Talmud for Bava Kamma 6:1

יצא אדם שאין לו הנייה במותו. והאש מלמדת על כולן שהוא חייב על האונסין: פיסקא. וכשהזיק חב המזיק וכו'. א"ר יוסי הדא אמרה אדם שחבל בחבירו תחילה אע"פ שחזר ונעשה נזק חייב. דכתיב ומכה בהמה ישלמנה <ישלם פחתה> א"ר חנינא מכה בהמה ישלמנה ישלם פחתה. בר פדייה אמר אם טרף יטרף

But if the doubt exists, that the sight of the impurity dates partly from to-day and partly from the morrow, the impurity is certain, but the sacrifice uncertain. On account of this, R. Hiya bar-Joseph answered in the presence of B. Yohanan: Who is it who taught that one of these occasions of impurity can be divided into two? It was R. Yosse. He answered: You thus refute your own opinion; for you say that each twinkling of an eye of the time accomplished in a half-mile, according to R. Nehemiah, is doubtful, and not only the end of it. No contradiction can be offered to this; when the Prophet Elijah shall return to this world, and will explain to us what this twilight means, no one will contest him. R. Hanina argued against the disciples of the Rabbis: Since, said he, it is night as soon as three stars are visible, be the sun still high in the heavens, the same must apply (before the day) in the morning. R. Abba said: It is written (in Gen. xix. 23) : "The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar;" and is written (in Lev. xxii. 7): "And when the sun is down he shall be clean." The sunrise is compared with the sunset: As sunset corresponds to the disappearance of the sun from the sight of man, so also sunrise is manifested by the appearance of the sun to the eye of man.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There³⁹Mishnah Bava qamma6:7. In R. Jehudah’s opinion an arsonist has to pay for everything he destroyed even if he could not have known of its value. he says, even if he does not know. But here he says, not unless he knows⁴⁰Since in this and the following Mishnaiot R. Jehudah always requires partial admission by the debtor, information of the debtor is assumed. (Since the reading “knows” is confirmed by the Genizah fragment, the word cannot be emended to “admits”.). There since it is not in the form of a biblical oath even (about a biblical oath)⁴¹These words are not in the Genizah text, do not make any sense here, and have to be deleted. he does not know. But here it is in the form of a biblical oath⁴²In Bava qamma there is no oath. Here R. Jehudah requires partial admission to base the administration of an oath on biblical grounds even though the oath itself is a rabbinic institution..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi²⁸Babli 48b.. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated²⁹Mishnah 6:3. There, it is stated that if the owner gave permission, he is liable for damages; this seems to contradict R. Jeremiah’s explanation.: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,]³⁰Reading of E and Halakhah 6:3. sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house³¹Because of their value, they always are guarded.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock³²The field is fenced and locked in..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

“A dog stole a hot pitta.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if he lit every single ear of grain⁷⁷The Babli, 22a, explains that R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that damage by fire is like any other damage caused by a person’s property. Therefore, the fire not directly caused by the dog should not lead to liability of the dog’s owner.
The Vatican fragment reads נעשה במצית את האור. This is a conflation of the Leiden text with a reading נַעֲשֶׂה כְמַצִית אֶת הָאוֹר “he is considered as if 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 another⁷⁸This is action from a distance; the owner is liable even if his property only shot the arrow or started the fire.. 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.⁷⁹Mishnah 6:7. If a person set fire to a haystack, he has to pay for the hay and everything inside. If an animal was bound in the haystack, a slave was close to it, and both were burned, the arsonist has to pay for the animal; he is not responsible for the slave, who was not bound and could have saved himself. But if the slave was bound and the animal free, then the arsonist is a murderer. Nobody is both executed and pays for the same crime; even if he cannot be convicted for lack of eyewitnesses to the crime he cannot be made to pay (Terumot 7:1, Ketubot 3:1). Therefore, he cannot be made to pay for the animal.” But⁸⁰The argument advanced by R. Isaac bar Tevelai is not spelled out. The counter argument is presented: If the arsonist were personally liable only for the first stalk which he lit then by the time the fire reached the bound slave it no longer was his fire and there is no reason why he should not be made to pay for the animal. Only R. Joḥanan’s position is consistent with the Mishnah. 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.⁸¹Mishnah 3:12; cf. Terumot 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 repayment⁸⁰The argument advanced by R. Isaac bar Tevelai is not spelled out. The counter argument is presented: If the arsonist were personally liable only for the first stalk which he lit then by the time the fire reached the bound slave it no longer was his fire and there is no reason why he should not be made to pay for the animal. Only R. Joḥanan’s position is consistent with the Mishnah.. A person did put out a hot water bottle⁸²Since making fire on the Sabbath is a capital crime, he cannot be sued for civil damages. But if his animals start a fire, no crime is involved, and the owner is fully responsible in a civil suit. outside⁸³Latin foris, “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 damages⁸⁴Your merchandise has the status of “pit in the public domain”..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter