Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 4:4 ירושלמי בבא קמא ד׳:ד׳
Part of: Chapter 4
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּיקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן חַיָיב. שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּיקֵּחַ פָּטוּר. שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגחוּ מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס וּמְעִידִין בָּהֶן בִּפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. נִתְפַּקַּה הַחֵרֵשׁ נִשְׁתַּפָּה הַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהִגְדִּיל הַקָּטָן חָזַר לְתַמּוּתוֹ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הוּא בְחֶזְקָתוֹ. שּׁוֹר הָאִצְטַדִין אֵינוֹ חַיָיב מִיתָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִגַּח וְלֹא שֶׁיַּגִּיחוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים.
MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable44Since these persons cannot appear in court, they cannot be sued.. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one45In the Mishnah in the Babli: “The court”. appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them46About the animal, to have it declared notorious. Once the animal is declared notorious, the guardian will have to pay damages from the estate of his wards. in the presence of the guardian47Since testimony in general may not be taken in the absence of the parties. In the case of the goring bull, it is stated in Ex. 21:29 that testimony must be “in presence of the owner’ (Midrash Haggadol ad loc.).. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr48He holds that “tame” or “notorious” is not a property of the animal but a qualification of the legal status of its owner. If the owner became a person in law, his status would have to be determined anew.; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion49Trained for bullfights. is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.
MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable44Since these persons cannot appear in court, they cannot be sued.. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one45In the Mishnah in the Babli: “The court”. appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them46About the animal, to have it declared notorious. Once the animal is declared notorious, the guardian will have to pay damages from the estate of his wards. in the presence of the guardian47Since testimony in general may not be taken in the absence of the parties. In the case of the goring bull, it is stated in Ex. 21:29 that testimony must be “in presence of the owner’ (Midrash Haggadol ad loc.).. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr48He holds that “tame” or “notorious” is not a property of the animal but a qualification of the legal status of its owner. If the owner became a person in law, his status would have to be determined anew.; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion49Trained for bullfights. is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.
הלכה: שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּפִיקֵּחַ כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּשׁוֹטֶה שׁוֹר שֶׁלְּקָטָן.
HALAKHAH: “If a bull of a sane person,” etc. So is the Mishnah50The Mishnah should not be read as freeing only the underaged deaf-dumb insane person from liability.: The bull of a deaf-mute, the bull of an insane, the bull of an underaged.
HALAKHAH: “If a bull of a sane person,” etc. So is the Mishnah50The Mishnah should not be read as freeing only the underaged deaf-dumb insane person from liability.: The bull of a deaf-mute, the bull of an insane, the bull of an underaged.
וְהָא תַנִּינָן. שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּגחוּ מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהוּעֲדוּ לִפְנֵי הַבְּעָלִים וּמְסָרוּם לָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. הוּעֲדוּ לִפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין וּמְסָרוּם לַבְּעָלִים מָהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שָׁאֲלוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא תָם וְנִמְצָא מוּעָד הַבְּעָלִין מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֶזֶק וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֶזְקָתוֹ. וְאִין כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי יְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. בְּשֶׁשָּׁאֲלוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא תָם. וְאִין בְּשֶׁשָּׁאֲלוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא תָם לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם. בְּיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא נָגְחָן. תַּנֵּי. הֵמִית בִּפְנֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל וּמְסָרוֹ לַבְּעָלִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ פָּטוּר. מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ חַיָיב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. אַף מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְקַל פָּטוּר.
Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”51The Mishnah seems self-contradictory. Either incompetent persons are not liable or they have to be represented by guardians whose duty it will be to indemnify the victims of the animals of the incompetent. The question is also asked in the Babli, 39a. It is answered there but here left unanswered. One may not assume that the treatment of the Babli is valid for the Yerushalmi. It is more likely that the question is not answered because the Mishnah has a straightforward interpretation: The incompetent are not liable, but it is the duty of the court to intervene and appoint guardians responsible for future control of the dangerous animals (Midrash Haggadol Ex. 21:36).? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner52This text seems to be devoid of sense. One may adopt the emendation of Pene Moshe and switch the objects: “So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner. If testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian?” This text refers to the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Yose. For the latter, a notorious beast always remains notorious. For R. Meïr the designation of “notorious” lapses if the animal is handed over to the grown-up owner by the guardian. What would be his opinion if an owner of a notorious beast developed a mental illness and his estate were handed to a guardian by the court? Does he also hold that the designation of “notorious” lapses in this case?? Let us hear from the following: 53Babli 40a, Tosephta 5:4.“If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages54The owner has to pay full damages for the notorious animal. Since he failed to inform the borrower, he has regress on him only for half the damages since the borrower is responsible to watch the animal to make sure it causes no damage as “tame”. (For the different versions of the Tosephta, cf. S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah.).” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he55Since for R. Yose the status of the animal does not change with a change of control, the borrower should be liable for the entire damage. should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame56Same explanation given in the Babli, 40a.. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore57But the borrower was not informed that the animal had been declared notorious by action of the court.. It was stated58Tosephta 5:4; cf. Babli 44b/45a, 98b.: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable59Since he handed back a bull, he does not have to replace it even though after judgment the bull will not be worth anything., after judgment was rendered60That the bull has to be killed and its carcass forbidden for usufruct (Ex. 21:28). he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable61Since he returned the bull; its changed legal status is not apparent..”
Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”51The Mishnah seems self-contradictory. Either incompetent persons are not liable or they have to be represented by guardians whose duty it will be to indemnify the victims of the animals of the incompetent. The question is also asked in the Babli, 39a. It is answered there but here left unanswered. One may not assume that the treatment of the Babli is valid for the Yerushalmi. It is more likely that the question is not answered because the Mishnah has a straightforward interpretation: The incompetent are not liable, but it is the duty of the court to intervene and appoint guardians responsible for future control of the dangerous animals (Midrash Haggadol Ex. 21:36).? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner52This text seems to be devoid of sense. One may adopt the emendation of Pene Moshe and switch the objects: “So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner. If testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian?” This text refers to the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Yose. For the latter, a notorious beast always remains notorious. For R. Meïr the designation of “notorious” lapses if the animal is handed over to the grown-up owner by the guardian. What would be his opinion if an owner of a notorious beast developed a mental illness and his estate were handed to a guardian by the court? Does he also hold that the designation of “notorious” lapses in this case?? Let us hear from the following: 53Babli 40a, Tosephta 5:4.“If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages54The owner has to pay full damages for the notorious animal. Since he failed to inform the borrower, he has regress on him only for half the damages since the borrower is responsible to watch the animal to make sure it causes no damage as “tame”. (For the different versions of the Tosephta, cf. S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah.).” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he55Since for R. Yose the status of the animal does not change with a change of control, the borrower should be liable for the entire damage. should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame56Same explanation given in the Babli, 40a.. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore57But the borrower was not informed that the animal had been declared notorious by action of the court.. It was stated58Tosephta 5:4; cf. Babli 44b/45a, 98b.: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable59Since he handed back a bull, he does not have to replace it even though after judgment the bull will not be worth anything., after judgment was rendered60That the bull has to be killed and its carcass forbidden for usufruct (Ex. 21:28). he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable61Since he returned the bull; its changed legal status is not apparent..”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּתְּחִילָּה אֵין מְמַנִּין אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין עַל מְנָת לַחוֹב לָהֶן אֶלָּא לְזַכּוֹת לָהֶן. וְאִם חָבוּ חָבוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. בֵּין בַּתְּחִילָּה בֵין בַּסּוֹף אֵין מְמַנִּין אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין עַל הַיְּתוֹמִין לֹא לִזְכוּת וְלֹא לְחוֹבָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין וּמְעִידִין לָהֶן בִּפְנֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא בְּשׁוֹר שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא וְיַזִּיק.
62This paragraph has an exact correspondence in Giṭṭin 5:4 (47a l. 15), Notes 111–115. The next paragraph is a reformulation of the topic discussed there, Notes 100–101, 116–122. Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one63The court, if the father had failed to appoint a guardian before his death. does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, but only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit nor for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage.
62This paragraph has an exact correspondence in Giṭṭin 5:4 (47a l. 15), Notes 111–115. The next paragraph is a reformulation of the topic discussed there, Notes 100–101, 116–122. Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one63The court, if the father had failed to appoint a guardian before his death. does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, but only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit nor for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage.
שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁלַּיְּתוֹמִין וְשֶׁלְּאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין שֶׁיָּצָא וְהִזִּיק מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשֶּׁלַּיְּתוֹמִין. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר. מִשֶּׁלְּאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. מִשֶּׁלְּאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. וַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל וּדְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּנִין. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִין יִשָּׁבֵעַ. מִינּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מַבְחִנִין אוֹתוֹ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים. אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִין לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. דְּבָעֵי מְמַשְׁכְּנָה לֵיהּ. מִינָּהוּ בֵּית דִּין יִשָּׁבֵעַ. אִית בַּר נַשׁ בָּעֵי מִיתַּן כַּמָּה וּמִיתְקָרֵי הֵימָן.
If a bull of orphans and guardians went out and did damage, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the damage is paid] from the orphan’s property. For if you say from the guardians’, nobody ever will agree to become a guardian. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the guardians’. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follows Abba Shaul and Rebbi Joḥanan the rabbis, as it was stated there: “A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear,” for the court will check him out. “Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around,” a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall not be made to swear; it would be as if he would take a pledge from him. If he was appointed by the court he shall be made to swear, since a person will do much to be called trustworthy.
If a bull of orphans and guardians went out and did damage, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the damage is paid] from the orphan’s property. For if you say from the guardians’, nobody ever will agree to become a guardian. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the guardians’. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follows Abba Shaul and Rebbi Joḥanan the rabbis, as it was stated there: “A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear,” for the court will check him out. “Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around,” a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall not be made to swear; it would be as if he would take a pledge from him. If he was appointed by the court he shall be made to swear, since a person will do much to be called trustworthy.
אָמַר אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הַמַּכִּישׁ בְּהֵמַת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהִזִּיקָה חַיָיב בִּנְזָקֶיהָ.
Abba bar Rab Huna said: This64The statement which excepts the bull trained to fight from retribution; the Mishnah puts all the blame on its trainers. implies that somebody who hit another person’s animal which as a consequence went and did damage is responsible for the damage caused65Even though in general one does not allow suits for indirectly caused damages..
Abba bar Rab Huna said: This64The statement which excepts the bull trained to fight from retribution; the Mishnah puts all the blame on its trainers. implies that somebody who hit another person’s animal which as a consequence went and did damage is responsible for the damage caused65Even though in general one does not allow suits for indirectly caused damages..