MISHNAH: How is the foot notorious to break anything in its way¹? An animal is notorious to break anything in its way. If it was kicking² or if pebbles were ricocheting from under its feet and breaking vessels, he pays half of the damage³. If it stepped on a vessel and broke it⁴ when [the pieces] fell on another vessel and broke that, for the first he pays full damages⁵ and half damages for the last⁶.

footnotes: ¹ This refers to Mishnah 1:4; cf. Chapter 1, Note 158. ² When it was not known to do that habitually. ³ Since this is unforseeable damage. ⁴ When the shepherd should have taken care not to lead his animals to a place where a vessel could legitimately stand in his animal’s way. ⁵ He violated his duty of due diligence. ⁶ The second vessel was broken by the shards of the first; that is an unforeseeable circumstance.

HALAKHAH: “How is the foot notorious,” etc. Does not an animal usually make pebbles ricochet⁷? Rebbi Immi said, if the vessel was held by a human⁸. But if it was lying in the public domain⁹, since it was rightfully lying there and [the animal] was rightfully walking there, he is free¹⁰. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if there were two roads. On one there are grasses and pebbles¹¹, on the other there are no grasses or pebbles¹². It¹³ disregarded the one with no grasses or pebbles and went on that with grasses and pebbles; even though it was in the public domain he is free¹⁴. Rebbi Eleazar¹⁵ said, in anything not concerning its body¹⁶, the Sages made no difference between private and public domain in the matter of half damages¹⁷.

footnotes: ⁷ Then an animal should be watched lest it cause stones to ricochet with all damages paid in full. ⁸ It was not lying in the street. Then it is an uncommon outcome; the shepherd is not obligated to watch for it; one pays half damages. ⁹ A thoroughfare. ¹⁰ Since a shepherd has the right to lead his flock on a public road, anybody who puts a vessel into the public domain, even if it creates no nuisance, must assume that it will be broken. Therefore, nothing is due. ¹¹ A badly maintained road which becomes overgrown and its surface loosened. ¹² A well-maintained street; one may assume that all passers-by are going to use it. ¹³ The animal, which has no need to be anywhere at a fixed time, went after the grasses growing on the decaying street. ¹⁴ The expression (אַף עַל פִּי) אע״פ “even though” is difficult to understand. Since even a badly maintained road is a road and built for use, animals, not only humans, are allowed to use it and, therefore, to trample on anything lying on the road. It seems that one should rather read מִפְּנֵי “because of”, meaning that there are no squatters’ rights on an unused part of a public road.R. Abba bar Mamal does not comment on the Mishnah but on R. Immi’s explanation with which he disagrees; he holds that an animal on a public road never causes claimable damage by simply walking there. ¹⁵ In the Babli, 19b: R. Joḥanan. ¹⁶ Not by any of the actions specified in Mishnah 1:4. ¹⁷ Clearly nobody can claim damages if he put vessels in a roadway and they are broken, but he can claim damages if vessels on his own property are broken by pebbles ricocheting from the public road. Therefore, he also can claim damages if his vessels were on the unpaved side of the public domain. This supports R. Immi.

Is it subject to a declaration of notoriety in a matter extraneous to its body¹⁸21:28). If a “notorious” animal kills, it must be stoned and the owners have to pay weregilt (Ex. 21:29–30). Since there is a difference in legal status, the notoriety of an animal must be based on a judicial finding. Now these rules apply to all attacks which are classified as “horn”, i. e., those enumerated in Mishnah 1:4. The question is whether the rules extend to damages caused by “tooth” and “foot”; e. g., whether an animal can be declared dangerous because it has a way to send pebbles flying wherever it walks, which would make its owner liable for full damages in all cases.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one accepts. Rebbi Illa said, one does not accept. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with him: An ox which rubs itself against a wall¹⁹ “by its body”. But here it is assumed that the animal rubs to free itself from fleas or otherwise for its comfort, not in any agressive way. Cf. Mishnah 4:7 (Tosephta 4:5); Babli 44a. which fell on a human and killed him is obligated for weregilt but free from death²⁰. Does there exist weregilt for a harmless animal²¹ accepts that declarations of notoriety are possible for behavior not classified as “horn”.? But it does not disagree with Rebbi Illa²² cannot be derived from the rules of “horn”. But then the previous argument about weregilt does not apply.. Why is it free from death if it was notorious to destroy walls? When it destroyed it, no human was there²³.

