Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma Chapter 3

הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּשְׁבָרָהּ פָּטוּר. וְאִם הוּזַּק בָּהּ בַּעַל הֶחָבִית חַיָיב בִּנְזָקָיו. הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כול׳. וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ אָדָם לַהֲנִיחָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. רַב אָמַר. בִּמְמַלָּא אֶת כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אֲבָל אִם אֵינָהּ מְמַלָּא אֶת כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵין דֶּרֶךְ אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מַנִּיחָם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אוֹ בִּמְמַלָּא אֶת כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא נְתוּנָה עַל קֶרֶן זָוִית. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וַאֲפִילוּ אֵינָהּ מְמַלָּא כָל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אִם יִטְלֶינָּהּ מִיכָּאן וְיִתְנֶינָּהּ כָּאן הֲרֵי זֶה בוֹר וַאֲפִילוּ אֵינָה נְתוּנָה עַל קֶרֶן זָוִית אֵין דֶּרֶךְ אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מַנִּיחָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. הָיְתָה מְמַלָּא כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אִם יִטְלֶינָּהּ מִיכָּן וְיִתְנֶינָּהּ כָּאן נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹר. אֶלָּא יִטּוֹל הַמַּקֵּל וִישַׁבְּרֶנָּהּ אוֹ יַעֲבוֹר עָלֶיהָ וְאִם נִשְׁבְּרָה נִשְׁבְּרָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שׁוֹר שֶׁעָלָה עַל חֲבֵירוֹ וּבָא בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר לִשְׁמוֹט אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ הוּא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּט אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְנָפַל וָמֵת פָּטוּר. אִם דְּחָייוֹ וְנָפַל וָמֵת חַיָיב. וְלָא יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. אִילּוּ שְׁבַקָּתָהּ הֲוִינָא יְהִיב לָךְ נִזְקָךְ. עוֹד הוּא דוּ יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. אִילּוּ שְׁבַקָּתָהּ הֲוִיתָה יְהִב לִי חֲצִי נֶזֶק. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּעָד לֹא כָּל מִמָּךְ שֶׁאֱהֵא מְחַזֵּר עִמָּךְ עַל בָּתֵּי דִינִין. הִנִּיחַ חָבִית בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִנִּיחַ אֲחֶרֶת סְמוּכָה לָהּ וּבָא הָרִאשׁוֹן לִיטּוֹל שֶׁלּוֹ אִם יִטְלֶינָּהּ מִיכָּן וְיִתְנֶינָּהּ כָּאן נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹר. אֶלָּא יִטּוֹל אֶת הַמַּקֵּל וִישַׁבְּרֶנָּהּ אוֹ יַעֲבוֹר עָלֶיהָ וְאִם נִשְׁבְּרָה נִשְׁבְּרָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שׁוֹר שֶׁעָלָה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ וּבָא בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר וּשְׁמָטוֹ מִתַּחְתָּיו אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא̇ עָלָה שְׁמָטוֹ וְנָפַל וָמֵת פָּטוּר. וְאִם דָּחֵהוּ וְנָפַל וָמֵת חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְתִישְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. רָאָה אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שׁוֹטֶפֶת וּבָאָה לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנְסוּ הַמַּיִם לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ רַשַּׁאי לְפַנּוֹתֶן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסוּ אֵין רַשַּׁאי לְפַנּוֹתֶן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אֲהֵן כְרֻיסוֹ אַרְגִּירָא עַד דְּלָא יֵיתֵי אֲהֵן כְרֻיסוֹ אַרְגִּירָא שָׁרֵי מֵימַר. פְּלָן עֲבִיד עֲיבִידָתִי פְּּלָן עֲבִיד עֲיבִידָתִי. מִן דְּיֵיתֵי אֲהֵן כְרֻיסוֹ אַרְגִּירָא אָסוּר. הָדֵן אַכְסְּנַיי פָּרֹכֹא עַד דְּלָא יֵיתוֹן רוֹמַאי שָׁרֵי (מיחשדוניה) [מְשַׁחְדִּינֵיהּ]. מִן דְּיֵיתוֹן רוֹמַאי אֲסִיר. הִנִּיחַ אַבְנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִנִּיחַ אֲחֶרֶת סְמוּכָה לָהּ וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בְּזוֹ וְנֶחְבַּט בְּזוֹ. מִי חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ הַשֵּׁינִי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שׁוֹר שֶׁדָּחַף לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנָפַל לַבּוֹר. בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר חַיָיב וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר פָּטוּר. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. בְּמוּעָד זֶה נוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה וְזֶה נוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה וּבְתָם בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר רְבִיעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר נוֹתֵן רְבִיעַ. (הִנִּיחַ אַבְנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִנִּיחַ אֲחֶרֶת סְמוּכָה לָהּ וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בְּזוֹ וְנֶחְבַּט בְּזוֹ. מִי חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי.) הִנִּיחַ אַבְנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָאת הָרוּחַ וְהִפְרִיחָתָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. הִנִּיחַ אַבְנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וְהִתִּיזָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִנִּיחַ אַבְנוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהֶן וּצְלוּחִיתוֹ בְיָדוֹ. בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְקַל בָּאֶבֶן וְנֶחְבַּט בַּקַּרְקַע בֵּין שֶׁנֶּחְבַּט בָּאֶבֶן וְנִתְקַל בַּקַּרְקַע חַיָיב עַל נִיזְקֵי אָדָם וּפָטוּר עַל נִיזְקֵי צְלוּחִיתוֹ. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרָה. בּוֹר שֶׁלַּנִּזָּקִין פָּטוּר עַל הַכֵּלִים. וְאִם כְּדֶרֶךְ הַטָּחָה הִטִּיחַ אֲפִילוּ עַל נִיזְקֵי צְלוּחִית חַיָיב.

