## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma Chapter 5

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

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה וְנִמְצָא עוּבְרָהּ בְּצִידָּהּ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נְגָחָהּ יָלְדָה אִם מִשֶּׁנְּגָחָהּ יָלְדָה מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק לַפָּרָה וּרְבִיעַ לַוְולָד. וְכֵן פָּרָה שֶׁנָּגְחָה אֶת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִמְצָה וַולְדָּהּ בְּצִידָּהּ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָגְחָה יָלְדָה אִם מִשֶּׁנָּגְחָה יָלְדָה מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִן הַפָּרָה וּרְבִיעַ מִן הַוְולָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A bull gored a cow and her fetus¹ was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored² or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow³ and a quarter for the fetus⁴ 2:1, Note 9..
And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored⁷, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

footnotes:
¹ A dead fetus after a miscarriage.
² In that case, the owner of the bull would not have to pay for the miscarriage.
³ The normal amount for damage caused by a tame bull.
⁴ Since the owner of the cow cannot prove that the bull caused the miscarriage but neither can the owner of the bull prove that his animal did not cause it, and the bull’s attack on the cow is proved by two witnesses, the claim of damages for the fetus is “money in doubt” which is split evenly, cf. Ketubot
⁷ If at the moment of her goring the calf was part of her body, it is available to be sold to cover the damages. But if it was born before the goring, it is not available to the owner of the bull. Therefore, the claim of the bull’s owner on the calf cannot exceed a quarter of its value.


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

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה כול׳. וְכִי כָל הַפָּרוֹת מַפִּילוֹת. נְהַלֵּךְ בָּהֶן אַחַר הָרוֹב וֶאֱמוֹר. מַחְמַת נְגִיחָה הִפִּילָה. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִילְּכוּ בְּמִידַּת הַדִּין בַּמָּמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב אֶלָּא בְּמִיעוּט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הִילְּכוּ בְּמִידַּת הַדִּין בַּמָּמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי אָחָא. גָּמָל הָאוֹחֵר בֵּין הַגְּמָלִים וְנִמְצָא שָׁם אֶחָד מֵת חַיָיב. בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁזֶּה הֲרָגוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A bull gored a cow”, etc. ⁵ 2:1, Notes 9–11. Do all cows have miscarriages? Should we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Yose said, in another case they applied a majority argument in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: ⁶“If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that certainly the one in heat killed it.”

footnotes:
⁵ This is a slight reformulation of a passage in Ketubot
⁶ Tosephta 3:6.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:1:3)

וְאָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִן הַפָּרָה וּבַעַל הַוְולָדוֹת עוֹלֶה לְבַעַל הַפָּרָה רְבִיעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. זֶה נוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה וְזֶה נוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. מֵתוּ הַוְולָדוֹת. מָאן דָּמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק לַפָּרָה וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק לַוְולָד. אָהֵן יְהִיב נִיזְקֵיהּ וְאָהֵן יְהִיב נִיזְקֵיהּ. מָאן דָּמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִן הַפָּרָה וּבַעַל הַוְולָדוֹת עוֹלֶה לְבַעַל הַפָּרָה רְבִיעַ. אָהֵן יְהִיב נִיזְקֵיהּ. וְאָהֵן אָמַר. לֹא לְדֵין בְּעִית אַיְידִי לִיקוּמֵיךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁸ this paragraph is part of Halakhah 1. But it clearly refers to Mishnah 2. And Rebbi Yannai said, so is the Mishnah: He pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow⁹. Rebbi Yose said, each of them gives half¹⁰. What is the difference between them? If the calves died. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and a quarter of the damage from the calf, each one pays his part of the damage. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow, one pays the damage, but the other one says, I did not want these, here they are before you¹¹.

footnotes:
⁸ In mss. and editio princeps,
⁹ He refers the Mishnah to the case where the rancher sold the expected calf of his pregnant cow to a third party. The owner of the bull has to be indemnified by the cow’s owner alone, but the latter has regress on the calf’s owner up to a quarter of its value.The Babli, 46b, has another approach: If the cow is available, he collects half his damages from the cow. If the cow is not available, he collects a quarter of his damages from the calf.
¹⁰ He holds that the owner of the bull has to collect separately, first half of his claim of half the the damages up to a quarter of the calf’s value and then the remainder from the cow’s owner.
¹¹ Even if the carcass of the calf is not worthless, he may return the dead bodies and claim his money back.