footnotes: ¹⁸ The verse makes a clear distinction between “harmless” cattle, which are not known to gore humans, and “notorious” cattle which have a history of such attacks. If a “harmless” animal kills a human, it must be killed (Ex. ¹⁹ If the animal pushed against the wall the way it would push an unfriendly other animal, that clearly would be a “hit” as defined by Mishnah 1:4 and be classified as “horn”, or, in the language of the baraita, ²⁰ This does not agree with any case of “horn”; cf. Note 18. ²¹ Since weregilt is only required for killings by notorious animals, the baraita ²² Since an animal causing death of a human has to be killed, whether harmless or notorious, it is clear that the statement of the baraita ²³ Even if the animal attacked the wall as if it were a hostile animal, and the incident has to be classified as “horn”, it cannot be killed if its attack only weakened the wall which collapsed at some later time, when the attacking animal already had stopped pushing.Also in the Babli, 18b, the question is decided in R. Illa’s sense.

Rebbi Eleazar said: If it produced dung, one pays full damages. For if it were not so, what would we say? He has to have a receptacle handy? That is to say, if it does not do so habitually. But if it does so habitually, he has to have a receptacle handy²⁴ the text seems to be a note jotted down in preparation of a lecture, not fully developed. In the Babli, 18a, one reads: “If [an animal] laid dung into dough, R. Jehudah says, [the owner] pays full damages, but R. Eleazar says, half damages.” If this is a parallel, then R. Eleazar mentioned here is the Tanna, ben Shamua, not the Amora, bar Pada. Now it is clear that cattle will always produce dung. Therefore, cow dung in a place open to cattle, such as a grazing area or a public road, cannnot be a cause for damage claims. This is the statement missing in the text, to which the note “for if it were not so” refers. The question remains whether in using a road, e. g., passing through a market place, the herder has to make sure that his animals are safely away from any merchandise. If there is an animal whose preferred place for defecating is near edibles, its owner is required to follow it, bucket in hand, to avoid having to pay full damages..

footnotes: ²⁴ As often in Neziqin,

Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder and Rebbi Jehudah Neśia were sitting. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal came to them and asked: If it wagged its tail²⁵ as those mules do, what are the rules? They did not tell him. Later, Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder told him, for if it were not so, what would we say? Does he have to grab its tail? That is, if it does not usually do it. But if it usually does it, he has to grab its tail²⁶. What is obvious to us? The problem of full damages²⁷. What is problematic for us? Half damages²⁸.

footnotes: ²⁵ It wagged its tail excessively and caused damage close to a place where it legally can pass; the situation is parallel to that discussed in the preceding paragraph. ²⁶ To avoid damage; cf. Note 24, end. ²⁷ That no full damages are due. ²⁸ And it remains undecided in the Babli, 19b.

New Paragraph. “If it stepped on a vessel and broke it.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it stepped on a skin full of oil²⁹, he pays full damages for the skin³⁰ and half damages for the oil³¹. If there was a table lying there and glass on top of it. If it stepped on the table²⁹ and by that the glass broke³⁰. He pays full damages fort the table and half damages for the glass. If there were two tables on top of one another²⁹. If it stepped on the upper one and the lower one was broken³⁰. He pays full damages fort the upper table and half damages for the lower. If the table was lying in the public domain³², [the animal] stepped on it and it ricocheted, went and broke into a private domain³³. What do you follow, the stepping or its breaking? If you say, after stepping³⁴, he is free [from paying] for its stepping on it; if you say, after its breaking, then he is guilty for the breaking³⁵.

