוּעָד בַּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְאֵין מוּעָד בִּימוֹת הַחוֹל. אָמַר לָהֶם בַּשַּׁבָּתוֹת מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם וּבִימוֹת הַחוֹל מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אֵימָתַי הוּא תָּם מִשֶּׁיַּחֲזוֹר בּוֹ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יְמֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A bull which is notorious for its kind but not notorious for other species, notorious for humans but not notorious for animals, notorious for small ones but not notorious for large ones, pays full damages for what it is notorious for, but half damages for what it is not notorious for. They asked before Rebbi Jehudah: If it was notorious on the Sabbath but not on weekdays? He answered, it pays full damages on Sabbaths but half damages on weekdays. When does it revert to be tame? If it changed its ways for three Sabbath days²⁸.

footnotes:
²⁸ Following R. Jehuda’s opinion in Mishnah 2:6.


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

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לְמִינוֹ כול׳. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָרַג אָדָם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ מוֹעָד. רַב אָמַר. בְּשֶׁהָרַג שְׁלֹשָׁה גוֹיִם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. בְּשֶׁרָדַף שָׁלֹשׁ רְדִיפוֹת וְהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּרְדִיפָתוֹ נְגִיחָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A bull which is notorious for its kind,” etc. After it killed one human, is it not notorious²⁹. 21:28). How can such an animal ever become notorious after three times if it is killed after the first time?? Rav said, if it killed three Gentiles³⁰. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if it pursued three times and it was estimated that every pursuit was for goring³¹.

footnotes:
²⁹ Any animal which killed “a man or a woman” has to be killed (Ex
³⁰ Who are not subsumed under the appellation “man or woman”. Babli 41a, in the name of Rav Sheshet.
³¹ For endangering humans, an animal may become notorious for trying three times.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:2:3)

שֶׁאִם יָצָא בַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָגַח שְׁוָורִים. בַּשֵּׁינִי וְנָגַח כְּלָבִים. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וְנָגַח חֲזִירִים. עַל יְדֵי ג̇ מִינִין לִג̇ יָמִים מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה שׁוֹר מוּעָד. יָצָא בַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָגַח. בַּשֵּׁינִי לֹא יָצָא. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי יָצָא וְנָגַח וכול׳. יָיבֹא כִפְלוּגְתָא דְּרַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָוא וּדְרַב הוּנָא. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. נִידָּה שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ. בַּיּוֹם רִאשׁוֹן בָּדְקָה וּמְצָתָהּ טָמֵא. בַּשֵּׁינִי לֹא בָדְקָה. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי בָדְקָה וּמְצָתָהּ טָמֵא. רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָוא בְשֵׁם רַב. נִידָּה וַודַּאי. רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב אָמַר. נִדָּה סָפֵק. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא. תַּמָּן הֲוִינָא בְרֵישָׁא וּבְסֵיפָאּ וּבְאֶמְצָעִיתָאּ. אִישְׁתָּאלַת לְרַב וְאָמַר. סָפֵק. אִישְׁתָּאלַת לְרַב וְאָמַר. וַודַּאי. חָזַר וָמַר. סָפֵק. וְרַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָוא לֹא הֲוָה תַמָּן אֶלָּא כַּדָ מַר. וַודַּאי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
³² If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is *niddah.* Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is *niddah.* Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

footnotes:
³² Halakhah 2:6, Notes 90–96.


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

רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּתַמָּה וּכְרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּהַוְועֲדָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame animal and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:2:5)

הֲוִינָן סָבְרִין מֵימַר. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה. מִכֵּיוָן דּוּ חֲמִי לוֹן לְבִישִׁין נְקִיִין עוֹד הוּא מְשַׁנֶּה דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
We wanted to ask: what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah³³? Because it sees us dressed³⁴ הרי; explaining that the bull does not recognize its master and attendants wearing Sabbath clothing. cleanly, it changes its behavior.

footnotes:
³³ He accepts that a bull may be notorious only for the Sabbath. Is it reasonable to expect animals to change their behavior according to a human calendar?
³⁴ E reads מניין נקיין, a misspelling for מָנִין נְקִיִין “clean garments”. Quoted in Hebrew translation by Tosaphot 37a s.v.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:3:1)

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁלְּישְׂרָאֵל פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ וְלֹא שׁוֹר הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל נָכְרִי פָּטוּר וְשֶׁלַּנָּל נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of Temple property or the bull of Temple property which gored a bull of an Israel are not liable since it was said “his neighbor’s bull”³⁵ 21:35., not a bull of Temple property.
The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable; the bull of a non-Jew which gored a bull of an Israel pays full damages, whether tame or notorious.

footnotes:
³⁵ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:3:2)