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

וְכֵן פָּרָה שֶׁנָּגְחָה אֶת הַשּׁוֹר כול׳. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. הָא אִילּוּ וַודַּאי זֶה נוֹתֵן מְחֱצָה וְזֶה נוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה. כָּךְ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. רַגְלָהּ שֶׁלְּאָדָם אֶחָד כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלְּאָדָם אֶחָד. זֶה נוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה וְזֶה נוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּמוּעָד הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. רַגְלָהּ מְכוּרָה לָךְ. מָכַר חֶצְיָיהּ. רַגְלָהּ שְׁנִיָיה מְכוּרָה לָךְ. מָכַר חֲצִי חֶצְיָיהּ. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. כָּל אִילֵּין שְׁמוּעָתָא דְּלֵוִי אִינּוּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“And similarly, if a cow gored an ox,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: Because it is in doubt; therefore if it were certain, each one would give half¹²? Would I say that a foot of a person is the entire person? Each one would give half? He said to him, the Mishnah deals with a notorious animal¹³. ¹⁴ 3:9,10.“Its foot is sold to you,” he sold half¹⁵. “Its second foot is sold to you,” he sold half of the [remaining] half¹⁶. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all these traditions are Levi’s¹⁷.

footnotes:
¹² Why is the calf treated on an equal footing with the cow? Is not the calf here only an appendix to the cow?
¹³ It is difficult to accept this reading since the Mishnah clearly speaks of half damages, but it is confirmed by all quotes of this paragraph in Medieval sources.
¹⁴ A similar text is in Tosephta ‘Arakhin
¹⁵ The side to which the foot belongs.
¹⁶ Since he did not say that he was selling the other half, something is not sold. Therefore, sale of the unborn calf can be treated as sale of a quarter interest in the cow. If the cow were notorious, the owner of the calf would be liable as holder of a quarter interest in the cow.
¹⁷ As the Babli points out, 46a, both Mishnaiot have to be rejected. Instead of an appeal to Symmachos’s principle that “one splits money in doubt”, one rules that “the burden of proof is on the claimant” and in the absence of witnesses the owner of the injured animal has no chance to prove any claim he might have on the calf. R. Simeon ben Laqish seems to attribute to Levi the acceptance of Symmachos’s rule in these cases.


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

**משנה:** הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהִכְנִיס קְּדֵירוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וְשִׁבְּרָתָן בֶּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר וְאִם הוּזְּקָה בָהֶן בַּעַל הַקְּדֵירוֹת חַיָיב וְאִם הַכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a potter put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner broke them, [the owner] is not liable; if [the animal] was hurt, the owner of the pots is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.


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

**הלכה:** הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהִנִּיחַ קְּדֵירוֹתָיו כול׳. הִכְנִיס קְּדֵירוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּבָא שׁוֹר מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וְשִׁבְּרָן פָּטוּר. הוּזַּק בָּהֶן פָּטוּר. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הַקֶּרֶן פְּטוּרָה בֶחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a potter put his pots,” etc. If he put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and broke them, he¹⁸ is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable¹⁹. This implies that ‘horn’²⁰ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party²¹.

footnotes:
¹⁸ The bull’s owner.
¹⁹ The potter.
²⁰ Probably one should read: ‘foot’.
²¹ Chapter 1, Halakhah 2.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:3:1)

**משנה:** הִכְנִיס פֵּירוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וַאֲכָלָתָן בֶּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר וְאִם הוּזְּקָה בָהֶן בַּעַל הַפֵּירוֹת חַיָיב וְאִם הַכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner ate them, [the owner] is not liable; if [the animal] was hurt, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:3:2)

**הלכה:** הִכְנִיס פֵּירוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כול׳. הִכְנִיס פֵּירוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּבָא שׁוֹר מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וַאֲכָלָן פָּטוּר. הוּזַּק בָּהֶן פָּטוּר. הָדָא אָמְרָה. שֶׁהַשֵּׁן פְּטוּרָה בֶחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard,” etc. If he put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and ate them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that the ‘tooth’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.