footnotes: ²⁹ Not in the public domain nor in its owner’s. ³⁰ Damages by “foot” not in an authorized domain. ³¹ For indirectly caused damages even in the domain of a person sustaining the damage one only pays half damages. The Babli agrees, 19a. ²⁹ Not in the public domain nor in its owner’s. ³⁰ Damages by “foot” not in an authorized domain. ²⁹ Not in the public domain nor in its owner’s. ³⁰ Damages by “foot” not in an authorized domain. ³² Where one has the right to lead one’s animals and payment for damages by “foot” are excluded. ³³ Where full payment is due for damages. ³⁴ Substitution of עַל by prothetic אַ is Babylonian usage. ³⁵ The Babli, 17b/18a, after a lengthy discussion decides that in case of damage caused by a chain of events, the location of the trigger event determines liabilities. It also notes that rules of payment of less than full damages for events not classified as “horn” are traditional, rather than biblical.

MISHNAH: Chickens³⁶. are notorious³⁷ for breaking things in their usual walk. If a thread³⁸ was bound to its foot or it was scraping³⁹ and broke vessels, he pays half damages.

footnotes: ³⁶ The usual Babylonian Amoraic and modern term for “chicken”, based on Aramaic/Syriac, is תַּרְנְגוֹל. But almost all Mishnah mss. and also the early Babli prints in this Mishnah have תרנוגל, mirroring the original Sumerian turlugallu ³⁷ Its owner has to pay full damages. ³⁸ Something thin, root דל. ³⁹ Arukh reads חדס, from Arabic خدش “to tear with one’s nails; to scrape”.

HALAKHAH: “Chickens are notorious,” etc. Rav Huna said³⁹, if it⁴⁰ became tied by itself. But if he tied it⁴¹, he pays full damages. It was stated⁴²: “If chickens scraped dough or fruit, or they pecked, he pays full damages⁴³. If they scraped dust on dough or on fruit, one pays half of the damages⁴⁴. If they were picking at a rope⁴⁵ and the pail was separated⁴⁶ or broke, he pays full damages. If one⁴⁷ fell on another; for the uppermost he pays full damages; for the lower one half damages; it is not comparable to a pit at one place which causes damage at another place⁴⁸.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since it usually falls only into this cistern, it is as if it were his pit. It was stated⁴²: “If chickens fell in a garden, broke vegetables, and cut rosemary⁴⁹ 68b. In Berakhot53b, Rashi explains: spikenard. Loew, Flora I, p. 10 wants to explain: stems (based on the Tosephta which switches the verbs referring to ḥilfin and vegetables.) At other places (Mishnah Kelim 17:17), the Gaonic commentary identifies חלף with Arabic خلاف “willow”; sometimes it means حلفة “Alfalfa grass”., he pays full damages. Symmachos said, for cutting he pays full damages, for breaking he pays half damages. If a chicken flew from one place to another and did damage with its body, he pays full damages. By the wind between its wings, he pays half damages; Symmachos says, full damages. If it blew at vessels and broke them, he pays full damages⁵⁰.

footnotes: ³⁹ Arukh reads חדס, from Arabic خدش “to tear with one’s nails; to scrape”. ⁴⁰ The thread on the chicken’s foot. The chicken’s owner can be faulted for insufficient watchfulness. ⁴¹ If the owner tied the thread himself, perhaps to identify the chicken, and the thread caused damage, this is no longer a case only of insufficient watchfulness. The owner has to pay full damages under the heading of “pit”. ⁴² Tosephta 2:1; Babli 17b. ⁴³ This is damage of “foot”, for which they are notorious. ⁴⁴ This is uncommon damage. ⁴⁵ The Tosephta adds correctly: connected to a pail of a cistern. ⁴⁶ It fell into the cistern and cannot be recovered. ⁴⁷ One pail on another; cf. Notes 30 ff. ⁴⁸ And therefore it cannot be characterized as “pit” which pays full damages in all cases. ⁴² Tosephta 2:1; Babli 17b. ⁴⁹ This translation is tentative; it follows Rashi, Giṭṭin ⁵⁰ For indirect damage, caused by the turbulence generated by the chicken’s wings, he pays half damages. But damage caused by the bird directly blowing at something is like damage caused by touch of its body.