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁלַּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁלַּנָּכְרִי כול׳. רַב אָמַר. רָאָה וַיַּתֵּר גּוֹיִם. הִתִּיר מָמוֹנָן שֶׁלַּגּוֹיִם. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּרָן. וְהוֹפִיעַ פָּנִים כְּנֶגֶד אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. הוֹרִידָן מִנִּכְסֵיהֶן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כְּדִינֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. לֹא עַל הָדָא אִיתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא בְהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. שׁוֹר שֶׁלַּגּוֹי שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁלַּגּוֹי אַחֵר חֲבֵירוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לָדוּן כְדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. עַל הָדָא אִתְאֲמָרַת. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדִינֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles³⁶ 3:6. The usual translation is: “He saw and made peoples jump” (by an earthquake).,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money³⁷ 13(2); *Tanḥuma Buber Šemini* 10; *Deut. rabba Eqeb* 1 (some mss.).. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran³⁸ 33.2. The list of peoples living around Sinai is traditionally interpreted as a list of those to whom the Torah was offered first but who declined, and only Israel did accept (Babli *Avodah zarah 2b; Sifry Deut.*343; *Pesiqta dR. Cahana Berakhah,* ed. Buber 199b; *Tanḥuma Berakhah* 4 (Buber 3); *Pseudo-Jonathan Deut.* 32:2); *Midrash Tannaïm Deut.* 32:2.,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor³⁹. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws⁴⁰ 21:1 that the laws of that Chapter is *before them;* it applies only to intra-Israelite lawsuits. An application to suits involving Gentiles is illegitimate (*Sifry Deut.* 16; *Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin* 1). Gentile law does not recognize payment for half the damages.. Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁴¹: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.

footnotes:
³⁶ Hab.
³⁷ In the Babli, 38a, a statement of R. Abbahu, applies to those Gentiles who violate the Noahide commandments. Cf. Lev. rabba
³⁸ Deut.
³⁹ This statement possibly is fragmentary; cf. the formulations in the sources indicated in the preceding two Notes.
⁴⁰ It is stressed in Ex.
⁴¹ Tosephta 4:2.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:3:3)

מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁשִּׁילַּח הַמַּלְכוּת שְׁנֵי איסרטיוטות לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה מֵרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְלָמְדוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְרָא מִשְׁנָה תַּלְמוּד הֲלָכוֹת וַאֲגָדוֹת. וּבְסוֹף אָמְרוּ לוֹ. כָּל תּוֹרַתְכֶם נָאָה וּמְשׁוּבַּחַת חוּץ מִשְּׁנֵי דְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְיַילֵּד לַנָּכְרִית אֲבָל נָכְרִית מְיַילֶּדֶת לְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תֵנִיק בְּנָהּ שֶׁלַּנָּכְרִית אֲבָל נָכְרִית מֵנִיקָה לְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. גְּזֵילוֹ שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וְשֶׁלַּנָּכְרִי מוּתָּר. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה גָּזַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עַל גְּזֵילוֹת נָכְרִי שֶׁיְּהֵא אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי חִילּוּל הָשֵׁם. שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁלַּנָּכְרִי פָּטוּר כול׳. בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֵין אָנוּ מוֹדִיעִין לַמַּלְכוּת. אֲפִילוּ כֵן לָא מָטוּן לְסוּלָּמֵיהּ דְּצוֹר עַד דְּשָׁכְחוֹן כּוּלּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁴² 344; *Midrash Tannaïm*(*Midrash Haggadol Deut.* 32:2). It happened that the [Roman] government sent two officials to study Torah with Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practice, and homilies. At the end, they told him: All of your teachings are beautiful and commendable except two things which you say: “A Jewish woman shall not act as midwife to a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may act as midwife for a Jewish woman; a Jewish woman shall not nurse the child of a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may nurse for a Jewish woman with her consent; what was robbed from a Jew is forbidden but from a Gentile it is permitted⁴³ “what was robbed from a Jew is forbidden but *what was lost by* a Gentile is permitted.” The entire sentence is missing in the Babli..” At that moment did Rabban Gamliel decide that what was robbed from a Gentile be forbidden because of desecration of the Name. “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable,” etc. But we shall not inform the government of this. Nevertheless, by the time they reached the Tyrian ladder they had forgotten everything.

footnotes:
⁴² Babli 38a; Sifry Deut.
⁴³ In this version, a Jew could be a fence for goods stolen from a Gentile. In Midrash Haggadol:


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

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּיקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן חַיָיב. שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּיקֵּחַ פָּטוּר. שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגחוּ מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס וּמְעִידִין בָּהֶן בִּפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. נִתְפַּקַּה הַחֵרֵשׁ נִשְׁתַּפָּה הַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהִגְדִּיל הַקָּטָן חָזַר לְתַמּוּתוֹ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הוּא בְחֶזְקָתוֹ. שּׁוֹר הָאִצְטַדִין אֵינוֹ חַיָיב מִיתָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִגַּח וְלֹא שֶׁיַּגִּיחוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable⁴⁴. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one⁴⁵ appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them⁴⁶ in the presence of the guardian⁴⁷ 21:29 that testimony must be “in presence of the owner’ (Midrash Haggadol *ad loc*.).. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr⁴⁸; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion⁴⁹ is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ Since these persons cannot appear in court, they cannot be sued.
⁴⁵ In the Mishnah in the Babli: “The court”.
⁴⁶ About the animal, to have it declared notorious. Once the animal is declared notorious, the guardian will have to pay damages from the estate of his wards.
⁴⁷ Since testimony in general may not be taken in the absence of the parties. In the case of the goring bull, it is stated in Ex.
⁴⁸ He holds that “tame” or “notorious” is not a property of the animal but a qualification of the legal status of its owner. If the owner became a person in law, his status would have to be determined anew.
⁴⁹ Trained for bullfights.