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

**משנה:** הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כַלְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר. נָגַח הוּא שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חַיָיב. נָפַל לְבוֹרוֹ וְהִבְאִישׁ מֵימָיו חַיָיב. הָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ בְנוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָיב. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר בְּכוּלָּן עַד שֶׁיְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִשְׁמוֹר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody put his bull in a private courtyard without permission and the owner’s bull gored it or his dog bit it, [the owner] is not liable; if it gored the owner’s bull, he¹⁸ is liable. If it fell into his²² cistern and caused it to stink, he is liable. If his²² father or son were inside²³, he pays weregilt. But if he put it in by permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable; Rebbi says, in all these cases²⁴, only if he²² agreed to watch.

footnotes:
¹⁸ The bull’s owner.
²² The courtyard's owner.
²² The courtyard's owner.
²³ And were killed by the falling bull.
²⁴ Mishnaiot 3–5.
²² The courtyard's owner.


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

**הלכה:** הִכְנִיס שׁוֹר לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כול׳. הִכְנִיס שׁוֹר לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּבָא שׁוֹר מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. נַגַח נָגַף נָשַׁךְ רָבַץ בָּעַט מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל חַיָיב. עַל הַנְּגִיחָה וְעַל הַנְּגִיפָה וְעַל הַנְּשִׁיכָה וְעַל הָרְבִיצָה וְעַל הַבְּעִיטָה וְעַל הַדְּחִיָיה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. ²⁵“If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr²⁶. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable²⁷; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

footnotes:
²⁵ Tosephta 5:10,9. A very incomplete quote in the Babli, 48a.
²⁶ For him, half damages for ‘horn’ only applies in the public domain.
²⁷ Cf. Halakhah 1:2.


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

רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי. רַב זְעִירָא אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּבַּיִת שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. הִכָּנֵס וַאֲנִי מְשַׁמְּרוֹ. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּשָּׂדֶה שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ. הַכְנִיסֵהוּ וְשׁוֹמְרֵהוּ. מַה פְלִיגִין. בֶּחָצֵר. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. חָצֵר כְּשָׂדֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. חָצֵר כַּבַּיִת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַמַּגְדִּישׁ בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוֹת. גְּדִישִׁים בַּשָּׂדֶה כְכֵלִים בַּבַּיִת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר בָּהִיא דְאִית לָהּ מִסְגָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi²⁸. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated²⁹: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,]³⁰ sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house³¹? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock³².

footnotes:
²⁸ Babli 48b.
²⁹ Mishnah 6:3. There, it is stated that if the owner gave permission, he is liable for damages; this seems to contradict R. Jeremiah’s explanation.
³⁰ Reading of E and Halakhah 6:3.
³¹ Because of their value, they always are guarded.
³² The field is fenced and locked in.


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

**משנה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ פָּטוּר מִדְּמֵי וְולָדוֹת. וְאָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְולָדוֹת. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְולָדוֹת. שָׁמִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה כַּמָּה הִיא יָפָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה מִשֶּׁיָּלְדָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אִם כֵּן מִשֶּׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת מַשְׁבַּחַת. אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְולָדוֹת כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין וְנוֹתְנִים לַבַּעַל. וְאִם אֵין לָהּ בַּעַל נוֹתְנִים לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a bull intended [to hurt] another bull but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he is not liable. But if a man intended [to hurt] a neighbor but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children³³ 21:22 speaks only about quarrelling men hitting a woman, not animals attacking.. How does he pay for the children? One estimates the worth of the woman before and after she gave birth³⁴. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, but the value of a woman increses after giving birth!³⁵ But one estimates how much the children would have been worth and gives [the value] to the husband; if she does not have a husband, to the latter’s heirs. If she was a freedwoman or a proselyte³⁶21:22)., he is not liable.

footnotes:
³³ Ex.
³⁴ How much she would be worth on the slave market.
³⁵ Before she gave birth, a potential buyer would discount the price to account for the risk of death in childbirth.
³⁶ If she was pregnant when she was manumitted or converted, she has no legal father of the children. Also if a woman was married to a freedman or a proselyte who died childless, the attacker does not have to pay since the husband has no heir (but cf. Babli 49a/b, Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai


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

**הלכה:** שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין כול׳. שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לַחֲבֵירוֹ. הָא אִם הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לָאִשָּׁה חַיָיב. וְלֹא שַׁנְיָיא הִיא בֵּין שֶׁהוּא מִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ. וְלָמָּה תַנִּינָהּ הָכָא. אָמַר אַבָּא בַּר רַב חָנָה. בְּגִין מַתְנֵי הָא דְבַתְרָהּ. אָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְולָדוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a bull intended,” etc. A bull which intended [to attack] another; therefore, if it intended to hit the woman is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another [bull]³⁷ 21:22 speaks only of men; animals are excluded irrespective of their actions. The same argument is in the Babli, 49a, in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa.? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana³⁸ said, because he had to state the next clause: “But if a human intended [to hurt] another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”

footnotes:
³⁷ Since Ex.
³⁸ One might wonder whether to read “Abba bar bar Ḥana”.


