Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 4:6 ירושלמי בבא קמא ד׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall which then fell on a human, [or which] intended to kill an animal but killed a human⁷⁴The bull was attacking another animal when a human intervened and was killed. In that case, the bull is not condemned to be stoned and is not forbidden for usufruct., a Gentile but killed a Jew⁴⁰It is stressed in Ex. 21:1 that the laws of that Chapter is before them; it applies only to intra-Israelite lawsuits. An application to suits involving Gentiles is illegitimate (Sifry Deut. 16; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 1). Gentile law does not recognize payment for half the damages., stillbirth but killed a viable child⁷⁹Killing a fetus or a newborn which is not viable is forbidden but not prosecutable as murder; the same holds for killing a ṭerepha, a terminally ill person., is free from prosecution.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,¹⁰¹Lev. 21:17.” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly¹⁰²The Babli, Sanhedrin 78a, explains that the verse can be read either as “a man who kills a human totally” or as “a man who kills anything of a man.” In the first version, if one attacker wounds a person and a second one finishes him off, the second attacker is the murderer even if the wounds inflicted by the first are potentially lethal. In the second version, the heirs of a person killed by a gang have indemnity claims against all gang members taking part in the attack even if none of them can be prosecuted for first degree murder.. Rebbi La said, even if it is deadly but a third person came and killed, the killer is guilty¹⁰³A tannaïtic statement in Sifra Emor Pereq 20(1).. “And it killed a man or a woman¹⁰⁴Ex. 21:29.,” just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But does not a man inherit from his wife¹⁰⁵How can her children (or in the absence of children, her paternal relatives) inherit anything from her if she is survived by her husband?? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: One teaches here about weregilt which is due after death¹⁰⁶(Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai21:29, p. 181). The biblical right of inheritance by the husband, based on Num. 27:11, excludes future claims (Babli 42b; Bava batra 8:6 Note 129). Since there is no weregilt for a living person, the husband cannot inherit..

If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to be goring. Rav said, it is an acquisition in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered¹⁰⁷According to Rav, the buyer can force the annulment of the sale and receive his money back. According to Samuel, since a bull can be sold either for meat or for work, it is up to the buyer to specify for which use he is buying since for livestock there do not exist generally valid criteria of quality. (Ševi‘it 5:8, Notes 70,71; Babli 46a, Bava batra 92a).. “He shall give weregilt for his person.¹⁰⁸Ex.. 21:30. It is not clear to whom the verse refers in mentioning “his”, cf. Ketubot 3:10, Note 151 and all sources quoted there, in particular Babli 40a.” Some Tannaїm state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaїm state: The person suffering the damage. Following him who said, the person suffering the damage, [assume] the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion¹⁰⁹The bull of owner A injured a person who was prevented by the bull of owner B to seek immediate medical attention; the person then died.. If you say that damages are fully required¹¹⁰Damages are due even though weregilt was paid., the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required¹¹¹There is no claim for damages if there is one for weregilt., the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. Following him who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable¹¹²Since the action of B’s bull was strictly defensive, he is not an attacker.. If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable¹¹³If neither of them can be held criminally liable, neither of them can be held financially liable..