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

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּפִיקֵּחַ כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּשׁוֹטֶה שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּקָטָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a bull of a sane person,” etc. So is the Mishnah⁵⁰: The bull of a deaf-mute, the bull of an insane, the bull of an underaged.

footnotes:
⁵⁰ The Mishnah should not be read as freeing only the underaged deaf-dumb insane person from liability.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:4:3)

וְהָא תַנִּינָן. שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגחוּ מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהוּעֲדוּ לִפְנֵי הַבְּעָלִים וּמְסָרוּם לָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. הוּעֲדוּ לִפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין וּמְסָרוּם לַבְּעָלִים מָהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שָׁאֲלוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא תָם וְנִמְצָא מוּעָד הַבְּעָלִין מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֶזְקָתוֹ. וְאִין כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי יְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. בְּשֶׁשָּׁאֲלוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא תָם. וְאִין בְּשֶׁשָּׁאֲלוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא תָם לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם. בְּיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא נָגְחָן. תַּנֵּי. הֵמִית בִּפְנֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל וּמְסָרוֹ לַבְּעָלִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ פָּטוּר. מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ חַיָיב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. אַף מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְקַל פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”⁵¹ 21:36).? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner⁵² and switch the objects: “So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the *guardian* and he delivered to the *owner.* If testimony was taken in the presence of the *owner* and he delivered to the *guardian*?” This text refers to the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Yose. For the latter, a notorious beast always remains notorious. For R. Meïr the designation of “notorious” lapses if the animal is handed over to the grown-up owner by the guardian. What would be his opinion if an owner of a notorious beast developed a mental illness and his estate were handed to a guardian by the court? Does he also hold that the designation of “notorious” lapses in this case?? Let us hear from the following: ⁵³“If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages⁵⁴).” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he⁵⁵ should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame⁵⁶. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore⁵⁷. It was stated⁵⁸: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable⁵⁹, after judgment was rendered⁶⁰ 21:28). he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable⁶¹.”

footnotes:
⁵¹ The Mishnah seems self-contradictory. Either incompetent persons are not liable or they have to be represented by guardians whose duty it will be to indemnify the victims of the animals of the incompetent. The question is also asked in the Babli, 39a. It is answered there but here left unanswered. One may not assume that the treatment of the Babli is valid for the Yerushalmi. It is more likely that the question is not answered because the Mishnah has a straightforward interpretation: The incompetent are not liable, but it is the duty of the court to intervene and appoint guardians responsible for future control of the dangerous animals (Midrash Haggadol Ex.
⁵² This text seems to be devoid of sense. One may adopt the emendation of Pene Moshe
⁵³ Babli 40a, Tosephta 5:4.
⁵⁴ The owner has to pay full damages for the notorious animal. Since he failed to inform the borrower, he has regress on him only for half the damages since the borrower is responsible to watch the animal to make sure it causes no damage as “tame”. (For the different versions of the Tosephta, cf. S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah.
⁵⁵ Since for R. Yose the status of the animal does not change with a change of control, the borrower should be liable for the entire damage.
⁵⁶ Same explanation given in the Babli, 40a.
⁵⁷ But the borrower was not informed that the animal had been declared notorious by action of the court.
⁵⁸ Tosephta 5:4; cf. Babli 44b/45a, 98b.
⁵⁹ Since he handed back a bull, he does not have to replace it even though after judgment the bull will not be worth anything.
⁶⁰ That the bull has to be killed and its carcass forbidden for usufruct (Ex.
⁶¹ Since he returned the bull; its changed legal status is not apparent.


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

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּתְּחִילָּה אֵין מְמַנִּין אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין עַל מְנָת לַחוֹב לָהֶן אֶלָּא לְזַכּוֹת לָהֶן. וְאִם חָבוּ חָבוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. בֵּין בַּתְּחִילָּה בֵין בַּסּוֹף אֵין מְמַנִּין אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין עַל הַיְּתוֹמִין לֹא לִזְכוּת וְלֹא לְחוֹבָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא בְּשׁוֹר שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא וְיַזִּיק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁶² 5:4 (47a l. 15), Notes 111–115. The next paragraph is a reformulation of the topic discussed there, Notes 100–101, 116–122. Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one⁶³ does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, but only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit nor for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage.

footnotes:
⁶² This paragraph has an exact correspondence in Giṭṭin
⁶³ The court, if the father had failed to appoint a guardian before his death.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:4:5)

שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁלַּיְּתוֹמִין וְשֶׁלְּאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין שֶׁיָּצָא וְהִזִּיק מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשֶּׁלַּיְּתוֹמִין. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר. מִשֶּׁלְּאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. מִשֶּׁלְּאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. וַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל וּדְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּנִין. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִין יִשָּׁבֵעַ. מִינּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מַבְחִנִין אוֹתוֹ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים. אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִין לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. דְּבָעֵי מְמַשְׁכְּנָה לֵיהּ. מִינָּהוּ בֵּית דִּין יִשָּׁבֵעַ. אִית בַּר נַשׁ בָּעֵי מִיתַּן כַּמָּה וּמִיתְקָרֵי הֵימָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If a bull of orphans and guardians went out and did damage, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the damage is paid] from the orphan’s property. For if you say from the guardians’, nobody ever will agree to become a guardian. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the guardians’. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follows Abba Shaul and Rebbi Joḥanan the rabbis, as it was stated there: “A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear,” for the court will check him out. “Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around,” a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall not be made to swear; it would be as if he would take a pledge from him. If he was appointed by the court he shall be made to swear, since a person will do much to be called trustworthy.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:4:6)

אָמַר אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הַמַּכִּישׁ בְּהֵמַת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהִזִּיקָה חַיָיב בִּנְזָקֶיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Abba bar Rab Huna said: This⁶⁴ implies that somebody who hit another person’s animal which as a consequence went and did damage is responsible for the damage caused⁶⁵.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ The statement which excepts the bull trained to fight from retribution; the Mishnah puts all the blame on its trainers.
⁶⁵ Even though in general one does not allow suits for indirectly caused damages.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:5:1)

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הָאָדָם וָמֵת מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר וְתָם פָּטוּר מִן הַכּוֹפֶר וְזֶה וָזֶה חַיָיבִין מִיתָה וְכֵן בַּבֵּן וְכֵן בַּבַּת. נָגַח עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים סְלָעִים בֵּין שֶׁהוּא יָפֶה מְנָא וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָפֶה אֶלָּא דֵינָר זָהָב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A bull which gored a human who then died, if it is notorious [the owner] pays weregilt⁶⁶ 21:30., if tame he is not liable for weregilt; in both cases they have to be killed⁶⁷ 21:28,29.. The same holds for a son or a daughter⁶⁸ 21:31, stresses that the same rules apply to underage as to adult victims.. It it gored a male or female slave, [the owner] pays 30 tetradrachmas⁶⁹ 21:32., whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold⁷⁰ denar.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ Ex.
⁶⁷ Ex.
⁶⁸ There is no difference whether the victim was adult or underage. The statement is only necessary since the verse, Ex.
⁶⁹ Ex.
⁷⁰ This reading is also found in some Babli mss., Alfasi, and the Naples print of the Mishnah. In other texts: “one (silver) denar”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:5:2)

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הָאָדָם כול׳. תַּנֵּי. וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי. נָקִי מֵחֲצִי כוֹפֶר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. רִבִּי. וַהֲלֹא מוּקְדָּם הוּא לְבֵית הַסְֲּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה. אָמַר לוֹ. לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּנִתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם כול׳. עַד דּוּ מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ עַל דְּרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר יַקְשֶׁינָּהּ עַל דִּידֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מִיָישַׁא. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁעָבַר וּשְׁחָטוֹ. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. מָאן דְּיַלְּפָהּ מִן דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר עוֹד הוּא אָמַר כֵּן. לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם. לְנָכְרִי וְהָרַג יִשְׂרָאֵל. לִנְפָלִים וְהָרַג שֶׁלְּקַיָימָה. פָּטוּר. מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי. נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד. אִם כּוֹפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו. בְּמוּעָד הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה נָקִי מֵחֲצִי כוֹפֶר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל. מַה שׁוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּמוּעָד הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אַף הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּמוּעָד הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְלֵית כְּתִיב סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר. אָמַר. מוּטָּב יִלָּמֵד הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל מִשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְאַל יִלָּמֵד שׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל מִסָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated⁷¹ 10 (Horovitz-Rabin p. 283); *Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai*21:28, *Midrash Tannaïm*(*Midrash Haggadol Ex.* 21:28, ed. Margaliut p. 484.): “But the owner of the bull is free⁷² 21:28.,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place⁷³? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human⁷⁴, etc.⁷⁵ Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself⁷⁶? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it⁷⁷. But some want to say, from what⁷⁸ we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel⁴⁰ 21:1 that the laws of that Chapter is *before them;* it applies only to intra-Israelite lawsuits. An application to suits involving Gentiles is illegitimate (*Sifry Deut.* 16; *Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin* 1). Gentile law does not recognize payment for half the damages., still birth but killed a viable [child]⁷⁹ a terminally ill person., he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”⁷² 21:28.’⁷⁶? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,⁸⁰ 21:30.” the verse speaks of the notorious⁸¹. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned⁸² 21:29. This verse imposes weregilt for the killing of a free person by a notorious bull.,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.⁸³ 21:32. This verse imposes a fine for the killing of a slave.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious⁸⁴. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned⁷² 21:28.”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”⁸⁴.

