MISHNAH: he is liable. It seems that this text also underlies the Yerushalmi Halakhah; the shortened version may be a scribal error. He who brings a flock into a corral and locks them in as he should, but they managed to get out and caused damage, is liable. If they broke out in the night or robbers broke in and they managed to get out and caused damage, he is not liable. If robbers let them out, the robbers are liable.
HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn” 21:36 require that the animal be under the control of a human 24 hours a day; Babli 55b . It follows that for damages classified as “tooth” or “foot”, even R. Meïr may agree to the long version of the Mishnah. . What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.
So far if [the corral] was fenced in on four sides. If it was fenced in on three sides and breached on one side, and [an animal] left through the breach, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following 11:7 . : “If his wall fell in from the noise of earthquakes or thunder and he rebuilt it as required, he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.” The only problem is if three better built walls fell together with it.
It was stated 3:1–3 , Babli 55b . : Rebbi Joshua said, four persons are not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive them until they pay up: A person who knows testimony beneficial to another but does not testify is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up. A person who hires false witnesses against another and collects is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up. A person who bends standing grain towards a fire or who makes a breach in a fence for animals is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up.
“If robbers let it out, the robbers are liable.” Rav Hoshaia said, if they let it out as part of their robbery. But if they let it out to get lost, the robbers are not liable.
MISHNAH: If he left it in the sun or handed it over to a deaf-and-dumb, an insane, or an underage person, he is liable. If he handed it over to a shepherd, the shepherd takes his place. If it fell into a garden and caused damage, it pays for what it profited. If it entered in due course, it pays for what it damaged. How does it pay for what it damaged? One estimates a bet se’ah 2:1, Note 31 . of the field; how much was it worth and how much is it worth. Rebbi Simeon says, if it ate ripe produce it pays for ripe produce, whether one or two se’ah .
HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a shepherd handed his flock over to another shepherd, the first is liable, the second is not liable. 1:4, Note 449 ; Ketubot 9:5, Notes 127–146 . The first shepherd remains liable to the owner; he might sue the second shepherd once he paid the owner. The Babli, 56b , makes an exception if the second shepherd is employed by the first as his helper since then one may assume an implied consent for the transfer of control. ” Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, since he handed it over to a responsible person, he is not liable.
“If he handed it over to a shepherd, the shepherd takes his place. If it fell into a garden and caused damage, he pays for what it profited.” Rav Huna said, if it fell on vegetables. But if it stood up and grazed, he pays for what it damaged.
“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable damages caused by an animal falling into a growing area by accident, only the corresponding value of animal feed is due. In the Babli. 58a , this position is attributed to Rav Cahana. In the entire paragraph, “liable” means “liable for the full value of the destroyed produce”. . Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.
It was stated dR . Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 195. Parts are quoted in the Babli, 58b/59a , as Amoraic statements. : “One does not estimate a bet kor = 75’000 square cubits. At this wholesale level, the damage done by the animal would be considered minimal and the farmer deprived of just compensation. because it would diminish, nor a bet qab . In a plot of this size the damage would be complete and the farmer overpaid. because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah 2:1, Note 31 . of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah (cf. Ševi’it 1:2, Note 18 ). One has to estimate the diminution of value in the wholesale price of the yield of ten trees. . Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.. ” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three- qab in sixty three- qabs is estimated in 30 bet se’ah , not 60. . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.
A person stole a hard date. The case came before Samuel who said to him, go and estimate for him at the top of the date palm. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was a preserve of unripe dates.
MISHNAH: If somebody stacks his sheaves on another person’s field without permission and the field’s owner’s animals ate them, he is not liable. If it was damaged by it, the owner of the stack is liable. But if he stacked his sheaves with permission, the field’s owner is liable.
HALAKHAH: If somebody stacks his sheaves on another person’s field without permission.” R. Isaac said, are sheaves on a field like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.
MISHNAH: He who causes a fire through the hand of a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person. 22:4 ), his animal, and paying for בערה “arson” in v. 5 ; cf. Ibn Ezra ad loc . is not liable in human law but liable in Heaven’s law. If he causes it through a hearing person, the hearing person is liable. If one person brings the fire and another one the wood, the one bringing the wood is liable. If one brings the wood and another one the fire, the one bringing the fire is liable. If another person came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned is liable. If the wind fanned it, none of them is liable.
HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, if he handed him a glowing coal. But if he handed him an open flame he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, coal and flame are the same. It is difficult according to Ḥizqiah, for if somebody saw another person’s glowing coal rolling by and did not extinguish it, is he not free from liability? They said, explain it if he handed him an ownerless glowing coal, or also an ownerless flame, and one cannot infer anything.
Some Tannaĩm state: וְלִיבָּה. Some Tannaïm state: וְנִיבָּה. He who says וְלִיבָּה. As it is written, “in the flaming fire”. 3:2 . . He who says וְנִיבָּה, “it was in my heart like burning fire.. 20:9 . A similar argument is in the Babli, 60a . It seems that the difference between the versions is simply a dialectal switch between the liquids l and n ; but a biblical source is sought. In the Babli, the reference is to Is . 57:19 , where the “fruit of the lips” is interpreted as “speech”. The verse from Jer . quoted here then points out that speech can be fiery, i. e., with one’s mouth one can fan a fire. ”
There, they say, the Mishnah speaks of a catastrophic wind, but in case of normal wind he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even in case of normal wind he is not liable; for sometimes it blows, sometimes it does not blow.