MISHNAH: How is the tooth notorious to eat what is fitting for it? A domesticated animal⁵¹ is notorious for eating fruits and vegetables. If it ate a garment or vessels, he pays half damages⁵². When has this been said? In the domain of the person sustaining the damage. But on public property¹⁰ he is free; but if it benefited, he pays what it benefited⁵³.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Cattle, sheep, or goats. ⁵² This leaves open the question of the owner’s responsibility if a plant eating animal eats meat. ¹⁰ Since a shepherd has the right to lead his flock on a public road, anybody who puts a vessel into the public domain, even if it creates no nuisance, must assume that it will be broken. Therefore, nothing is due. ⁵³ This is a general principle, applicable to all kinds of damages.

HALAKHAH: “How is the tooth notorious,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁵⁴ said, it⁵⁵ refers to the first part. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it refers to all⁵⁶. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it⁵⁷ is responsible⁵⁸. And here, he says so? They said, there in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; but here, in his own name. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s word implies that if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down⁵⁹, is it⁵⁷ free [from payment]. Rebbi Joḥanan’s word implies that if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, it⁵⁷ is obligated⁶⁰. Not only if the walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down or one which is lying down kicks the walking one. If a walking [animal] kicks a walking one? Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, it⁵⁷ is free [from payment]. But in the case of one lying down against one walking or one who was walking against one walking, it⁵⁷ is obligated⁵⁹. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: It⁵⁷ always is free. What is Rebbi Hoshaia’s reason; is there no “horn” in the public domain⁶⁰? Rav said, if it stood still and ate from heaped produce, [it is obligated]⁶¹ 6, 56–63). Rav (and Ilfai, quoted later in the paragraph) hold that the exemption for “tooth” granted in the public domain only holds if the road is used as road, not as place for grazing. If the shepherd allows the animals of his herd to stand for grazing, he is responsible for any damage done. “Heaped produce” is grain arranged in an orderly heap, a sign of illegal use of the public domain for private use.. Since the leniency for “tooth” is in case it ate walking from the standing⁶²; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the one standing still⁶³. Ilfai said: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it⁵⁷ is obligated. Since the leniency for “tooth” is that it ate walking {from the standing}⁶⁴ [from the walking]; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the walking one⁶⁵.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ The abbreviation Resh Laqish for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is Babylonian; in the Yerushalmi it is a sign of an intrusion of Babylonian spelling. ⁵⁵ The animal’s owner does not have to pay if his animal ate food in the public domain. If it ate vessels or garments, the damage is classified as “horn” and the owner has to pay half damages unless the animal has been certified as a notorious eater of vessels or garments, when full damages are due. In the Babli, 20a, this opinion is attributed to Samuel and R. Joḥanan. Since in money matters the Babli recognizes Samuel and R. Joḥanan as authorities, the Babli endorses this opinion. ⁵⁶ Even for vessels and garments no payment is due if they were left exposed on a public thoroughfare. In the Babli, this is the opinion of Rav and R. Simeon ben Laqish. Since the Yerushalmi recognizes R. Joḥanan over R. Simeon ben Laqish, it endorses this opinion. ⁵⁷ In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. ⁵⁸ R. Simeon ben Laqish should have qualified his statement; even animals feeding in the public domain will cost their owners if their behavior deviates from the norm. ⁵⁹ Babli 20a; for an animal to lie down and ruminate on a thoroughfare is deviant behavior. ⁵⁷ In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. ⁵⁷ In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. ⁶⁰ He rejects the notion that deviant behavior of one party justifies the other. In the Babli, R. Joḥanan is presumed to agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish in this case. ⁵⁷ In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. ⁵⁷ In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. ⁵⁹ Babli 20a; for an animal to lie down and ruminate on a thoroughfare is deviant behavior. ⁵⁷ In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. ⁶⁰ He rejects the notion that deviant behavior of one party justifies the other. In the Babli, R. Joḥanan is presumed to agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish in this case. ⁶¹ The addition is the reading common to E and the Rome fragment edited by A. H. Freimann (Tarbiz ⁶² If cattle, sheep, or goats are driven as a herd, they may eat from what was stored in the public domain. ⁶³ Even though the herder of the animal standing still should have driven it away. ⁵⁷ In reality not the animal is responsible but its owner. ⁶⁴ E and Vatican mss. read: מְהַלֶּכֶת מִן הַמְהַלֶּכֶת “the walking animal ate from another walking animal”. This refers to Ilfai’s statement in the Babli, 20a: “An animal in the public domain which stretched out its neck and ate from upon another animal is obligated;” a statement explained away in the Babli. The change has to be rejected as an attempt to harmonize the Yerushalmi with the Babli. ⁶⁵ While Ilfai agrees with Rav on the rules of “tooth”, he disagrees with him on “horn” and holds that for “horn” injuries the owner of the agressive animal always has to pay.

