Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Bava Kamma 5:1

ולמה תנינתה הכא דאית ליה מילין סגין כן לא הרי מושב כהרי משכב ולא הרי משכב כהרי מושב. ניחא לא הרי מושב כהרי משכב אם מושב בטפח יטמא יטמא משכב בד' טפחים. מפני שטמא משכב בארבעה טפחים יטמא מושב בטפח. ואילו לא נאמר משכב הייתי למד משכב מן המושב אילו לא נאמר מושב הייתי למד מושב מן המשכב ולמה תנינתה הכא דאית לתנוייה סגין מילין. כן לא פרשה נירות כהרי פרשת שילוח טמאין. ולא פרשת שילוח טמאין כהרי פ' נירות. אילו לא נאמר פרשת שילוח טמאין הייתי למד פרשת שילוח טמאין מפרשת נירות. ולמה תנייתה הכא דאית לתנוייה סגין מילין כן הצד השוה שבהן שהן בצו מיד ולדורות. אף כל שהוא בצו מיד ולדורות. א"ר לא צריך הוא שיאמר לכל אחד ואחד. והשור מלמד שהבעלין מיטפלין בנביל'. דכתיב והמת יהיה לו וכתיב בבור והמת יהיה לו. תני רבי ישמעאל יצאו קרקעות שאינן מיטלטלין

R. Hanina says: The sun must have gone down and the moon have commenced to rise. In effect R. Samuel says: The moon cannot shine as long as the sun still lightens, neither can the moon shine after the sun has darted his (morning) beams. R. Samuel bar-Hiya, in the name of R. Hanina, says: If a man, when the sun has begun to set, descends from the summit of Mount Carmel to bathe in the sea, and re-ascends to partake of the oblations, he has certainly bathed during the daytime. It is, however, only a certainty in the case of one taking cross-roads to shorten the route; but not in the case of one who follows the high road (Strata). What is meant by "the intermediate period "? R. Tanhooma says: It resembles the delay of a drop of blood placed on the edge of a sword, i.e. the time required for the drop of blood to divide and run down on either side of the blade, is equivalent to the period of transition. According to R. Nehemiah, it means the time it would require for a man to run half a mile, after sunset. R. Yosse says: This twilight lasts no longer than the twinkling of an eye, and not even the men of science could measure it. Whilst the R. Yosse and R. Aha were together, the former said to the latter: Does it not seem to you that the passage of this half a mile (twilight) lasts but a second? It is certainly my opinion, said R. Aha. However, R. Hiya does not say so, but each twinkling of an eye, measured by the duration of the passage of half a mile (as R. Nehemiah), is doubtful. R. Mena says : I have made an objection in the presence of R. Aha: Have we not learnt elsewhere, that if an impurity is seen, once during the day and again during the intermediate period, or once in the twilight and again on the morrow, when the certainty exists that the impurity dates partly from this day and partly from the next day, there is a certainty as to the circumstances of the impurity, and the sacrifice is obligatory.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin6Why does the Mishnah put the burden of proof on the woman when there should be a presumption in her favor to require the husband or the heirs to prove their case.! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument7Since the woman claims money, the burden of proof is on her; cf. Chapter 1, Note 215. The Babli agrees, Baba Batra 93a.. There8Mishnah Baba Qama 5:1, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.9If it cannot be ascertained whether the miscarriage was induced by the goring or preceded the goring, the ox’s owner pays (by biblical decree, Ex. 21:35) half of the damage done to the cow but only a quarter of the value of the fetus. It is clear that the proven fact of the goring creates a presumption that the miscarriage was induced by it. This presumption is not sufficient to force the owner of the ox to pay; the value of the fetus, had it grown to be a calf, is “money in dispute”. Money in dispute for which there are no proofs either way is split evenly between the parties (Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 2b). A similar text is in Baba Qama 5:1. The Babli, Baba Qama 46a, denies the designation as “money in dispute” and puts the burden of proof on the claimant, the injured party.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun10In Baba Qama, R. Yose. said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it11In the Babli, Baba Batra 93a: It is known that the one in heat killed it. The Babli holds that this is not a case of majority but one of prima facie evidence: Proof that the camel was in heat implies proof that it did attack other males. Therefore, the owner of the camel in heat would have to prove that the attack by the male in heat on the male not in heat was not lethal..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Birds are not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is inferred from [the statement of] Bar Dalaiah106His statement parallels a Tosephta (1:7). In the parallel in Babli Baba Qama 55a, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted to the effect that in the Mishnah, Rebbi taught that chicken, pheasant, and peacock are kilaim one with the other. The language of the Babli is close to that of the Tosephta. R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position in the Babli is that of R. Yose (the Amora, colleague of R. Jonah) later in the present paragraph.: “Chicken with pheasant, chicken with peacock, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that Rebbi stated for us a complete Mishnah: “The same applies to wild animals and birds107Mishnah Baba Qama 5:7. The Mishnah notes that the Biblical precept regarding the responsibility of somebody who digs a hole in the public domain and “an ox or a donkey” falls into it (Ex. 21:33) extends to all domesticated animals, to damages assessed on a thief, to the requirement of returning stray animals to their owners, to unload animals in distress, to the prohibition of muzzling an animal used for threshing, to kilaim, and to Sabbath rest. Then the Mishnah adds, “The same applies to wild animals and birds.” Hence, the applicability of all rules of kilaim to birds is spelled out there..” Rebbi Jonah said, we need that of Rebbi Joḥanan, we state here “wild animal” and explain it there108We give here cases involving domesticated and wild animals but the underlying principle is given there, in Baba Qama.. We state here “domesticated animal” and explain it there. Birds, we stated there and explain it here109We really do not explain anything here but the statements of the Tosephta and Bar Dalaiah show that the detailed rules imply that birds from the same family are kilaim one with the other if one is domesticated (chicken) and the other is wild (pheasant) or semi-wild (peacock).. Rebbi Jose said, is that correct? It comes to tell you that birds are forbidden in kilaim110Since the Mishnah states that “the same applies,” it is implied that all rules apply uniformly. Hence, the examples of birds are unnecessary as proclaimed rules.!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full Chapter