MISHNAH: If somebody puts his jar down in the public domain and another person stumbled over it and broke it, [the second person] does not have to pay; if he was hurt, the owner of the amphora has to pay his damages. HALAKHAH: “If somebody puts his jar down in the public domain,” etc. Is it not usual for a person to put things in the public domain? Rav said, if it was filling the entire public domain. But if it does not fill the entire public domain, is it not usual to put things in the public domain? Samuel said, either if it was filling the entire public domain or if it is at a corner. Rebbi Eleazar said, even if it does not fill the entire public domain (if he took it from here and put it down there he would create a “pit”) and even if it was at a corner; it is not usual for a person to put things in the public domain. If it was filling the entire public domain, if he took it from here and put it down there he would create a “pit”. But could he take a stick and break it or step over it and if it broke, it broke? Let us hear from the following: If a bull mounted another”. and the [latter’s] owner came to draw away his own, or [the bull] slipped away, and [the attacker] fell down and died, he is free from payment. If he pushed [the attacker] which then fell down and died, he must pay. Could he not tell him, if you had not interferred, I would have paid your damages? But he could have answered, If I had not interferred, you would have paid me half the damage! Think of it, if it was notorious? It is not in your power to drag me through the courts. Somebody put down an amphora in the public domain and then another person came and put another one close to the first. If the first person comes to take his own and would move [the second] and put it down at another place, he would create a “pit”. But could he take a stick and break it or step over it and if it broke, it broke? Let us hear from the following: If a bull came to mount another”. and the [latter’s] owner came to draw away his own, if he drew him away before it could mount, and [the attacker] fell down and died, he is free from payment. If he pushed [the attacker] which then fell down and died, he must pay. Rebbi Yose said, we can hear from this that if one saw a flood threatening in his irrigation canal, before the flood reached his field he is permitted to divert the water to another place; after the flood reached his field he is not permitted to divert it to another place. If the chrysargyros Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Jena 1900, vol. 3, pp. 949–955]. Before the repartition of the tax, the taxpayer might indicate that certain people exercised the same profession as himself without being registered as members of the guild. By this act, he increased the pool of taxpayers and reduced his own share of the tax load. But after repartition of the tax, such a denunciation would lead to the others having to pay tax without his own obligation being reduced; that is forbidden. was imposed, before [the collector of] chrysargyros arrived, one is permitted to say, X is following my profession, Y is following my professon. Once the [the collector of] chrysarguros arrived, it is forbidden. It is permitted to bribe the quartermaster (pure Latin term copiarius ) “purveyor; furnisher of conveniences to travelling magistrates and officers in Roman provinces”. If the expression is taken as one word, cf. ξενοπάροχος, Latin xenoparochus , “one who provides for strangers” (E. G.). before the Roman [soldiers] arrive and commented on in the Responsa of Simeon b. Ṣemaḥ Duran, vol. 3, # 46. ; after the Roman [soldiers] arrive it is forbidden. A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person put down another stone next to the first, a third person stumbled over the first and struck the other. Who has to pay damages, the first or the second person? Let us hear from the following: “A bull pushed another ox which then fell into a pit. The owner of the bull has to pay; the ‘owner’21:34 , calls him “owner of the pit”. In the language of the Babli (29b , Pesaḥim 6b ) “it is not a person’s property but the verse treats it as if it were his property.” The biblical expression is used as a technical term to denote liability. of the pit is free. Rebbi Nathan says, if the attacker was notorious, each of them pays one half; if it was tame, the owner of the bull pays two thirds parts” means “ n parts of n +1”, following Egyptian arithmetic practice. In the statement here, all commentators, from Eliahu Fulda to S. Lieberman, claim that “two parts” means “two parts out of four”, i. e., one half. This contradicts Talmudic practice. One has to accept the statement of R. Ḥanina (in the Rome ms.: R. Isaac) that the text is corrupt and has to be corrected. Only the corrected text is mentioned in Babli and Tosephta. and the ‘owner’ of the pit a quarter.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, so is the baraita : The owner of the bull pays three quarters and the ‘owner’ of the pit a quarter. (A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person put down another stone next to the first, a third person stumbled over the first and struck the other. Who has to pay damages, the first or the second person?) A person put down a stone in the public domain, the wind blew it onto a private domain, another person stumbled over it. Is [the first] responsible for damages? A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person stumbled over it and made it roll into a private domain where a third person stumbled over it. Is [the first] responsible for damages? Rebbi Joḥanan said: A person put down a stone and his load in the public domain, a second person stumbled over it while he held a flask in his hand. Whether he stumbled over the stone and hit the ground or hit the stone and stumbled over the ground, [the first] has to pay damages to the person but is free from damages to the flask 21:34 limits damages under the category of “pit” to humans and livestock, excluding its load ( Mishnah 5:9 ; Tosephta 6:14 ; Babli 28b ; Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 11). . The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that for “pit” damages one is free from damages to vessels. But if he hit it in walking, he has to pay even for the flask.

נִשְׁבְּרָה כַדּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהוּחְלַק אֶחָד בַּמַּיִם אוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה בַחֲרָסֶיהָ חַיָיב. רִּבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּמִתְכַּוֵּן חַיָיב בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן פָּטוּר. נִשְׁבְּרָה כַדּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כול׳. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה נֶחְלְקוּ אֲבָל לְאַחַר נְפִילָה כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁחַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה בֵּין לְאַחַר נְפִילָה הִיא הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. מְתִיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. אִם בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה פָּטוּר. אֵינוֹ קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְאַחַר נְפִילָה. וְלָמָּה פָטוּר בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה. שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מַבְקִיר נְזָקָיו בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אִית מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וְאִית מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. דְּתַנֵּי. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יוּדָן בְּמַנִּיחַ אַבְנוֹ וּמַשּׂוֹאוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהֶן פָּטוּר. שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִנְחִיל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ. הָא אִם לֹא הִנְחִיל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ עַל מְנָת כֵּן חַיָיב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לַחֲרָסִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַזִּיק. רִבִּי זֵירָא וְרִבִּי לָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה לַחֲכָמִים בְּמַבְקִיר שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים שֶׁחַיָיב. לֹא דוֹמֶה נֶזֶק עוֹמֵד לְנֶזֶק מְהַלֵּךְ.