footnotes:
⁷¹ Babli 41b; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin
⁷² Ex.
⁷³ As the formulation of the Babli makes explicit, since any damages caused by a tame animal are paid from its body and a bull which killed a human is stoned and its carcass forbidden for usufruct, there is nothing from which either damages or fine might be paid.
⁷⁴ The bull was attacking another animal when a human intervened and was killed. In that case, the bull is not condemned to be stoned and is not forbidden for usufruct.
⁷⁵ A list of similar situations as given later in the paragraph.
⁷⁶ Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.
⁷⁷ As stated in Mishnah 9, the bull’s meat becomes forbidden only when it is stoned. If the owners slaughter it immediately after the attack, before the court had time to intervene, the meat is valuable and its proceeds are available to cover damages.
⁷⁸ Reading מִן “from” instead of מאן “who” (I. Lewy).
⁴⁰ It is stressed in Ex.
⁷⁹ Killing a fetus or a newborn which is not viable is forbidden but not prosecutable as murder; the same holds for killing a ṭerepha,
⁷² Ex.
⁷⁶ Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.
⁸⁰ Ex.
⁸¹ Therefore, the notion of weregilt is not applicable to the tame bull; the exemption needs no verse.
⁸² Ex.
⁸³ Ex.
⁸⁴ Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull.
⁷² Ex.
⁸⁴ Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:5:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. מִילָּה שְׁמָעִית מִן דְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הָכָא וְלֵית אֲנָא יְדַע מַה הִיא. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דִּילְמָא דָא הִיא. בַּתְּחִילָּה אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּתָם. הֶחֱזִיר אֶת הַמּוּעָד לַכּוֹפֶר. הֶחֱזִיר אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן לִנְזָקִין. יָכוֹל כְּשֶׁם שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוֹ לִנְזָקִין כָּךְ הֶחֱזִירוֹ לִדְמֵי עֶבֶד. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי. נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. בְּכָל אָתָר אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בְּעֶבֶד יוֹתֵר מִן הַכֹּל. שֶׁאֲפִילוּ מוּכֶּה שְׁחִין נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים סֶלַע. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אַף בְּאָבִיו וּבְאִמּוֹ כֵּן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי. נָקִי מִדְּמֵי וְולָדוֹת. בְּכָל אָתָר אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בְּמוּעָד מִתָּם וְהָכָא אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בְּתָם יוֹתֵר מִבְּמוּעָד. אֶלָּא כֵּינִי. אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן מִתְכַּוְונִין חַיָיבִין. שְׁוָורִין שֶׁאֵינָן מִתְכַּוְונִין פְּטוּרִין. הָא אִם הָיוּ מִתְכַּוְונִין יְהוּ חַיָיבִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי. נָקִי מִדְּמֵי וְולָדוֹת. תַּנָּיי חוֹרָן תַּנֵּי. וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי. נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד. וְלֵית כְּתִיב וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים. אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא שְׁוָורִים. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוְונִין חַיָיבִין. שְׁוָורִים שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוְונִין פְּטוּרִין. הָא אִם הָיוּ מִתְכַּוְונִין יְהוּ חַיָיבִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי. נָקִי מִדְּמֵי עֶבֶד. וְלֵית כְּתִיב כִּי יִנָּצוּ כִּי יְרִיבוּן. וַהֲלֹא הִיא מַצּוּת הִיא מְרִיבָה. אִי מַה לְהַלָּן בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין אַף כָּאן בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין. מַה כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין אַף לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין. מַאי כְדוֹן. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. בַּתְּחִילָּה אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּתָם כול׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something⁸⁵ 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 them⁸⁶ 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 slave⁸⁷; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free⁷² 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said⁸⁸, 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)⁸⁹ the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free⁷² 21:28.;” free from paying for fetuses⁹⁰ 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 free⁷² 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹². Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free⁷² 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹². But is it not written: “If people quarrel⁹³ 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 free⁷² 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹². But is it not written: “When they quarrel⁹³ 21:22.,” “when they brawl⁹⁴ 21:18, specifying the payments due for intentionally inflicted injuries.”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl⁹⁵ 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 Haggadol*21:22).? 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 this⁹⁶? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

footnotes:
⁸⁵ A baraita.
⁸⁶ Ex.
⁸⁷ Since 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?
⁷² Ex.
⁸⁸ A different but parallel argument is in the Babli, 42b.
⁸⁹ It seems that one has ro read: “a male or female slave”.
⁷² Ex.
⁹⁰ There 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,”
⁷² Ex.
⁹² It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.
⁷² Ex.
⁹² It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.
⁹³ Ex.
⁷² Ex.
⁹² It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.
⁹³ Ex.
⁹⁴ Ex.
⁹⁵ There 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.
⁹⁶ Which of the two contradictory arguments is to be accepted? Neither.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:5:4)