MISHNAH: He who sets a fire which consumes wood, or stones, or dust, is liable since it is said: “If fire gets out of control and finds thorns, etc.”. 22:5 . The Halakhah will explain the proof from the verse. If it crossed a wall four cubits high, or a public road batra 6:7 ). , or a brook, he is not liable.
HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire which consumes wood, dR . Ismael , Neziqin 14 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 297), Mekhilta dR . Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 196. ” etc. Since thorns are flammable, do I only include flammable material? The verse says, “a stack”. Since a stack of sheaves is particular in that it was harvested, do I only include harvested material? The verse says, “standing grain.” Since all of these are particular in that they are flammable, do I only include flammable material? If it swept his furrow or damaged his stone, from where? The verse says, “or the field.” Should it only have mentioned thorns, standing grain, and stack, but not mentioned field? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah this is acceptable since he says, he pays for everything inside. But according to the rabbis, who say that he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley sheaves, why did it mention “field”, why did it mention “stack” dR . Ismael ). ?
“If it crossed a wall four cubits high, or a public road, or a brook, he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah speaks of burning fire. But if it is wind-whipped everybody agrees that he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah speaks of wind-whipped fire, but if it is burning he is not liable.
MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor therefore is 273.86 cubits and the distance of the center from the side is 136.93 cubits. For him, the liability stops if a strip 137 cubits wide around the fire is protected against the spread of the fire. Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,. 22:5 . ” everything depends on the setting of the fire.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody starts a fire inside his property,” etc. dR . Ismael , Neziqin 14 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 297), Babli 61a . “It happened that a fire crossed the Jordan, because it was a firestorm. How far may a fire spread? Rebbi Eliezer says sixteen cubits like a public road, if there is wind thirty cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says thirty cubits, if there is wind fifty cubits. Rebbi Aqiba says 50 cubits, if there is wind a hundred cubits. It happened in Arabia that a fire jumped more than three hundred cubits. When is this? If it jumps. But if there is wood or it burns continuously, he is liable even up to a mil . If it crossed a river or a pond eight cubits wide, he is not liable.”
MISHNAH: He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves which contains implements, Rebbi Jehudah says, he has to pay everything contained in it but the Sages say, he pays only for a stack of wheat sheaves or a stack of barley sheaves. If a goat was tied to it, and a slave was nearby, and they were burned, he is liable. If a slave was tied to it, and a goat was nearby, and they were burned, he is not liable 3:1, Notes 29ff ., Terumot 7:1, Notes 3–73 , and sources given there.) . But the Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that one who sets fire to a building has to pay everything contained in it since people regularly store things in houses.
HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There 6:9. The parallel treatment there in Halakhah 6:9 (Notes 151–154 ) is more explicit. he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. 22:5 . The verse states that the arsonist has to pay for “thorns, or a stack, or standing grain, or a field.” Since even without mention of “stack” the arsonist would have to pay for the grain, the inclusion of “stack” can only mean “everything in a stack, whether recognizable from the outside or not.” . The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects 62a and others) thinks that the sack was lost in a fire; the owner of the sack claims payment from the person responsible for the fire. Now Mishnah Šebuot 7:1 states that in general one only accepts an oath of a person who can absolve himself of payment by the oath. To collect money based on an oath is possible only in very few cases, one of them being the victim of a robbery. In the Babli, 62a , it is stated that R. Jehudah equates loss by fire to loss by robbery. Since the Yerushalmi holds that the Sages mostly agree with R. Jehudah, everybody must hold that the victim of a fire may swear and collect. In the case described, since the sack was deposited tightly tied, the argument of the person with whom the sack was deposited (who may have set the fire himself), that the sack might have contained scrap metal, is not more than a conjecture and may be disregarded. By the biblical law of deposits ( Ex . 22:6–8 ), the person holding the deposit has to swear that he did nothing to impair the deposit; then he is not liable. If he set the fire, he cannot swear and, therefore, should be required to pay without the other side being forced to swear. However, this only applies if the nature of the deposit was known. If the contents of the sack were not ascertained by the trustee when he accepted the sack, the rule that the person who cannot swear must pay is irrelevant. .
Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him 7:2, 37d. Since the Sages agree with R. Jehudah that for matters within general practice one believes the claimant of fire damages without proof, must the “general practice” be interpreted narrowly or may one admit, e. g., practices of rich people for a poor claimant? ? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]. In the latter text, the position of R. Ḥiyya is explicitly endorsed by R. Joḥanan who quotes Prov . 13:7 : “There are those who pose as rich and have nothing, pose as poor and have great wealth”. ; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift.
MISHNAH: If a spark came from under a hammer and caused damage, he is liable. If a camel was loaded with flax and while it walked in the public domain the flax entered a store, was lit by the storekeeper’s light, and set the building on fire, the camel’s owner is liable. If the store owner put his light outside, the store owner is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, in case of a Ḥanukkah light he is not liable.
HALAKHAH: “If a spark is coming from under a hammer,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah stated: In case of a Ḥanukkah light he is not liable because he acted with permission. But the Sages say, in any case he is liable, as, e. g., those who build huts in front of their stores on Tabernacles because it is permitted; but if somebody else is hurt by them, he is liable.”