MISHNAH: If his jar was broken in the public domain and another person slipped on the water or was hurt by one of its shards, he must pay. Rebbi Jehudah said, if intentionally, he has to pay; if unintentionally, he is free. HALAKHAH: “If his jar was broken in the public domain,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree at the moment of the accident. But after the accident everybody agrees that he must pay. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the disagreement is both at the moment of the accident and afterwards. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Eleazar: If he does not have to pay at the moment of the accident, is it not an inference de minore ad majus afterwards that afterwards he has to pay?” In S. Lieberman’s opinion (in his notes to A. H. Freimann’s edition of the Rome text), the Rome ms. represents an amalgamation of two different sources. ? Why should he be free at the moment of the accident? For a person declares his damaged property in the public domain as ownerless. A baraita supports both of them, as it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that somebody who puts down his stone or his load in the public domain does not have to pay if another person stumbled over it, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land 13:7 Note 107 , Nazir 7:1 Note 40 . This condition is not mentioned in any other source. .” Therefore, if Joshua had not distributed the Land on this condition, he would have to pay. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he intended use of the potsherds. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, if he intended to cause damage. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi La both say that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with the Sages that one has to pay if he declares his bull who gored in the public domain ownerless. Stationary damage cannot be compared to walking damage.

הַשּׁוֹפֵךְ מַיִם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. הַמַּצְנִיעַ אֶת הַקּוֹץ וְאֶת הַזְּכוּכִית וְהַגּוֹדֵר אֶת גְּדֵירוֹ בַּקּוֹצִים וְגָדֵר שֶׁנָּפַל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהוּזְּקוּ בָהֶן אֲחֵרִים חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. הַשּׁוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַמַּיִם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כול׳. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. בְּשֶׁנֶּחְבַּט בְּקַרְקָעוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נִתְלַכְלְכוּ כֵלָיו חַיָיב. רַב אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ נִתְלַכְלְכוּ כֵלָיו פָּטוּר. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרָה. בּוֹר שֶׁלַּנְּזָקִין פָּטוּר עַל הַכֵּלִים. הַמַּצְנִיעַ אֶת הַקּוֹץ וְאֶת הַזְּכוּכִית לְתוֹךְ כּוֹתְלוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וּבָא בַּעַל הַכּוֹתֶל וּסְתָרוֹ וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר חַיָיב. חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה עַצְמָן וּמַעֲמִיקִין לָהֶן ג̇ טְפָחִים כְּדֵי שֶלֹּא תַעֲלֵם הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה. פִּיסְקָא. וְהַגּוֹדֵר גְּדֵירוֹ בַּקּוֹצִִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תִּיפְתָּר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּמַפְרִיחַ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְלָמָּה לִי נָן פָּתְרִין לָהּ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה דְאָמַר. שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לִרְשׁוּת כִּרְשׁוּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּמַה בִּישׁ לָךְ דְּאִיכָּא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵימַר לָךְ. תִּיפְתָּר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּמַפְרִיחַ. וְגָדֵר שֶׁנָּפַל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. כָּל הַמַּזִּיק שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָיב. וְהָדָא אָמְרָה דָא. נָתְנוּ לוֹ זְמַן לָקוֹץ אֶת הָאִילָּן וְלִסְתּוֹר אֶת הַכּוֹתֶל וְנָפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן פָּטוּר. לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן חַיָיב. וְכַמָּה הוּא הַזְּמַן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. ל̇ יוֹם.

MISHNAH: He who pours out water in the public domain is liable for the damage if another person is hurt because of this. He who puts away a thorn, or glass, or who fences his fence with thorns, or [owns] a fence which collapsed into the public domain, is liable for the damage if other persons are hurt because of this. HALAKHAH: “He who pours out water in the public domain,” etc. Rav Huna said, when he was falling to the ground. But if his garments were dirtied, one is liable. Rav said, even if his garments were dirtied, he is not liable. The word of Rav implies one is not liable for ‘pit’ damages of vessels. “If somebody hides a thorn or [a piece of] glass in another person’s wall; if the owner of the wall then tears it down and a third person is hurt, he is liable. The pious people of earlier times used to take them out into their fields, lower than three handbreadths so that the plough would not lift them.” New Paragraph. “He fences his fence with thorns.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it according to everybody if it grew outwardly. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Why do we not explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are counted with the domain handbreadths away from the boundary. The Yerushalmi version is repeated in Halakhah 5:7 Note 62 . ? He answered, why are you not satisfied with what Rebbi Joḥanan said; explain it according to everybody if it grew outwardly. “A fence which collapsed into the public domain.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, one is liable for damage caused by inaction. This is the following 10:4 , dealing with a wall or a tree close to the public domain which may constitute a danger of imminent collapse; a court order is issued to the owner to eliminate the danger. : “If he was given a deadline by which to cut the tree or demolish the wall and they collapsed, if it happened within the term, he is not liable; after the term, he is liable.” How much is a term? Rebbi Hoshaia stated: 30 days 10:4 ; in the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 118a as statement of R. Joḥanan. In the Tosephta ( Bava qama 2:5 , Bava meṣi‘a 11:7): At least thirty days. .

הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת תִּבְנוֹ וְאֶת גַּפָּתוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִזְבָלִים וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. הַהוֹפֵךְ אֶת הָגָּלָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת תִּבְנוֹ וְאֶת גַּפָּתוֹ כול׳. בַּמֶּה זָכָן. דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרֵי. בִּשְׁבָחָן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּגוּפָן. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁהָפְכָהּ עַל פָּנֶיהָ לְזַכּוֹת בָּהּ. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה אָמְרָה. הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין נִיקְנִין בַּהֲפִיכָה. אֶלָּא הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקָּנוּ בִּגְרִירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים בָּעֲמוּדִין וּבְעוֹרוֹת קָשִׁין. אֲבָל בְּעוֹרוֹת רַכִּין לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. לֵיי דָא פָשְׁטָה עַל שִׁיטַּתְהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל בִּגְנֵיבָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא בְהַתְרָיַית מִיתָה יְהֵא פָטוּר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַגּוֹנֵב כִּיס חֲבֵירוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בַּשַׁבָּת חַיָיב שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵיב בִּגְנֵיבַת כִּיס עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָדְשָׁה עָלָיו הַשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא בְהַתְרָיַית מִיתָה הוּא וְתֵימַר חַיָיב. וָכָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְהַתְרָיַית מִיתָה יְהֵא חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה תַנִּיתָהּ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּתַנֵּי. הַמּוֹצִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ חַיָיב. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. הַמּוֹצִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל לְהוֹצִיא חַיָיב. שֶׁאֵין הַתְרָיָיתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הוֹצָאָתוֹ. תַּנֵּי. אִם הָיָה גוֹרֵר בּוֹ וְיוֹצֵא פָּטוּר. שֶׁחָלוּ עָלָיו מִיתָה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין כְּאַחַת. הָא אִם לֹא חָלוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת חַיָיב בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר כְּגוֹן דַּהֲווֹן אִילֵּין כִּיסַּיָיא רַבְרְבִין. שֶׁדַּרְכָן לִיקָּנוֹת בִּגְרִירִה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִן הָדָא כְּלוּם. מְתִיבִין הָא מַתְנִיתָא. זִימְנִין דְּמוֹתְבִין לָהּ וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִימְנִין דְּמוֹתְבִין לָהּ וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה אַחַת וְחַיָיב עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם אֶחָד. טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב וְהוּא נוֹתָר מִן הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בַשַׁבָּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אֵימַת דִּמְתִיבִין וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוֹצִיאוֹ בַשַׁבָּת אֵין כָּאן הֲנָחָה. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ. אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אֵימַת דִּמְתִיבִין וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. הוֹצִיאוֹ [בַּשַּׁבָּת וְהִנִּיחוֹ. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אֵימַר תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁאָכְלָהּ. וַאֲכִילָה הֲנָחָה הִיא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב. הֲרֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ] בַיּוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרים יְהֵא פָטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּתַנֵּי. מְנַיִין לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשָׁגַג וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה מְנַיִין שֶׁחַיָיב עַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. שַׁבָּת הִיא. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים הוּא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. אֵין חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

MISHNAH: If somebody take out his straw and his pressed olives into the public domain to compost, he is liable for any damages another person might incur because of this. Anybody may take it and acquire it. If somebody turns over cow droppings in the public domain, he is liable for any damages another person might incur because of this. HALAKHAH: “If somebody take out his straw and his pressed olives,” etc. What did he acquire? The House of Yannai said, the increase in value. Samuel said, the substance. Ḥizqiah said, only if he turned it over to acquire. The word of Ḥizqiah implies that movables can be acquired by turning them over 1:5 all movables can be acquired by lifting; turning over seems to be impossible without lifting. . 1:5, Notes 514 ff., in a different formulation with mostly different speakers. But could they be acquired by dragging? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this is reasonable for pillars and hard hides 1:5, Note 514 . . But soft hides one does not acquire unless one lifts them up. Rebbi Aḥa said, would that not be obvious from the reasoning of the rabbis? 7:1 Notes 51–71 , Ketubot 3:1 Note 30 , Qiddušin 1:5 Notes 515–519 . Except for the example of the rebellious son, the passage in Qiddušin is a differently formulated close parallel to the text here. Is the rebellious son liable for double restitution for his first theft? 21:18–21 ) is stoned if convicted of financing an extravagant lifestyle by repeated theft from his parents. For a first theft he cannot be prosecuted as rebellious son; one would expect that all the rules of theft apply to him. But he cannot be prosecuted as rebellious son if he never was convicted of the first theft. Of the 200% of the stolen amount which the law on theft requires him to pay, the first 100% are restitution. But the second 100% are a fine. Can the fine be collected if in some indeterminate future the conviction might be an integral part of a capital case? Or since he is warned of a capital offense should he be freed? Let us hear from the following: If somebody steals another’s wallet and removes it on the Sabbath he is liable since he already is liable for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath. Is he not forewarned of a capital offense and you say, he is liable! Here also, even though he is forewarned of a capital offense, you say that he has to be liable. Rebbi Yannai bar Ismael said, Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion, as we have stated: He who takes out is guilty even if he did not put down 1:1 2b l. 40, Babli Ketubot 31a ). R. Hoshaia disagrees. However, the reason might be that he follows Ben Azai ( Šabbat 1:1, 2c l. 41; Babli Ketubot 31b ) who holds that walking is like standing still. Everybody agrees that standing still while carrying something is equivalent to putting it down. . Similarly, he who takes out is guilty even if he did not take up with the intent to take out 91b , Bava batra 86a . , for warning is possible only at the moment of his taking out. It was stated: If he was dragging it until he left 91b , Bava batra 86a . , he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution falls on him simultaneously. Therefore, if both obligations do not fall on him simultaneously, he is liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged 1:5, Note 514 . ; one cannot infer anything from this. One objects from the Mishnah; sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Joḥanan, sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish 14a , as “stupidity”). . 3:4 ; quoted partially Šabbat 1:1, 2c l. 43. “A person may eat once and be liable for four purification and one reparation sacrifices: An impure person who ate suet which was leftover sacrifice on the Day of Atonement 7:20 ), suet ( v. 23 ), and leftover sacrificial meat ( v. 18 ), a fourth for eating on the Day of Atonement ( Lev. 23:29 ). A reparation sacrifice is due for the unauthorized use of sancta ( Lev. 5:15 ). . Rebbi Meïr said, if it was a Sabbath and he took it out on the Sabbath. They told him, it is not from that category.” When they objected in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he took it out on the Sabbath, there is no putting down. Why did they say, it is not from that category putting it down. Since for him transporting on the Sabbath is not punishable without bringing the object being transported to rest, the liability is triggered not by carrying outside but by eating. This would be in the same category as the other transgressions. ? When they objected in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Why is he not liable if he took it out on the Day of Atonement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as it was stated 9(8 ); Babli Ḥulin 101a (with R. Yose the Galilean instead of R. Ismael); Tosephta Keritut 2:17 (attributions switched). : From where that if one unintentionally worked on a Day of Atonement which fell on the Sabbath, he is liable for each one separately? The verse says, “it is Sabbath 23:3 . ,” “it is the Day of Atonement. 23:28 . In this opinion, R. Meïr details obligation of 6 purification offerings. ” Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only once. If he took it out] on the Sabbath and put it down. Why did they say: “it is not from that category”? I would say in explanation that he ate it. Is eating not putting it down? Therefore, it is only reasonable that if he took it out on the Sabbath, he be liable. Then if he took it out [on the Day of Atonement why should he not be liable?