וּמְנַיִין לְנִזְקֵי הָעֶבֶד. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹ בֶן יִגַּח אוֹ בַת יִגַּח. וְאִם עֶבֶד וגו׳. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר וָוא וְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. חַד אָמַר. לֹא תְהֵא תוֹסֶפֶת יְתֵירָה עַל הָעִיקָּר. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ כָּל נִזְקוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
From where damages for a slave⁹⁷? The verse says, “or it gores a son, or it gores a daughter, …, and if a slave⁹⁸. 21:31,32 treat attacks on minors and on slaves in parallel. It is implied that any payments due for an injured child are due for a slave., etc.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac. One said, the addition may not be more than the main thing⁹⁹. But the other said, he has to pay the entire damages.¹⁰⁰

footnotes:
⁹⁷ If a slave was injured by an animal but was not killed. May his owner sue the animal’s owner for damages.
⁹⁸ Verses Ex
⁹⁹ Since for a slave killed the payment is 30 tetradrachmas, payments for an injured slave can be at most 30 tetradrachmas. This opinion is not found in the Babli.
¹⁰⁰ All payments due for a free person (medical costs, lost wages, payment for pain and suffering) are due for a slave without limitation. The Babli, 43b, attributes this opinion to R. Samuel b. R. Isaac.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:6:1)

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְחַכֵּךְ בַּכּוֹתֶל וְנָפַל עַל הָאָדָם נִתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם לַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל לַנְּפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קַיָימָא פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall which then fell on a human, [or which] intended to kill an animal but killed a human⁷⁴, a Gentile but killed a Jew⁴⁰ 21:1 that the laws of that Chapter is *before them;* it applies only to intra-Israelite lawsuits. An application to suits involving Gentiles is illegitimate (*Sifry Deut.* 16; *Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin* 1). Gentile law does not recognize payment for half the damages., stillbirth but killed a viable child⁷⁹ a terminally ill person., is free from prosecution.

footnotes:
⁷⁴ The bull was attacking another animal when a human intervened and was killed. In that case, the bull is not condemned to be stoned and is not forbidden for usufruct.
⁴⁰ It is stressed in Ex.
⁷⁹ Killing a fetus or a newborn which is not viable is forbidden but not prosecutable as murder; the same holds for killing a ṭerepha,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:6:2)

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְחַכֵּךְ בַּכּוֹתֶל כול׳. וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַמַּכֶּה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֵמִית הַמֵּמִית חַיָיב. וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה. מַה הָאִישׁ מוֹרִישׁ נְזָקָיו לְבָנָיו אַף אִשָּׁה מוֹרֶשֶׁת נְזָקֶיהָ לְבָנֶיהָ. וְאֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. כָּךְ פֵּירְשָׁהּ רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֲבִי הַמִּשְׁנָה. בַּכּוֹפֶר שֶׁלְּאַחַר מִיתָה שָׁנוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,¹⁰¹ 21:17.” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly¹⁰² 78a, explains that the verse can be read either as “a man who kills a human totally” or as “a man who kills anything of a man.” In the first version, if one attacker wounds a person and a second one finishes him off, the second attacker is the murderer even if the wounds inflicted by the first are potentially lethal. In the second version, the heirs of a person killed by a gang have indemnity claims against all gang members taking part in the attack even if none of them can be prosecuted for first degree murder.. Rebbi La said, even if it is deadly but a third person came and killed, the killer is guilty¹⁰³ 20(1).. “And it killed a man or a woman¹⁰⁴ 21:29.,” just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But does not a man inherit from his wife¹⁰⁵? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: One teaches here about weregilt which is due after death¹⁰⁶21:29, p. 181). The biblical right of inheritance by the husband, based on *Num.* 27:11, excludes future claims (Babli 42b; *Bava batra* 8:6 Note 129). Since there is no weregilt for a living person, the husband cannot inherit..

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ Lev.
¹⁰² The Babli, Sanhedrin
¹⁰³ A tannaïtic statement in Sifra Emor Pereq
¹⁰⁴ Ex.
¹⁰⁵ How can her children (or in the absence of children, her paternal relatives) inherit anything from her if she is survived by her husband?
¹⁰⁶ (Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:6:3)