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

תַּנֵּי. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. שִׁפְחָה וַולְדָּנִית אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ בָּנֶיהָ מַשְׁבִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. קָוטִיזְמֵי הִיא זוֹ. כְּתִיב כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן אוֹמֵר. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ אֵינִי יוֹדֵע שֶׁהִיא הָרָה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר הָרָה. מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵין מִתְחַיֵיב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּה בִּמְקוֹם עוֹבְרָהּ. הָא אִם הִכָּה עַל כַּף יָדָהּ אוֹ עַל כַּף רַגְלָהּ פָּטוּר. כַאֲשֶׁר יושת עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה. שׁוֹמְעֵנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הָהֵרָיוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הָרָה. מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא לְבַעַל הָהֵרָיוֹן. רִבִּי עוּקְבָּא שָׁאַל. בָּא עַל אִמּוֹ בָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ אַף הוּא בַּעַל הֵרָיוֹן הוּא. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בַּעַל. אֶת שֶׁרָאוּי לִיקָּרוֹת בַּעַל. יָצְאוּ אֵילּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בַּעַל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: “I am selling you a fertile slave girl, her children increase her value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, this is buttocks⁴⁰.” It is written⁴¹ 21:22.: “If quarrelling men hit a pregnant woman and she loses her children.” ⁴² 8; partially quoted in the Babli, 49a. Abba Yose ben Ḥanan said, from the meaning of “and she loses her children” would I not know that she was pregnant? Then why does the verse say “pregnant”? It tells you that he is not liable unless he hits her at the place of her pregnancy. Therefore, if he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, he is not liable⁴³ (vol. 3, #236), one reads: “If he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, *on her head or any of her limbs, would we understand that he be liable? The verse says,* “*pregnant*” (it tells you that he is not liable …).. “As the woman’s husband will put on him”. Do I understand, even if the pregnancy is not his⁴⁴? The verse says, “pregnant”. It tells that he pays only to the master of the pregnancy. Rebbi Uqba⁴⁵ 43a, *Or zarua‘, Yalqut Šim‘oni Qonṭeros Aḥaron* (Ashkenazi), *Rashba ad* 43a (Sephardi)], “R. Aqiba”, an unlikely text. asked, if somebody sleeps with his mother or his sister, is that one not also the master of the pregnancy? The verse says “husband”, somebody who may be called “husband”. This excludes those who cannot be called¹ “husband”⁴⁶ 3:12), *Or zarua*‘ (*loc. cit*.) deduces from here that the adulterous father of a bastard fetus has a claim on the money since he could have married the woman had she not been otherwise married. The Babli, 43a, explicitly gives the claim to the money to the boyfriend of an unmarried pregnant woman..

footnotes:
⁴⁰ Greek κάθισμα “buttocks, behind; seat; sinking”. It may be that the word is used here in a slightly pornographic meaning.
⁴¹ Ex.
⁴² Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin
⁴³ In E and Or Zarua‘
⁴⁴ If he married a pregnant girl.
⁴⁵ In the Medieval parallel sources [Tosaphot
¹ The translation follows the reading להיקרות of E, not the bland “to be” of L.
⁴⁶ Since an incestual marriage is no marriage at all (Qiddušin


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

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עוֹבָרִין אֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן. נִיחָא בְּשֵׁן. וָעַיִן. אָמַר רִבִּי יֹסֵא בִּירִבִּי בּוּן. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. עוֹבָרִין אֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן שֶׁל אִמָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’⁴⁷ 21:26–27, *Qiddušin* 1:3, Note 380. One understands “eye”. Tooth?⁴⁸ 24b, understands the statement as meaning that the child of a slave mother is born free if he was injured in the womb by his master. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the *baraita*: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’⁴⁹ 1:3, Notes 403–407) that a slave woman and her fetus cannot have different status; it follows the minority opinion of R. Joḥanan (*Qiddušin* 1:3, Notes 408) that there can be no partial manumission except in the case of a slave belonging to two joint owners.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ A slave gains his freedom if his master severely injures one of his limbs, exemplified by “tooth and eye”; Ex.
⁴⁸ The translation follows E. In L, the terms are exchanged, following the biblical mention of “tooth” before “eye”. But a fetus has no tooth, only eyes. The Babli, Qiddušin
⁴⁹ This contradicts the Yerushalmi’s doctrine (Qiddušin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:6:1)