שְׁנֵי קַדָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה וְנִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל וְנִתְקַל הַשֵּׁנִי בָּרִאשׁוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָיב בְּנִזְקֵי הַשֵּׁנִי. זֶה בָּא בְּחָבִיתוֹ וְזֶה בָּא בְקוֹרָתוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה כַדּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְקוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁלָּזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ וְלָזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ. שְׁנֵי קַדָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּעָא. מַהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לָרִאשׁוֹן שָׁהוּת כְּדֵי עֲמִידָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִיתֵּן לָרִאשׁוֹן שָׁהוּת כְּדֵי עֲמִידָה. וְלֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלֹא מִן הַשֵּׁינִי וְהֵלֶךְ מַהוּ לִיתֵּן לַשֵּׂינִי שָׁהוּת כְּדֵי עֲמִידָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַקַּדָּרִים הַמְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה. נִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְנִתְקַל בּוֹ וְנָפַל וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְנִתְקַל בּוֹ וְנָפַל. הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵּׁינִי וְהַשֵּׁינִי לַשְּׁלִישִׁי. וְאִם מַחֲמַת הָרִאשׁוֹן נָפְלוּ כוּלָּן הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם עַל יְדֵי כוּלָּן. וְחַיָיבִין עַל נִיזְקֵי אָדָם וּפְטוּרִין עַל נִיזְקֵי כֵלִים. וְאִם הֵזִיקוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה כּוּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. חַמָּרִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה. וְנִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְנִתְקַל בּוֹ וְנָפַל וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְנִתְקַל בּוֹ וְנָפַל. הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵּׁינִי וְהַשֵּׁינִי לַשְּׁלִישִׁי. וְאִם מַחֲמַת הָרִאשׁוֹן נָפְלוּ כוּלָּן הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם עַל יְדֵי כוּלָּן. חֲמוֹרִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה. נִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְנִתְקַל בּוֹ וְנָפַל אֲפִילוּ מֵאָה כּוּלָּן חַיָיבִין. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. כּוּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. מָאן דָּמַר. חַיָיבִִין. בְּשֶׁהִרבִּיצוּם בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. נָפְלוּ אֵין אוֹנְסִין לַבְּהֵמָה. חֲמוֹרִים שֶׁהָיוּ רַגְלֵי אֶחָד מֵהֶן רָעוֹת אֵין רַשַּׁאִין לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו. מַהוּ רַשַּׁאִין לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו. דָּרְסִין עֲלוֹי וְעָבְרִין. הָיָה אֶחָד רֵיקָן וְאֶחָד טָעוּן מַעֲבִירִין אֶת הָרֵיקָן מִפְּנֵי הַטָּעוּן. אֶחָד פָּרוּק וְאֶחָד טָעוּן מַעֲבִירִין אֶת הַפָּרוּק מִפְּנֵי הַטָּעוּן. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן טְעוּנִין שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּרוּקִין יַעֲשׂוּ פְשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. שְׁתֵּי עֲגָלוֹת שְׁתֵּי סְפִינוֹת אַחַת טְעוּנָה וְאַחַת רֵיקָנִית מַעֲבִירִין פְּרוּקָה מִפְּנֵי הַטְּעוּנָה. שְׁתֵּיהֶן פְּרוּקוֹת אוֹ טְעוּנוֹת יַעֲשׂוּ פְשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. הַנִּכְנַס לַמֶּרְחָץ נוֹתֵן כָּבוֹד לַיּוֹצֵא. וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא נוֹתֵן כָבוֹד לַנִּכְנַס. זֶה בָּא בְּחָבִיתוֹ וְזֶה בָּא בְקוֹרָתוֹ. רִבִּי זֵירָא בָּעֵי. שִׁנּוּ וְהִזִּיקוּ מַהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהֲדָא. חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ עַל סַפְסָל אֶחָד וּבָא אַחֵר וְיָשַׁב בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבַּר. הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם עַל יְדֵי כוּלָּן. וְאִם מִחְמַת כּוּלָּן נִשְׁבַּר כּוּלָּן חַיָיבִין.