תַּנֵּי. הַמּוֹכֵר שׁוֹר לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִמְצָא נָגְחָן. רַב אָמַר. מִקַּח טָעוּת הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. יְכִיל הוּא מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לִשְׁחִיטָה מְכַרְתִּיו לָךְ. וְנָתַן פִּדְיוֹן נַפְשׁוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. נֶפֶשׁ מַזִּיק. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. נֶפֶשׁ נִיזָּק. מָאן דְּאָמַר. נֶפֶשׁ נִיזָּוק. הִכָּהוּ הָרִאשׁוֹן הַכָּיַית מִיתָה וּבָא הַשֵּׁינִי וּבִילְבְּלוֹ. אִין תֵּימַר. יֵשׁ נְזָקִים בְּכוּלּוֹ. הָרִאשׁוֹן נוֹתֵן נִזְקוֹ וְהַשֵּׁינִי נוֹתֵן כּוֹפְרוֹ. אִין תֵּימַר. אֵין נְזָקִין בְּכוּלּוֹ. הָרִאשׁוֹן נוֹתֵן כּוֹפְרוֹ וְהַשֵּׁינִי פָּטוּר. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. פִּדְיוֹן נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלְּמַזִּיק. אִין תֵּימַר. יֵשׁ נְזָקִין בְּכוּלּוֹ. הָרִאשׁוֹן נוֹתֵן כּוֹפְרוֹ וְהַשֵּׁינִי פָּטוּר. אִין תֵּימַר. אֵין נְזָקִין בְּכוּלּוֹ. שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to be goring. Rav said, it is an acquisition in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered¹⁰⁷ 5:8, Notes 70,71; Babli 46a, *Bava batra* 92a).. “He shall give weregilt for his person.¹⁰⁸ 21:30. It is not clear to whom the verse refers in mentioning “his”, cf. *Ketubot* 3:10, Note 151 and all sources quoted there, in particular Babli 40a.” Some Tannaїm state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaїm state: The person suffering the damage. Following him who said, the person suffering the damage, [assume] the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion¹⁰⁹. If you say that damages are fully required¹¹⁰, the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required¹¹¹, the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. Following him who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable¹¹². If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable¹¹³.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ According to Rav, the buyer can force the annulment of the sale and receive his money back. According to Samuel, since a bull can be sold either for meat or for work, it is up to the buyer to specify for which use he is buying since for livestock there do not exist generally valid criteria of quality. (Ševi‘it
¹⁰⁸ Ex..
¹⁰⁹ The bull of owner A injured a person who was prevented by the bull of owner B to seek immediate medical attention; the person then died.
¹¹⁰ Damages are due even though weregilt was paid.
¹¹¹ There is no claim for damages if there is one for weregilt.
¹¹² Since the action of B’s bull was strictly defensive, he is not an attacker.
¹¹³ If neither of them can be held criminally liable, neither of them can be held financially liable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:7:1)

**משנה:** שׁוֹר הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹר הַיְתוֹמִין שׁוֹר אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֶּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָיבִין מִיתָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֶּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמִּיתָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן בְּעָלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans¹¹⁴, a bull under a guardian¹¹⁵, a wild bull, a bull of Temple property, a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs, these are subject to the death penalty¹¹⁶. Rebbi Jehudah says that a wild bull, a bull of Temple property, a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs¹¹⁷ 1:1, Note 30., are not subject to the death penalty since they have no owners.

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ Minors for whom no guardian was appointed.
¹¹⁵ Property of orphans.
¹¹⁶ If they killed a person.
¹¹⁷ Whose estate is ownerless; cf. Qiddushin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:7:2)

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹר הַיְתוֹמִין כול׳. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָן. וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ. אֵין בְּעָלִים לָאֵילּוּ לְעִנְיַין נְזָקִין. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. לְעִנְיַין נְזָקִין רִבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵיב וְרִבִּי יוּדָן פּוֹטֵר. לַכּוֹפֶר מָה. רִבִּי פְדָת בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּכּוֹפֶר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. וְאִית דְּאָמְרִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בִּנְזָקִין כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין בַּכּוֹפֶר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הֵיךְ עָבְדִין עוֹבְדָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. לְעִנְיַין נְזָקִין רִבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵיב וְרִבִּי יוּדָן פּוֹטֵר. הָא לַכּוֹפֶר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “It was testified to before its owners and they did not watch it;¹¹⁸ 21:29. Tosephta 4:6. The verse speaks of the notorious bull; one seems to understand that no ownerless bull can be brought to court.” those have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages¹¹⁹, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt¹²⁰) is inconclusive. (The Babli, 44a, reports a similar disagreement, between Rav and Samuel, referring to Mishnah 7.). Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: How does one actually act? He said to him, following Rebbi Hoshaia that in matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable; therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ Ex.
¹¹⁹ Damage claims are possible only against humans. One must refer to a bull who did damage before its owner dedicated it to the Temple, or was property of a proselyte while the latter was still living.
¹²⁰ The language of the Tosephta seems to support R. Joḥanan. The formulation of the Babli, 44b (in the name of Rav Huna and a baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:8:1)

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְעָלָיו אֵינוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְעָלָיו מוּקְדָּשׁ וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one dedicates a bull which is led out to be stoned, it is not dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is forbidden¹²¹ 21:28 reads in part: “The bull shall be stoned; its meat shall not be eaten.” If the bull is killed by stoning, it is not ritually slaughtered and automatically its meat is forbidden as carcass meat. The specific mention of the prohibition of the meat is interpreted to mean that it becomes forbidden the moment sentence is pronounced. If the owner wants to save something of the value of the bull, he has to slaughter it immediately after it killed [*Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin* 10; *dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai* 21:28, p. 178; Yerushalmi *Pesaḥim* 2:1 (28c l. 34), *‘Orlah* 3:1 Note 26; Babli *Pesaḥim*22b].. If its owner dedicated it before sentence was pronounced, it is dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is permitted.

