MISHNAH: How is the foot notorious to break anything in its way? An animal is notorious to break anything in its way. If it was kicking or if pebbles were ricocheting from under its feet and breaking vessels, he pays half of the damage. If it stepped on a vessel and broke it when [the pieces] fell on another vessel and broke that, for the first he pays full damages and half damages for the last.
HALAKHAH: “How is the foot notorious,” etc. Does not an animal usually make pebbles ricochet? Rebbi Immi said, if the vessel was held by a human. But if it was lying in the public domain, since it was rightfully lying there and [the animal] was rightfully walking there, he is free. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if there were two roads. On one there are grasses and pebbles, on the other there are no grasses or pebbles. It 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 free. Rebbi Eleazar said, in anything not concerning its body, the Sages made no difference between private and public domain in the matter of half damages.
Is it subject to a declaration of notoriety in a matter extraneous to its body21:28 ). 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 wall “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 death. Does there exist weregilt for a harmless animal accepts that declarations of notoriety are possible for behavior not classified as “horn”. ? But it does not disagree with Rebbi Illa 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 there.
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 handy 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. .
Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder and Rebbi Jehudah Neśia were sitting. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal came to them and asked: If it wagged its tail 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 tail. What is obvious to us? The problem of full damages. What is problematic for us? Half damages.
New Paragraph. “If it stepped on a vessel and broke it.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it stepped on a skin full of oil, he pays full damages for the skin and half damages for the oil. If there was a table lying there and glass on top of it. If it stepped on the table and by that the glass broke. He pays full damages fort the table and half damages for the glass. If there were two tables on top of one another. If it stepped on the upper one and the lower one was broken. He pays full damages fort the upper table and half damages for the lower. If the table was lying in the public domain, [the animal] stepped on it and it ricocheted, went and broke into a private domain. What do you follow, the stepping or its breaking? If you say, after stepping, he is free [from paying] for its stepping on it; if you say, after its breaking, then he is guilty for the breaking.
MISHNAH: Chickens. are notorious for breaking things in their usual walk. If a thread was bound to its foot or it was scraping and broke vessels, he pays half damages.
HALAKHAH: “Chickens are notorious,” etc. Rav Huna said, if it became tied by itself. But if he tied it, he pays full damages. It was stated: “If chickens scraped dough or fruit, or they pecked, he pays full damages. If they scraped dust on dough or on fruit, one pays half of the damages. If they were picking at a rope and the pail was separated or broke, he pays full damages. If one 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 place.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since it usually falls only into this cistern, it is as if it were his pit. It was stated: “If chickens fell in a garden, broke vegetables, and cut rosemary 68b . In Berakhot 53b , 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 damages.
MISHNAH: How is the tooth notorious to eat what is fitting for it? A domesticated animal is notorious for eating fruits and vegetables. If it ate a garment or vessels, he pays half damages. When has this been said? In the domain of the person sustaining the damage. But on public property he is free; but if it benefited, he pays what it benefited.
HALAKHAH: “How is the tooth notorious,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the first part. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it refers to all. 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, it is responsible. 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 down, is it free [from payment]. Rebbi Joḥanan’s word implies that if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, it is obligated. 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, it is free [from payment]. But in the case of one lying down against one walking or one who was walking against one walking, it is obligated. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: It always is free. What is Rebbi Hoshaia’s reason; is there no “horn” in the public domain? Rav said, if it stood still and ate from heaped produce, [it is obligated] 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 standing; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the one standing still. Ilfai said: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it is obligated. Since the leniency for “tooth” is that it ate walking {from the standing} [from the walking]; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the walking one.
MISHNAH: How does he pay for what it benefited from? If it ate on the public square, he pays for what it benefited from. On the borders of the public square, he pays for what it damaged. From the door of a store, he pays for what it benefited from; inside the store he pays for what it damaged.
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 damaged. 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 straw. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state and disagree? “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 damages. 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 damages.”
MISHNAH: For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof and broke vessels one pays full damages because they are notorious. If a dog stole a hot pitta 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 stack he pays half damages.
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 apply.
“A dog stole a hot pitta.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if he lit every single ear of grain 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 another. 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. 7:1, Ketubot 3:1 ). Therefore, he cannot be made to pay for the animal. ” But 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. 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 repayment. A person did put out a hot water bottle outside, “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 damages.
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 Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, notorious if there was testimony against it three times( Neziqin 10), this interpretation is attributed to R. Yose. ; tame if children touched it.
HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before. 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 gorings, 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 days 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 days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed 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 woman 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 niddah , “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 niddah , “the menstruating woman”, this has to be read zavah , “the woman suffering from flux” instead; cf. the preceding Note. 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.
Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame animal and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony, as we have stated( 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 them. This is confirmed by Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame [bull] and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony.
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 damages. 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 premiss 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.
HALAKHAH: “The bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage,” etc. to the end. 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.”
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 damages.
HALAKHAH: “A human is always notorious,” etc. Rebbi Isaac said: The Mishnah if both of them were sleeping. But if one was sleeping and another one came to sleep near him, the one who came to sleep near him is notorious 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”. .