MISHNAH: Two potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and the second stumbled over the first; the first is liable for the damage done to the second. One came with an amphora, the other came with a beam. If the jug of the one was broken by the other’s beam he is not liable since each of them had the right to walk there. HALAKHAH: “Two potters were walking one behind the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Does one give time to the first to get up? Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Joḥanan to give time to the first to stand up. But it is reasonable otherwise from the second one onwards, does one give time to the second to stand up? Let us hear from the following: “Potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. They are liable for damage to humans but not liable for damage to vessels. But if they (damaged) [warned] one another, none are liable. Donkey drivers were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. Donkeys were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell: even 100, all are liable.” Some Tannaïm state, none are liable. Rebbi La said, he who says ‘liable’, if their owner let them lie down. He who says ‘not liable’, if they fell, since animals are not responsible for accidents. “If the feet of a donkey were bad, one is not allowed to step over him. [ ]” What does it mean, ‘to step over him?’ They step on his body and pass by. “If one was free, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the free one. One unloaded, the other one loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were loaded or both unloaded, let them agree between themselves 32b , the one who gives up his right of way can demand payment from the other party. . Two carriages or two ships, one empty, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were unloaded or loaded, let them agree between themselves.” Chapter 10; Derekh Ereṣ (Maḥzor Vitry) Chapter 8, end. “The person entering the bath house gives precedence to the person leaving; the person leaving the toilet gives precedence to the person entering.” “One came with an amphora, another came with a beam.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If they changed and caused damage, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “Five people sat on a couch; another came, saton it, and it broke. He pays for all of them. But if it broke because of all of them, they are all liable.”

הָיָה בַּעַל קוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל הֶחָבִית אַחֲרוֹן נִשְׁבְּרָה הֶחָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה פָּטוּר. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה חַיָיב. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ לְבַעַל הֶחָבִית עֲמוֹד פָּטוּר. הָיָה בַּעַל הֶחָבִית רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל הַקּוֹרָה אַחֲרוֹן. נִשְׁבְּרָה הֶחָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה חַיָיב. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל הֶחָבִית פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ לְבַעַל הַקּוֹרָה עֲמוֹד חַיָיב. וְכֵן זֶה בָּא בְנֵירוֹ וְזֶה בָּא בְפִשְׁתָּנוֹ. הָיָה בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה כול׳. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רַב. בִּמְמַלָּא כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְזוֹ מְמַלָּא כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אָמַר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָמַד נַעֲשֶׂה כְקֶרֶן זָוִית.

MISHNAH: If the carrier of the beam was first and the carrier of the amphora last. If the jar broke on the beam, he is not liable; but if the carrier of the beam stopped walking, he is liable, except that he is not liable if he said to the carrier of the amphora: stop! If the carrier of the amphora was first and the carrier of the beam last. If the jar broke on the beam, he is liable, but if the carrier of the amphora stopped walking, he is not liable, except that he is liable if he said to the carrier of the beam: stop! The same applies if one carries fire and the other flax. HALAKHAH: “If the carrier of the beam,” etc. Did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? (And this filled the entire public domain.) One said, since he stopped, he is like a street corner.

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן רָצִין וְהִזִּיקוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין כול׳. יוֹסֵי הַבַּבְלִי אוֹמֵר. הָיָה רָץ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיק חַיָיב. שֶׁשִּׁינָּה הַמִּנְהָג. הָיָה עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת פָּטוּר. אָמְרֵי. הוּא יוֹסֵי הַבַּבְלִי הוּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן יְהוּדָה הוּא יוֹסֵי קָטֹנְתָה. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ קָטוֹנְתָה. שֶׁהָיָה קְטָן חֲסִידִים.

MISHNAH: Two were walking in the public domain, or one was running and one was walking, or both were running. If they caused damage one to the other, neither of them is liable. HALAKHAH: “Two were walking” etc. “Yose the Babylonian said: If one ran in the public domain and caused damage, he is liable. Late Friday evening he is not liable.” They said, Yose the Babylonian is Yose ben Jehudah, is Yose the small one 113b , bottom. . Why is he called Yose the small one? Because he was the last of the pious: Yerushalmi 9:17, Note 275 ; Babli 49b ; Tosephta 15:5; Yoma 52b . .

הַמְבַקֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר חַיָיב. הַמְבַקֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמְבַקֵּעַ עֵצִים בַּחֲצֵירוֹ וְנִכְנַס פּוֹעֵל לִתְבוֹעַ שְׂכָרוֹ וְנִתְּזָה הַבְּקַעַת וְהִזִּיקַתּוּ חַיָיב. וְאִם מֵת אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. פָּטוּר. לֹא פְלִיגֵי. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּשֶׁרָאָהוּ. וּמַה דָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה. בְּשֶׁלֹּא רָאָהוּ אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא רָאָהוּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הִיכָּנֵס חַיָיב. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. פָּטוּר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הִכָּנֵס צָרִיךְ לִשְׁמוֹר עַצְמוֹ. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הִיכָּנֵס נַעֲשִׂית כְּחָצֵר הַשּׁוּתָפִין. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי הַשּׁוּתָפִין קוֹנִין זֶה מִזֶּה בֶּחָצֵר וְחַיָיבִין זֶה בְנִיזְקֵי זֶה וְזֶה בְנִיזְקֵי זֶה. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רַב. בִּמְמַלָּא כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְזוֹ מְמַלָּא כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אָמְרֵי. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ בְּחָצֵר כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא מְמַלֵּא כָּל הֶחָצֵר.