footnotes:
¹²¹ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:8:2)

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל כול׳. תַּנֵּי. שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל וְנִמְצְאוּ עֵידָיו זוֹמְמִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בּוֹ זָכָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יִיאוּשׁ טָעוּת הוּא. וְכֵן עֶבֶד הַיּוֹצֵא לִיהָרֵג וְנִמְצְאוּ עֵדָיו זוֹמְמִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. זָכָה עַצְמוֹ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יִיאוּשׁ טָעוּת הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A bull which is led out to be stoned,” etc. It was stated¹²² 6:2(23b l.25) an exact copy, 10:8(29d l.14) a reformulation.: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it¹²³ 24a, holds that R. Joḥanan will agree that the bull never was ownerless if the judgment was overturned on the initiative or appeal by the owner.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair¹²⁴. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be killed when his witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself¹²⁵; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

footnotes:
¹²² Sanhedrin
¹²³ Since the court declares the bull to be forbidden for usufruct, it cannot remain the property of its owner. When the prohibition of usufruct is lifted because the sentence was declared false, the bull is ownerless. If a third party grabs the bull before the owner can take it back, that third party now is the legal owner. The Babli, Keritut
¹²⁴ He holds that ownership never was annulled, only that the owner gave up hope of ever having use of the bull again. The bull remains the property of its owner who may use it once the prohibition of usufruct is lifted.
¹²⁵ He is free and needs no bill of manumission.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:9:1)

**משנה:** מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלַשּׁוֹאֵל וְלַנּוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִכְנְסוּ תַחַת הַבְּעָלִים. מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם וְתָם מְשַׁלֵם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. קְשָׁרוֹ בְעָלָיו בַּמּוֹסֵירָה וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד חַיָיב. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר תָּם חַיָיב וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee, or a borrower, or a paid trustee, or a lessee, they entered instead of the owner¹²⁶ 6:8. For damages caused while the animal was in the temporary control of another person, the person in control may be responsible in place of the owner. This limited liability is detailed in the second part of the Mishnah.; a notorious animal pays full damages, a tame one half damages. If he tied it down with a rope and locked it in as he should, if then it broke out and caused damage he is liable whether tame or notorious¹²⁷ and most independent Mishnah texts, this is identified as R. Meïr’s opinion. In Tosephta 5:7 and *Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin* 10, R. Meïr declares the owner of the tame bull not liable in this case, only the owner of a notorious bull. In all of these sources there is a third opinion, by R. Eliezer ben Jacob, that neither is liable.. Rebbi Jehudah says, for the tame he is liable, for the notorious he is not liable since it was said: “if its owner would not guard it¹²⁸ 21:36. There is no corresponding verse regarding a tame bull.,” but it was guarded. Rebbi Eliezer says, this one can be guarded only by the knife¹²⁹.

footnotes:
¹²⁶ The four cases of temporary guardians of other people’s property are defined in Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a
¹²⁷ In the Halakhah, the Babli, Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai,
¹²⁸ Ex..
¹²⁹ Once a bull has been declared notorious, it has to be slaughtered immediately.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/4:9:2)

**הלכה:** מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כִּשְׁמִירַת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. מָסַר שׁוֹר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק פָּטוּר. יָצָא וְנִטְרַף פָּטוּר. לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק חַיָיב. יָצָא וְנִטְרַף פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. מָסַר שׁוֹר מוּעָד לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק חַיָיב. יָצָא וְנִטְרַף פָּטוּר. לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק חַיָיב. נִטְרַף חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וַהֲלֹא שָׁמוּר הוּא וְהַתּוֹרָה חִיַּיבְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּל שְׁמִירָה שֶׁאָמְרָה תוֹרָה אֲפִילוּ הִקִּיפוֹ חוֹמַת בַּרְזֶל אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בְגוּפוֹ. לְפִיכַךְ רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ אִם רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 trustee¹³⁰ Note 127.; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee¹³¹. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull¹³² to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable¹³⁰ Note 127.; if it went out and became torn¹³³, he is not liable¹³⁴. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable¹³⁵. 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 liable¹³⁶ 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 liable¹³⁷ 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 presence¹³⁸. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.

footnotes:
¹³⁰ The 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,
¹³¹ The 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.
¹³² In E and Rashba: “a tame bull”. This seems to be required by the next paragraph.
¹³⁰ The 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,
¹³³ The bull is attacked and severely damaged by another.
¹³⁴ In 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.
¹³⁵ It seems that one has to read: “is liable”. The clause is missing in Rashba’s quote.
¹³⁶ Since even the paid shepherd does not have to pay for the torn, by Ex.
¹³⁷ Even though Ex.
¹³⁸ Mechanical devices cannot replace personal supervision. Even the unpaid trustee will be liable if he relies on a mechanical device instead of his personal supervision.