MISHNAH: How does he pay for what it benefited from? If it ate on the public square, he pays for what it benefited from⁶⁶. On the borders of the public square⁶⁷, he pays for what it damaged. From the door of a store⁶⁸, he pays for what it benefited from; inside the store he pays for what it damaged.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ At a place open for public use, the animal’s owner pays only the price of animal feed even if it ate human food. ⁶⁷ The space is not for use; its status is of domain open neither for the person responsible for causing the damage nor the person suffering it. ⁶⁸ If the owner of the store encroached on the public domain to exhibit his wares.

HALAKHAH: “How does he pay for what it benefited from,” etc. Rav said, if it bent its neck and ate, he pays for what it damaged⁶⁹. But did we not state: “From the door of a store, he pays what it benefited from; inside the store he pays for what it damaged”? How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that a donkey carried lambs and when it passed by, they bent their necks and ate; from the door of a store, he pays what they benefited from; inside the store he pays for what they damaged. Rav said, if it ate barley, he pays for straw⁷⁰. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state and disagree? ⁷¹“Therefore, if it ate wheat which is bad for it, it is free. If it changed and ate, he pays full damages. What means ‘if it changed and ate, he pays full damages’? If somebody had his chest hanging on his back and a cow stretched out its neck and ate from it, [its owner] pays full damages⁷². If a large container was at the entrance to a store, partially outside and partially inside; if a cow stretched its neck and ate from it, he pays full damages⁷².”

footnotes: ⁶⁹ This is a direct continuation of the argument of Halakhah 3. The exemption of “tooth” only applies to an animal grazing in walking; not to one turning out of its way to feed. The same opinion is held by Rav in the Babli, 21a; there, the authoritative opinion is that of Samuel who exempts all feeding in the public domain. ⁷⁰ Probably, not straw without grain is meant but עָמִיר, entire stalks with the kernels, as formulated in the Babli, 20a. ⁷¹ Tosephta 1:7; partially quoted in the Babli, 20a. ⁷² Since the remaining grain is no longer fit for human consumption. ⁷² Since the remaining grain is no longer fit for human consumption.

MISHNAH: For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof and broke vessels one pays full damages⁷³ because they are notorious. If a dog stole a hot pitta⁷⁴ and went to a stack of sheaves; while it was eating the hot pitta it ignited the stack. For the pitta [its owner] pays full damages, for the stack⁷⁵ he pays half damages.

footnotes: ⁷³ Even if the vessels were in the public domain. ⁷⁴ חררה is a piece of dough being baked over an open fire. ⁷⁵ Which is lost by indirect action of his property.

HALAKHAH: “For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof,” etc. There are Tannaïm who state: “jumped”. There are Tannaïm who state: “fell”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: “jumped”. But “fell” does not apply⁷⁶.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ One cannot say that dogs or kid goats are notoriously apt to fall from roofs; therefore, their owners either are free or at most pay half damages. The Babli disagrees, 21b.