MISHNAH: If somebody split [wood] in a private domain and caused damage in the public domain, in the public domain and caused damage in a private domain, in a private domain and caused damage in another private domain, he is liable. HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. 2:4 . The text bracketed here is an addition by the corrector, probably from Makkot, recognizable by his standard Babli spelling. The same topic is discussed in the Babli, 32b/33a . Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim “To collect”. In any case, the person entering did not trespass. his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile adds: “Because it is not as in a forest,” referring to Deut. 19:5 which describes the circumstances under which the homicide has to dwell in a city of refuge. The Babli, 33a , quotes the end of the same verse, describing how the blade of an ax “finds his neighbor and he dies”, to exclude one who walks into the path of danger (cf. Sifry Deut. 183). . But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai 5:1, Notes 22–23 : Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִים תַּמִּים שֶׁחָבְלוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה מְשַׁלְּמִים בַּמּוֹתַר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. שְׁנֵיהֶן מוּעָדִין מְשַׁלְּמִים בַּמּוֹתַר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד. מוּעָד בְּתָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. תָּם בְּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁחָבְלוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה מְשַׁלְּמִים בַּמּוֹתַר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָדָם בְּמוּעָד וּמוּעָד בְּאָדָם מְשַׁלְּמִים בַּמּוֹתַר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָדָם בְּתָם וְתָם בְּאָדָם אָדָם בְּתָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. תָּם בְּאָדָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַף תָּם שֶׁחָבַל בְּאָדָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מְנָא שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה כְּלוּם נוֹטֵל אֶת הַשּׁוֹר. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם וְאֵין הַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יְהוּדָה וְכֵן הֲלָכָה קִיַימְתָּה וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ וְלֹא קִיַימְתָּה וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן. וְאֵי זֶה זֶה. זֶה שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם וְהַנְּבֵילָה יָפָה חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז שֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מְנָה כול׳. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מְנָה שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מְנָה הִכְחִישׁוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. נוֹטֵל אֶת הַשּׁוֹר. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲצִי חֲבָלוֹ לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת הַשּׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׁהִכְחִישׁ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ הַשּׁוֹר בִּלְבַד. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מְנָה שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם הִכְחִישׁוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. חָזַר הָאַחֲרוֹן וְחָבַל בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁלְּזָהָב. הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵּׁינִי חֲצִי דֵינָר זָהָב. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם. הִשְׁבִּיחַ וַהֲרֵי הוּא יָפָה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת. שֶׁאִילּוּ לֹא נְגָחוֹ הָיָה יָפֶה שְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת זוּז אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בַּדִּין הִשְׁבִּיחַ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא כִּשְׁעַת נִזְקוֹ. הִכְחִישׁ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא כִּשְׁעַת עֲמִדָתוֹ בְבֵית דִּין בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. הִשְׁבִּיחַ הַמַּזִּיק. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בַּדִּין הִשְׁבִּיחַ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא כִּשְׁעַת נִזְקוֹ. הִכְחִישׁ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא כִּשְׁעַת עֲמִדָתוֹ בְבֵית דִּין. מָאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר קְרָא וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ. וּמַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי יְהוּדָה וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן. מִיכָּן שֶׁזֶּה מַפְסִיד חֲצִי נֶזֶק וְזֶה מַפְסִיד חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

MISHNAH: Two tame bulls which injured one another; one pays half for the excess damage. If both are notorious, one pays in full for the excess damage. One tame and one notorious; the notorious over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the notorious pays half for the excess damage. Similarly, two people who injured one another pay in full for the excess damage. A human and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a human, one pays in full for the excess damage. A human and a tame animal; the human over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the human pays half for the excess damage. Rebbi Akiba says, also a tame animal which injured a human pays the excess damage in full 21 do not apply to damages caused to humans. . A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; he takes the bull. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; Rebbi Meïr said, about this case it was said 21:35 . : “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.” Rebbi Jehudah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold 21:35 . “and also the cadaver they shall split.” What is this? That is a bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is worth 50 zuz is identified with the Roman denar. , in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half from the cadaver 12. . HALAKHAH: “A bull worth a mina” etc. is similar to Tosephta 2:5 , but the latter is not an edition of the text underlying the Yerushalmi. “A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth a mina; weakened (it) in the amount of 50 zuz ; he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury and therefore, if the bull died or was weakened, he only has that bull. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and weakened it in the amount of 50 zuz ; then the second [bull] couter-attacked and injured it to the amount of three gold [denars]. The first pays half a gold denar to the second pays half a gold denar to the first .” The first bull damaged the second in the amount of 50 silver denar. The second damaged the first for 3 gold denar = 75 silver denar. The excess loss to be compensated for is 25 silver denar = 1 gold denar. If the bulls were tame, half a gold denar would be due. . A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and now is worth 400; but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz . If it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it was weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rebbi La said, so is the baraita : The agressor improved; if it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage; if it weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The verse says, 21:35 . “they shall sell the living bull and split its proceeds.” How does Rebbi Jehudah support 21:35 . “and also the cadaver they shall split”? From here that each one loses half the damages 12; cf. Halakhah 1:3 , end. The verse proves that half damages for ‘horn’ are paid exclusively from the proceeds of the sale of the attacking animal. .

יֵשׁ חַיָיב עַל מַעֲשֵׂה שׁוֹרוֹ וּפָטוּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה עַצְמוֹ. פָּטוּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה שׁוֹרוֹ וּחַיָיב עַל מַעֲשֵׂה עַצְמוֹ. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁבִּיֵישׁ פָּטוּר הוּא שֶׁבִּיֵישׁ חַיָיב. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁסִּימָּה אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ וְהִפִּיל אֶת שִׁנּוֹ פָּטוּר וְהוּא שֶׁסִּימָּה אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ וְהִפִּיל אֶת שִׁנּוֹ חַיָיב. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁחָבַל בְּאָבִיו וּבְאִמּוֹ חַיָיב וְהוּא שֶׁחָבַל בְּאָבִיו וּבְאִמּוֹ פָּטוּר. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ בַּשַׁבָּת חַיָיב וְהוּא שֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ בַּשַׁבָּת פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּידּוֹן בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִין תַּמִּים כול׳. בֵּן פְּדָיָיא אָמַר. כָּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּבְעִיר וְהָעוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּמַּבְעִיר אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לָאֶפֶר. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה אֵין חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לַדָּם. וְהָתַנִּינָן. שׁוֹרוֹ. שׁוֹרוֹ צָרִיךְ אֶת הָאֶפֶר.