**משנה:** הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת חַיָיב. אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר שִׁיחַ וּמְעָרָה חֲרִיצִים וּנְעִיצִים חַיָיב. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹר. מַה הַבּוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְדֵי לְהָמִית עַד עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהָמִית עַד עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. הָיוּ פְחוּתִין מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת פָּטוּר וְאִם הוּזַּק בּוֹ חַיָיב. הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** ⁵⁰ One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths⁵¹ deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable⁵² 21:33–34 is not applicable., but if they were damaged, he is liable⁵³.
One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain⁵⁴, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable⁵⁵.

footnotes:
⁵⁰ In the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss., Mishnah 7 is Mishnah 8 and vice versa.
⁵¹ About 1 yard.
⁵² Since Ex.
⁵³ For any obstacle put into the public domain, the person responsible is liable for full damages (Chapter 1, Note 3).
⁵⁴ If the pit is so close to the public domain that an unsuspecting passer-by might be tripped by it, it is counted as obstacle in the public domain. If the private domain is separated from the public domain or another private domain by a fence at least 10 handbreadths high, the owner can do what he pleases on his property (Babli 50a).
⁵⁵ Again, if the pit is too close to the other property, it is putting an unauthorized obstacle on somebody else’s property.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כול׳. כְּתִיב כִּי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר וְכִי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בּוֹר. אֶחָד בּוֹר לִנְזָקִין וְאֶחָד בּוֹר לְמִיתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. אֶחָד בּוֹר שֶׁלְּמִיתָה וְאֶחָד בּוֹר לִנְזָקִין שְׁנֵיהֶן מִמִּקְרָא אֶחָד נִתְרַבּוּ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בָא לְבוֹר שֶׁלְּמִיתָה אַתָּ מַר. פָּטוּר עַל הַכֵּלִים. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בָא לְבוֹר שֶׁלִּנְזָקִין אַתָּ מַר. חַיָיב עַל הַכֵּלִים. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁחָפַר. לָקַח יָרַשׁ נִיתַּן לוֹ בְמַתָּנָה מְנַיִין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אוֹ כִי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בּוֹר. וְכִי יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהַבְקִיר נְזָקָיו בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵירִבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר. שְׁלֹשָׁה (דְבָרִים) שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לִרְשׁוּת כִּרְשׁוּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written⁵⁶ 21:33.: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death⁵⁷. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels⁵⁸! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.⁵⁹ 2:6, *Hos.* 3:2); in the Babli (*Soṭah* 13a, *Roš Haššanah* 26a) this is charaterized as Phoenician.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain⁶⁰? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths]⁶¹ close to a domain are like that domain⁶².

footnotes:
⁵⁶ Ex.
⁵⁷ The verse mentions “opening” for a pit which is not deep enough to kill an animal, and “digging” for a pit deep enough to kill.
⁵⁸ In the next Halakhah one deduces “an ox but not an ox with his vessels” from the language of the verse. Why does this not apply to damages in case the animal survives the fall? No answer is given; it must be that the award of damages in this case is a matter of common, not biblical law.
⁵⁹ Understanding יכרה as not derived from I כרה “to dig” but from II כרה “to buy” (Deut
⁶⁰ Since ‘pit’ is an obstacle in the public domain, how is it possible to acquire if from another person?
⁶¹ Reading טפחים for דברים “things” in the text.
⁶² This defines what means “close to another domain” in Mishnah 8 (Note 54). In the Babli, 50a, he requires a distance of at least 4 handbreadths. A private domain can be bought or inherited with all its liabilities.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:6:3)

רִבִּי מָנָא בָּעֵי. מָהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה אֶת הָעוֹמֶק כְּגוֹבָה. וְהֵיכִי דָמֵי. אִין בַּהוּא דַאֲתֵי מִן עֵיל חֲמֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא בְּהַהוּא דַאֲתֵי מִן לְרַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Mana asked: Can the depth be considered like the height? How is that⁶³? If about him who comes from up high, he sees it. But for him who comes from below⁶⁴.

