Talmud for Bava Kamma 10:1

ושאינו חייב באחריותן קורא אני בהן בה' וכחש. רב הונא אמר אחד קדשים כשרין ואחד קדשים פסולין קדשים שחייב באחריותן אפילו הן לה' קורא אני בהן בעמיתו וכחש. ושאינו חייב באחריותן קורא אני בהן בה' וכחש ולא בעמיתו וכחש: פיסקא. נכסים שהן של בני ברית. פרט לשור ישראל שנגח לשור של עכו"ם. מנכסין המיוחדין. ולא מנכסי הפקר חוץ מרשות המיוחדת למזיק שהוא פטור נוהגין הן ברשות הניזק והמזיק. א"ר ירמיה אילו תנא חוץ מרשות המיוחדת למזיק ושתק הייתי אומר אחד חצר של שותפין ואחד חצר שאינה לשניהן חייבת. ולמה תנא נוהגין הן ברשות הניזק והמזיק. אלא זה שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר. א"ר יוסי מכיון דתנא חוץ מרשות המיוחדת למזיק אין אנו יודעין שהן נוהגין ברשות הניזק והמזיק. ולמה תנא נוהגין הן ברשות ניזק והמזיק אלא להוציא חצר שאינה של שניהן. אית תניי תני חצר של שותפין חייבת וחצר שאינה לשניהן פטורה. אית תניי תני אפי' חצר שאינה לשניהם חייבת. מאן דמר חצר של שותפין חייבת וחצר שאינה לשניהן פטורה

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

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 pay¹Even though a human is always notorious, there are cases where he does not have to pay.; if he was hurt, the owner of the amphora²The Mishnah uses interchangeably all words which denote clay vessels used for storage, whether jar or amphora. has to pay his damages³Creating an obstacle in the public domain is damage by “pit”..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor except for annona²⁹The requisition for the Roman army, the amounts being determined in advance every year. It seems from this statement that both annona and the head-tax were imposed as communal obligations. Cf. Demay 2, Note 12. and head-tax. Rav said, anything for which one is held responsible for one’s neighbor has to be repaid. The strength of Rav is from the following³⁰Mishnah Baba Qama 10:6: “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it, if the entire country is hit, he may say to him: Here is yours before you. But if it was because of the robber, he is obligated to give him another field. If a river washed it away, he may say to him: Here is yours before you.”
Somebody took real estate from another by threats and/or force. In general, we say that “real estate cannot be stolen” since the original owner can prove his claim in court once anarchy has been suppressed. But here we deal with the case that something happened before the original owner could sue the robber and the field is no longer available. If the field was taken by an “oppressor”, a Roman official against whom there is no recourse in the courts then, if everybody’s field was taken, the original owner has no claim since the field would have been taken even if it had not been stolen. But if the field was taken because the robber had a run-in with the law, the robber must pay for a replacement even though legally the field was still the original owner’s property when it was taken. The Yerushalmi (Neziqin, 7c, line 20) notes that even if the oppressors took the field from the robber because of the robbed, the robbed could claim replacement from the robber since he might say: Give me what is mine and let any other person deal with me. On this, R. Joshua ben Levi and Rav disagree there as they disagree here.: “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it.” He did not hear that Rebbi Joḥanan said³¹Baba Qama 10:6. In the Babli, Baba Qama 116b/117a, it remains a question whether the rule represents a fine or a generally valid legal principle., they exacted a fine from a robber. Rebbi Abin³²R. Abin II. asked, (who was the father of) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus both said in the name of Samuel; one said, it is like annona and head-tax³³If a Roman official took the field illegally it nevertheless has the status of annona or head-tax. This supports R. Joḥanan that the rule represents a fine. The opposite opinion supports Rav against R. Joḥanan.; the other one said, it is not like annona and head-tax.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. ¹⁰⁰The entire Halakhah is from Ketubot Chapter 9. The first paragraph is from 9:8, Notes 185–197 (and Giṭtin5:3 Note 52.). Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah¹⁰¹Babli Arakhin22a.. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female¹⁰²The text in Ketubot and Giṭtin reads: “on the collection,” i. e., on the woman’s decision whether to ask for payment of the ketubah or for upkeep (lodging, food, and clothing) from the estate.. What about it? For attraction¹⁰³Babli Ketubot84a., that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.¹⁰⁴Mishnah Bava qamma10:1.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.¹⁰⁵Mishnah Giṭtin5:3.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions¹⁰⁶In the other two sources correctly: “R. Yose ben R. Abun said, here about an adult orphan, there about an underage orphan.” The sentence here intruded from Halakhah 10 where it belongs. The word used here is Greek, διαθήκη “written will”. Cf Mishnah Bava meṣi`a 1:7..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Available for Premium members only

Full Chapter