MISHNAH: A person may be liable for the action of his bull but not liable for his own action, not liable for the action of his bull but liable for his own action: If his bull puts to shame, he is not liable; but if he put to shame, he is liable. If his bull blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is not liable; but if he himself blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is liable 21:26–27 decree only that a slave gain his freedom if he is mistreated by his owner personally. . If his bull injured his father or his mother, he is liable; but if he himself injured his father or his mother, he is not liable 21:15 ) and nobody has to pay if he is tried for his life ( Terumot 7:1, Notes 3–73 ; Ketubot 3:1 ). . If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable since he will be tried for a capital crime 21:15 ) and nobody has to pay if he is tried for his life ( Terumot 7:1, Notes 3–73 ; Ketubot 3:1 ). . HALAKHAH: the paragraph was then wrongly inserted after Halakhah 8 ; it refers to Mishnah 12. : “Two tame bulls,” etc. 2:2 (5a l. 31), Erubin 10:12 (26c l. 47), Pesaḥim 6:1 (33b l. 34); Babli Bava qamma 34b , Šabbat 106a , Beṣah 12b , Yebamot 16b , Sanhedrin 62b . Ben Pedaia said: Spoilers are not liable 16:29 ) only leaving the camp was forbidden. In the Ten Commandments ( Ex. 20:10 ), “all work” is forbidden without a definition of what constitutes “work”. The missing definition is deduced from Ex. 35 . That Chapter starts with a repetition of the Sabbath prohibitions and then proceeds with the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. One concludes that the work necessary for building the Tabernacle is the work forbidden on the Sabbath ( Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Wayyaqhel ). Then in v. 33 the work of Beṣalel and Aholiab, the builders of the Tabernacle, is defined as מְלֶכֶת מַחֲשָׁבֶת “thinking work”. The only work which constitutes a punishable desecration of the Sabbath is intentional constructive work. Therefore, any purely destructive work is not punishable. except for one making a fire and one causing a wound. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one making a fire only if he needs the ashes; one causing a wound only if he needs the blood. But did we not state: “His bull”? His bull needs ashes.

שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֶף אַחַר שׁוֹר אַחֵר וְהוּזַּק. זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא בַסֶּלַע לָקָה הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִים אַחַר אֶחָד זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָיבִין. הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטוֹן הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר הַגָּדוֹל הִזִּיק וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא הַקָּטָן הִזִּיק. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר מוּעָד הִזִּיק וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא תָם הִזִּיק. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. הָיוּ הַנִּיזָּקִין שְׁנַיִם אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטוֹן וְהַמַּזִּיקִים שְׁנַיִם אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן. הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר הַגָּדוֹל הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְקָטָן אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא קָטוֹן אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְגָדוֹל אֶת הַקָּטָן. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד הַנִּיזָּק אוֹמֵר מוּעָד הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְתָם אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא תָם אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְמוּעָד אֶת הַקָּטָן. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. יֵשׁ חַיָיב עַל מַעֲשֵׂה שׁוֹרוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. הָדֵין עֲמָדַת בֵּית דִּין מַהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁזָּרְקוּ שְׁתֵּי צְרוֹרוֹת וְשִׁיבְּרוּ שְׁתֵּי כַּדִּין אַחַת שֶׁלְּיַיִן וְאַחַת שֶׁלְּשֶׁמֶן. זֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלְּיַיִן שָׁבַרְתִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלְּיַיִן שָׁבַרְתִּי. שְׁנֵיהֶן מְשַׁלְּמִין שֶׁלְּיַיִן. אַחַת רֵיקָנִית וְאַחַת מְלֵיאָה. זֶה אוֹמֵר. רֵיקָנִית שָׁבַרְתִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. רֵיקָנִית שָׁבַרְתִּי. שְׁנֵיהֶן מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָרֵיקָנִית. שִׁבְּרוּ חָבִית אַחַת. זֶה אוֹמֵר. אַתֶּה שָׁבַרְתָּהּ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. אַתֶּה שָׁבַרְתָּהּ. שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין.

MISHNAH: If a bull was pursuing another bull which was damaged. This one says, your bull did the damage, but the other one says, it was hurt by a rock; the burden of proof is on the claimant. If two [bulls] were pursuing another [bull]; each of them says: your bull did the damage; neither of them is liable. But if they belonged to one owner, he is liable for both of them. If one was large, the other small. The person sustaining the damage says that the large one did the damage but the person causing the damage says that the small one did the damage, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If two were damaged, one large and one small, and the [bulls] doing the damage were two, one large and one small. The person sustaining the damage says that the large one damaged the large one and the small one the small; but the person causing the damage says that the small one did damage the large one and the large one the small. [Or] one tame and one notorious, the person sustaining the damage says that the notorious one damaged the large one and the tame one the small; but the person causing the damage says that the tame one did damage the large one and the notorious one the small. The burden of proof is on the claimant. HALAKHAH: “A person may be liable for the action of his bull,” etc. Rebbi Yudan asked: How is the court trial? Let us hear from the following: “Two persons threw two pebbles and broke two jugs, one full of wine and one full of oil. Each of them said, I broke the one full of wine. Both of them pay for the wine. One empty and one full; each of them said, I broke the empty one. Both of them pay for the empty one. If they broke one amphora. Each of them said, you broke it. Neither of them is liable.