“A dog stole a hot pitta.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if he lit every single ear of grain⁷⁷ he had lit every stalk separately”, that every stalk creates a new obligation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another⁷⁸. Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a kid goat was bound to it and a slave was close by and was burned, he is obligated. If the slave was bound and the kid goat close by, he is free.⁷⁹ 7:1, Ketubot 3:1). Therefore, he cannot be made to pay for the animal.” But⁸⁰ if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then for the first ear he is guilty of a capital crime; for the remainder he should be liable for repayment. Rebbi Yose said, you also understand that from: “If his cattle set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is obligated. But if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is free.⁸¹ 7:1, Note 44.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then should he not become obligated since for the remainder he should be liable for repayment⁸⁰. A person did put out a hot water bottle⁸² outside⁸³, “outside, in the open”. The Escurial text and the Vatican fragment offer a second reading פירון (cf. Latin forum “outside place, public place; market”), and a parallel text חד בר נש אמלי אסרטא “a person filled the thoroughfare”.. A donkey passed by and broke it. The case came before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai, who said to him: He does not owe you anything. Not only that but if [the donkey] suffered damage, [you] would be obligated for its damages⁸⁴.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ The Babli, 22a, explains that R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that damage by fire is like any other damage caused by a person’s property. Therefore, the fire not directly caused by the dog should not lead to liability of the dog’s owner.The Vatican fragment reads נעשה במצית את האור. This is a conflation of the Leiden text with a reading נַעֲשֶׂה כְמַצִית אֶת הָאוֹר “he is considered as if ⁷⁸ This is action from a distance; the owner is liable even if his property only shot the arrow or started the fire. ⁷⁹ Mishnah 6:7. If a person set fire to a haystack, he has to pay for the hay and everything inside. If an animal was bound in the haystack, a slave was close to it, and both were burned, the arsonist has to pay for the animal; he is not responsible for the slave, who was not bound and could have saved himself. But if the slave was bound and the animal free, then the arsonist is a murderer. Nobody is both executed and pays for the same crime; even if he cannot be convicted for lack of eyewitnesses to the crime he cannot be made to pay (Terumot ⁸⁰ The argument advanced by R. Isaac bar Tevelai is not spelled out. The counter argument is presented: If the arsonist were personally liable only for the first stalk which he lit then by the time the fire reached the bound slave it no longer was his fire and there is no reason why he should not be made to pay for the animal. Only R. Joḥanan’s position is consistent with the Mishnah. ⁸¹ Mishnah 3:12; cf. Terumot ⁸⁰ The argument advanced by R. Isaac bar Tevelai is not spelled out. The counter argument is presented: If the arsonist were personally liable only for the first stalk which he lit then by the time the fire reached the bound slave it no longer was his fire and there is no reason why he should not be made to pay for the animal. Only R. Joḥanan’s position is consistent with the Mishnah. ⁸² Since making fire on the Sabbath is a capital crime, he cannot be sued for civil damages. But if his animals start a fire, no crime is involved, and the owner is fully responsible in a civil suit. ⁸³ Latin foris ⁸⁴ Your merchandise has the status of “pit in the public domain”.

