משנה ארבעה אבות נזיקין השור והבור והמבעה וההבער לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה ולא המבעה כהרי השור לא זה וזה שיש בהן רוח חיים כהרי האש שאין בו רוח חיים לא זה וזה שדרכן לילך ולהזיק כהרי הבור שאין דרכו לילך ולהזיק הצד השוה שבהן שדרכן להזיק ושמירתן עליך וכשהזיק חב המזיק לשלם תשלומי נזק
From when may one recite Shema in the evening? From the time the Kohanim go in to eat their Terumah (produce consecrated for priestly consumption). Until the end of the first watch, says Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say: Until [astronomical] midnight. Rabban Gamliel says: Until the break of dawn. It once happened that his [Rabban Gamliel’s] sons came from a house of feasting. They said to him: We have not recited Shema. He to them: If dawn has not broken, you are obligated to recite it. And it is not only in this case that they said it! Rather, in all cases where the Sages said "only until midnight," the obligation remains until the break of dawn. [e.g.] Burning the fats and limbs [of the sacrifices, on the Temple altar] — the obligation is until the break of dawn. [e.g.:] All [sacrifices] which may be eaten for one day — the obligation is until the break of dawn. If that is so, why did the Sages say, "until midnight?" To distance a person from transgression. We recite [in our mishnah] "...from the time that the kohanim (Aaronide priests) enter to eat their Terumah (produce consecrated for priestly consumption)." Rabbi Chiya taught [in Tosefta Berakhot 1:1]: "...from the time that people usually go in to eat their bread on the eve of the Sabbath." And there is a baraita that comments on this: "These opinions are close enough to be equal."
Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim
Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written131Chr. 2:55.The families of counters, dwellers of Yabeṣ. Why does the verse say, counters? Because they formulated the teaching numbers, numbers14In B: ciphers, ciphers.. “Five shall not lift heave.15Mishnah Terumot1:1.” “Fifteen women free their co-wives.16Mishnah Yebamot1:1.” “Thirty-six extirpations in the Torah.17Mishnah Keritut1:1.” “Thirteen matters about the carcass of a pure bird.18Mishnah Ṭehorot1:1.” “Four main categories of torts.19Mishnah Bava Qamma1:1.” “Thirty-nine categories of work.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated218Mishnah Bava qamma 1:1.: “There are four categories of damages. The ox”, this is the horn. Goring and pushing are main categories. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If it bit, lay down, kicked, these are derivatives of the horn. There, we have stated219Mishnah Kelim 1:1.: “The categories of impurity, the crawling animal and semen.” What are derivatives of crawling animals? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Naḥum: pushings. What are pushings? Touching220Both in Šabbat and Bava qamma categories are labels of sets of derivatives. But in Kelim, treating of impurity, derivative impurity is less infectuous than original impurity, and there are successive states of derivative impurity. The nature of אָב in impurity really is not comparable to the nature of אָב in the other two cases.. The main category of impurity makes everything impure, derivative impurity transmits impurity only to food and drink, or clay vessels221This is not an exhaustive list and does not take into account that different implements may be subject to impurities in different degrees depending on the kind of original impurity in question. In general, metal vessels may become impure by touch from derivative impurities but not clay vessels (Mishnah Zavim 5:1); all food and drinks may become impure by derivative impurities of the first degree. Babli Bava qamma 2b.. Food and drink and [clay]222Missing in the text but indicated by the construct state of the word כֶּלִי. vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity223This statement requires that מַשְׁקִין be translated as “drinks”. The same word may also mean “fluids”, but human body fluids may be sources of original impurity and the water used for the ashes of the Red Cow may become the source of original impurity.. Gonorrhea. And here, we have stated: “The categories of work are 39.” Ploughing is a category. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, these are derivatives of ploughing216The activities quoted here are all derivatives of ploughing (Babli 73b)..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
111There is a different but parallel treatment of the subject of this paragraph in Baba Qama 4:5 (4b 1.50). Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental112If the estate of underage minors is sued, the court does not appoint a guardian to conduct their defense but one tells the claimant to wait until the orphans are adults. But if the estate has a claim to pursue, the court may appoint a guardian to prosecute their case; if the guardian is not successful, the orphans cannot sue him.. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit not for detriment113All suits involving an estate, whether by a defendant or a claimant, have to be postponed until the orphans are adults.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them114Mishnah Baba Qama 1:5: If an animal of an irresponsible person (a minor, an insane, or a deaf-and-dumb person) did damage, the court has to appoint a guardian to take care of the matter. This seems to imply that one appoints guardians for underage orphans who are defendants in a damage suit.” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage115The Mishnah does not express a biblical principle but a rabbinic rule for the public good, that a dangerous animal should be slaughtered to prevent more damage.. If it did do damage, from whom does one take payment? Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the orphans. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, from the guardian116If the animal did additional damage when the guardian already was in charge.. And even if Rebbi Joḥanan never taught this, does not his word imply it since he said if in the end they are detrimental, they are detrimental?