footnotes:
⁶³ As I. Lewy correctly notes, היכי דמי is pure Babli language.
⁶⁴ In the absence of parallel texts, any interpretation of this paragraph is speculative. The explanation of Eliahu Fulda seems the most natural: The pit is dug on an incline; it does not go deeper than the surrounding valley. For an ox coming down from the hill, the pit is simply a slightly steeper declivity, but for one climbing up from the valley it is a real obstacle.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:7:1)

**משנה:** בּוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָפִין עָבַר עָלָיו הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כִיסָּהוּ וְהַשֵּׁינִי וְלֹא כִיסָּהוּ הַשֵּׁינִי חַיָיב. כִּיסָּהוּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָא הַשֵּׁינִי וְגִילֵּהוּ הַשֵּׁינִי חַיָיב. כִּיסָּהוּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָא הַשֵּׁינִי וּמְצָאוֹ מְגוּלֶּה וְלֹא כִיסָּהוּ הַשֵּׁינִי חַיָיב. כִּיסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת פָּטוּר. לֹא כִיסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת חַיָיב. נָפַל לְפָנָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָיה חַיָיב לְאַחֲרָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָיה פָּטוּר. נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ חֲמוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִתְקָרְעוּ חַיָיב עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וּפָטוּר עַל הַכֵּלִים. נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן חַיָיב. בֵּן אוֹ בַת עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A pit dug by two partners; if the first went by and did not cover it, the second and did not cover it, the second is liable. If the first covered it, the second came and uncovered it, the second is liable. If the first covered it, the second came, found it uncovered but did not cover it, the second is liable. If he covered it appropriately⁶⁵ but an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable⁶⁶ 21:33 explicitly absolves him if the pit is covered.. If he did not cover it appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is liable. If it fell forward because of the noise of the excavation, he is liable, backward because of the noise of the excavation, he is not liable⁶⁷. If an ox and its equipment⁶⁸ fell in and broke, a donkey and its equipment⁶⁹ was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment. If the ox falling in was deaf-mute, insane, or young, he is liable⁷⁰; a son or daughter, a slave or slave-girl, he is not liable⁷¹.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ This will be defined in the Halakhah.
⁶⁶ Ex.
⁶⁷ An animal falling backward is an unusual occurrence that cannot be foreseen; also in this case the animal fell on the ground and not into the pit.
⁶⁸ Harness and plough.
⁶⁹ Cover and saddle.
⁷⁰ These categories do not apply to animals.
⁷¹ Humans are supposed to watch where they are going.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:7:2)

**הלכה:** בּוֹר שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵי שׁוּתָפִין כול׳. הֵיךְ אֶיפְשַׁר לְבוֹר שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵי שׁוּתָפִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן אֶבֶן הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא פָתַר לָהּ בְּחָפַר זֶה עֲשָׂרָה וְזֶה עֲשָׂרָה. דּוּ בָּעֵי מִיפְתְּרִינֵיהּ בְּבוֹר שֶׁלַּעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵי שׁוּתָפִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A pit dug by two partners,” etc. How is a pit of two partners possible⁷²? Rebbi Yannai said, explain it if they both together put in the last stone⁷³. And why did they not explain that each of them dug ten handbreadths⁷⁴? Because he wants to explain it for a pit ten handbreadths deep⁷⁵ of two partners.

footnotes:
⁷² Since the pit is dug in the public domain, it is the sole responsibility of the digger; there can be no joint ownership.
⁷³ They together secured the rim lest the pit collapse. In the Babli, 51a, this explanation is ascribed to R. Joḥanan, R. Yannai’s student.
⁷⁴ Halakhah 1:2, Note 107.
⁷⁵ The mininum depth for which the digger is responsible if an animal is killed. The Mishnah is always formulated to apply to the borderline case.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:7:3)

עָבַר עָלָיו הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כִיסָּהוּ הַשֵּׁינִי וְלֹא כִיסָּהוּ הַשֵּׁינִי חַיָיב. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר בִּיזְנָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׁהוּת לִכְרוֹת אֲרָזִים מִן הַלְּבָנוֹן. אִית בָּהּ לְחוּמְרָא וְאִית בָּהּ לְקוּלָּא. פְּעָמִים שֶׁסְּמוּכִין לִלְבָנוֹן. פְּעָמִים שֶׁרְחוֹקִין לִלְבָנוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If the first went by and did not cover it, the second and did not cover it, the second is liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Bizna⁷⁶, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One gives him time to cut cedars from Lebanon⁷⁷. That can be a stringency and it can be a leniency⁷⁸. Sometimes he is close to the Lebanon, sometimes he is far from the Lebanon.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ An Amora of this name is not otherwise known. With all quotes in Medieval authors one should read “bar Bina (Abbina)”.
⁷⁷ In the interpretation of the Babli (52a): The first partner is freed from liability if the second had time to bring wood from Lebanon after being informed that the pit was not covered.
⁷⁸ It is missing the main point of a legal rule, to be equally applicable to everybody. In the Babli, Samuel therefore states that the first is freed from liability the moment the second becomes aware of the situation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:7:4)

כִּיסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי. עַד הֵיכָן כִּיסָּהוּ. יָיבֹא כַּיי דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲגָלָה מֲהַלֶּכֶת טְעוּנָה אֲבָנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If he covered it appropriately.” How much does it have to be covered? It shall be as we have stated there: “That [it can withstand] a truck full of stones driving over it.⁷⁹ 3:12; cf. *Bikkurim* 1:1, Notes 19–20.”

footnotes:
⁷⁹ Mishnah Bava batra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:7:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. לְתוֹכוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלַּאֲחַרָיו פָּטוּר. חוּצָה לוֹ לְפָנָיו פָּטוּר לְאַחֲרָיו חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yannai said, in front of him, whether forward ot behind he is (not) liable. Outside, forward he is (not) liable, behind he is [not] liable⁸⁰ 11 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 289), *Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai* 21:33 (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 185 l. 13)..

footnotes:
⁸⁰ This refers to the case that the animal was frightened by the noise of the excavation. It is clear that in the entire statement, “not liable” has to be replaced by “liable", and vice versa. This is confirmed by Tosephta 6:13 which frees from liability only if the animal falls backward outside the pit; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:7:6)

נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ חֲמוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִתְקָרְעוּ חַיָיב עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וּפָטוּר עַל הַכֵּלִים. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּשֶׁהִתְרִיפוֹ מַחֲמַת אֲוִירוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נֶּחְבַּט בַּקַּרְקַעו חַיָיב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ נֶּחְבַּט בַּקַּרְקַעו פָּטוּר. דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה פָטְרָה תוֹרָה. וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר. שׁוֹר וְלֹא שׁוֹר בְּכֵלָיו. חֲמוֹר וְלֹא חֲמוֹר בְּכֵלָיו. שֶׁהָיָה בְדִין. מָה אִם בּוֹר נְזָקִין שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַמִּיתָה חַיָיב עַל הַכֵּלִים. בּוֹר שֶׁלַּעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים שֶׁחַיָיב עַל הַמִּיתָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב עַל הַכֵּלִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר. שׁוֹר וְלֹא שׁוֹר בְּכֵלָיו. חֲמוֹר וְלֹא חֲמוֹר בְּכֵלָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If an ox and its equipment⁶⁸ fell in and broke, a donkey and its equipment⁶⁹ and was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment.” Samuel said, when it became disoriented because of the air⁸¹, but if it hit the ground he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if it hit the ground, he is not liable⁸²: The Torah absolved from liability when it fell down. “An ox or a donkey fell in there;⁵⁶ 21:33.” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment⁸³. Since it looked logical: If a pit of damages⁵⁸, where one is not liable for death, one is liable for vessels; would it not be logical that for a pit ten handbreadths deep, for which one is liable for death, should one not be liable for vessels?⁸⁴ 11 p. 288 l. 16. The verse says, “an ox or a donkey fell in there;” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ Harness and plough.
⁶⁹ Cover and saddle.
⁸¹ The bad air exuding from the pit.
⁸² In the Babli, 53a, Samuel’s statement is attributed to Rav, R. Joḥanan and Resh Laqish’s to Samuel. Since in the Babli practice follows Samuel and in the Yerushalmi R. Joḥanan, both Talmudim decide in the same way.
⁵⁶ Ex.
⁸³ Cf. Halakhah 3:1, Note 34, and the references given there.
⁵⁸ In the next Halakhah one deduces “an ox but not an ox with his vessels” from the language of the verse. Why does this not apply to damages in case the animal survives the fall? No answer is given; it must be that the award of damages in this case is a matter of common, not biblical law.
⁸⁴ Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:7:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:7:7)

נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. שׁוֹר וְהוּא חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹר וְהוּא שׁוֹטֶה [שׁוֹר וְהוּא קָטָן]. בֵּן וּבַת עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If the ox falling in was deaf-mute, insane, or young, he is liable”. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: an ox which is deaf-mute, an insane ox⁸⁵, [an underage ox]⁸⁶; “a son or daughter, a slave or slave-girl, he is not liable”.

footnotes:
⁸⁵ One should not read the Mishnah as: “An ox, a deaf-mute, an insane, or a minor,” the last three items referring to humans.
⁸⁶ Addition from E and a Genizah fragment; also required by general Talmudic style.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:8:1)

**משנה:** אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה לִנְפִילַת הַבּוֹר לְהַפְרָשַׁת הַר סִּינַי וּלְתַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וּלְהָשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה לִפְרִיקָה לַחֲסִימָה לַכִּלְאַיִם וְלַשַּׁבָּת. וְכֵן חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן. אִם כֵן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר. אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּיבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit, separating from Mount Sinai⁸⁸ 19:13., paying double restitution, returning lost property, unloading, muzzling, interbreeding, and the Sabbath. Wild animals and birds follow the same rules. Then why was it said “ox or donkey”? But the verse speaks of the actuality⁸⁷.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ Ex.
⁸⁷ At the time of the promulgation of the Law, these were the most frequent cases.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:8:2)

**הלכה:** אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה לִנְפִילַת הַבּוֹר כול׳. לִנְפִילַת הַבּוֹר וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר. לְהַפְרָשַׁת הַר סִּינַי אִם בְּהֵמָה אִם אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה. לְתַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל מִשּׁוֹר עַד חֲמוֹר. לְהָשִׁ[י]ב אֲבֵידָה הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֵם. לִפְרִיקָה עֲזוֹב תַּעֲזוֹב. לַחֲסִימָה לֹא תַחְסוֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ. לַּכִּלְאַיִם בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלאַיִם. לַשַׁבָּת לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמוֹרֶךָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.⁵⁶ 21:33.” Separating from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.⁸⁸ 19:13.” Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey⁸⁹ 22:3, the penalty for the thief found with livestock.”. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them⁹⁰ 22:1..” Unloading, “do remove⁹¹ 23:5..” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing⁹² 25:4..” Interbreeding, “your animal you shall not breed *kilaim*⁹³ 19:19..” The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest⁹⁴ 23:12..”

footnotes:
⁵⁶ Ex.
⁸⁸ Ex.
⁸⁹ Ex.
⁹⁰ Deut.
⁹¹ Ex..
⁹² Deut.
⁹³ Lev.
⁹⁴ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:8:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 5:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/5:8:3)

וְכֵן חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲוַוז יַם עִם אֲוַוז יִישׁוּב כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא לֹא אָמְרָה כֵן. אֶלָּא שׁוֹר עִם שׁוֹר בָּר חֲמוֹר עִם חֲמוֹר בָּר כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מִשְׁנָה שְׁלֵימָה שָׁנָה רִבִּי. וְכֵן חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲנָא דְאַייתִיתֵיהּ מִן דְּבֵית לֵוִי. תַּרְנְגוֹל עִם פַיסְיוֹנִי תַּרְנְגוֹל עִם הַטַּוֶּוסֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” ⁹⁵ 8:6: R. Samuel, but in the Babli, 55a, in the name of Samuel. Samuel said, the sea goose is *kilaim* with domesticated goose. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah does not say so, but an ox and a bison are *kilaim* with one another; a donkey and a wild donkey are *kilaim* with one another⁹⁶ 8:6, Notes 97–98. The Genizah fragment here has an addition: “A pig and a wild boar are *kilaim*;” this is from Tosephta *Kilaim* 1:8.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah: “Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.⁹⁷ then certainly land and water fowl are *kilaim* and one does not need a specific statement for this.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and I brought this from the House of Levi⁹⁸: A rooster with a pheasant⁹⁹, a rooster with a peacock-hen¹⁰⁰ are *kilaim* even though they are similar one to the other.

footnotes:
⁹⁵ In Kilaim
⁹⁶ Contradicting the rabbis in Kilaim
⁹⁷ If two related kinds of land animals are kilaim,
⁹⁸ Babli 55a, in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish.
⁹⁹ Greek φασιανός.
¹⁰⁰ טַווָס, Greek ταώς “Peacock”.