MISHNAH: Which one is tame and which one is notorious? Notorious if there was testimony against it for three days. Tame if it behaved during three [days], the words of Rebbi Jehudah⁸⁵. Rebbi Meїr says, notorious if there was testimony against it three times⁸⁶(Neziqin 10), this interpretation is attributed to R. Yose.; tame if children touched it.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ In his opinion, a vicious animal can regain the status of tame. ⁸⁶ In the Babli, this is read as including testimony about three different incidents in one day, or on three widely spaced occasions. The notorious animal regains a status of tame only if it regularly can be touched by children. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.⁸⁷ 21:36; a notorious bull is one who was known to gore “yesterday and the day before.” Babli 23b.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings⁸⁸, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days⁸⁹ and attributes that argument to R. Yose (Note 86). The Babli, 37a, notes that a bull can be declared notorious on alternate days if it was observed to gore on days 1,3,5 and was tame on days 2,4.. 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 days⁹⁰? 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 disagreed⁹¹ 68a, the opinion attributed here to R. Ada is Rav’s and that of Rav Huna is Levi’s. Since the Babli follows Rav but the opinion of Rav Ada is discredited in the Yerushalmi, the Talmudim come to opposite conclusions.: A menstruating woman⁹² 15:19 decrees that a menstruating woman is impure for seven days; then she may immerse herself in a miqweh and is pure. But if she has a disccharge “many days outside her period”, she is declared זָבָה “suffering from flux”, and Lev. 15:25–30 decrees that after she is healed she has to undergo a period of purification and a Temple ceremony to regain purity. Since “days” mean a minimum of two, “many days” mean a minimum of three (cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical problems in Jewish tradition, in: Ph. Longworth, ed., Confrontations with Judaism, London 1966, pp. 171–196.) Therefore it is clear that one deals here with a menstruating woman who checks herself on the seventh day and finds herself impure. She therefore cannot become pure at the end of the seventh day but falls under the severe rules of the sufferer from flux only if she has a discharge during three consecutive days. 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 niddah⁹³, “the menstruating woman”, this has to be read zavah, “the woman suffering from flux” instead; cf. the preceding Note.. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah¹, “the menstruating woman”, this has to be read zavah, “the woman suffering from flux” instead; cf. the preceding Note.⁹⁴ but, if the Temple will be miraculously rebuilt overnight, she would not bring a sacrifice.. 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: ⁸⁷ Ex. ⁸⁸ In the Rome fragment: כהפליג נגיחות, “if it spread out its gorings”. ⁸⁹ In the Babli, 24a, R. Meïr is credited with the argument that if three different gorings on three different days make a bull notorious then three gorings on the same day certainly will have the same effect. The plural “bulls” in the next sentence negates this interpretation in the Yerushalmi which might follow the Mekhilta ⁹⁰ The question is not answered, probably because it never arose in practice. ⁹¹ In the Babli, Niddah ⁹² The text here is incomprehensible; one has to insert two words from the parallel Babli text. Lev. ⁹³ Instead of niddah ¹ Instead of niddah ⁹⁴ She has to follow the rules of zavah

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame animal and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony⁹⁶, as we have stated⁹⁷(Neziqin 10), ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 284.: “A bull which gored three times on the same day is not notorious. Why does the verse say ‘from yesterday and the day before’? For if it mended its ways for three days one after the other it is judged to be tame.” We were thinking to say that practice follows Rav Huna who said following both of them⁹⁸. This is confirmed by Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame [bull] and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Testimony before the court which declares a bull notorious. The Babli, 24a, agrees and declares this to be the opinion of the Tanna R. Yose. ⁹⁷ Similar texts are in the mss. of Mekhilta dR. Ismael ⁹⁸ Practice partially follows both RR. Jehudah and Meïr.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages⁹⁹. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss¹⁰⁰ derived from Num. 12:14 (Sifry Num. 106; Babli 25a), discussed by the author (loc. cit. Note 92, p. 183).. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Cf. Halakhak 1:4, Note 160. ¹⁰⁰ This is an intrinsic limitation of arguments de minore ad majus,

HALAKHAH: “The bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage,” etc. to the end. ¹⁰¹ Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Ṭarphon: “In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages.”

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ This is Halakhah 1:4.

MISHNAH: A human is always notorious: Whether in error, or intentionally, whether awake, or sleeping, if he blinded another person or broke vessels, he pays full damages¹⁰².

footnotes: ¹⁰² Irrespective of the circumstances, he pays full restitution for all possible kinds of damages.

HALAKHAH: “A human is always notorious,” etc. Rebbi Isaac said: The Mishnah if both of them were sleeping¹⁰³. But if one was sleeping and another one came to sleep near him, the one who came to sleep near him is notorious¹⁰⁴ כיון) quotes an expanded version: In the Yerushalmi it is noted that a person sleeping is liable only if he went to sleep near vessels, but if he was sleeping when vessels were deposited near him and he broke them, he does not have to pay because others caused the damage; similarly, if one was sleeping, another person went to sleep near him, and they injured one another, the first is free and the later one has to pay. Since none of the ms. sources has this extended text, it may be an example of the Ashkenazic “book Yerushalmi”..

footnotes: ¹⁰³ In the Rome fragment: “So is the Mishnah: if both of them were sleeping.” ¹⁰⁴ Tosaphot (4a, s.v.