Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 4:9 ירושלמי בבא קמא ד׳:ט׳
Part of: Chapter 4
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלַשּׁוֹאֵל וְלַנּוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִכְנְסוּ תַחַת הַבְּעָלִים. מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם וְתָם מְשַׁלֵם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. קְשָׁרוֹ בְעָלָיו בַּמּוֹסֵירָה וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד חַיָיב. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר תָּם חַיָיב וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.
MISHNAH: If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee, or a borrower, or a paid trustee, or a lessee, they entered instead of the owner126The four cases of temporary guardians of other people’s property are defined in Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a 6:8. For damages caused while the animal was in the temporary control of another person, the person in control may be responsible in place of the owner. This limited liability is detailed in the second part of the Mishnah.; a notorious animal pays full damages, a tame one half damages. If he tied it down with a rope and locked it in as he should, if then it broke out and caused damage he is liable whether tame or notorious127In the Halakhah, the Babli, Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai, and most independent Mishnah texts, this is identified as R. Meïr’s opinion. In Tosephta 5:7 and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 10, R. Meïr declares the owner of the tame bull not liable in this case, only the owner of a notorious bull. In all of these sources there is a third opinion, by R. Eliezer ben Jacob, that neither is liable.. Rebbi Jehudah says, for the tame he is liable, for the notorious he is not liable since it was said: “if its owner would not guard it128Ex.. 21:36. There is no corresponding verse regarding a tame bull.,” but it was guarded. Rebbi Eliezer says, this one can be guarded only by the knife129Once a bull has been declared notorious, it has to be slaughtered immediately..
MISHNAH: If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee, or a borrower, or a paid trustee, or a lessee, they entered instead of the owner126The four cases of temporary guardians of other people’s property are defined in Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a 6:8. For damages caused while the animal was in the temporary control of another person, the person in control may be responsible in place of the owner. This limited liability is detailed in the second part of the Mishnah.; a notorious animal pays full damages, a tame one half damages. If he tied it down with a rope and locked it in as he should, if then it broke out and caused damage he is liable whether tame or notorious127In the Halakhah, the Babli, Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai, and most independent Mishnah texts, this is identified as R. Meïr’s opinion. In Tosephta 5:7 and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 10, R. Meïr declares the owner of the tame bull not liable in this case, only the owner of a notorious bull. In all of these sources there is a third opinion, by R. Eliezer ben Jacob, that neither is liable.. Rebbi Jehudah says, for the tame he is liable, for the notorious he is not liable since it was said: “if its owner would not guard it128Ex.. 21:36. There is no corresponding verse regarding a tame bull.,” but it was guarded. Rebbi Eliezer says, this one can be guarded only by the knife129Once a bull has been declared notorious, it has to be slaughtered immediately..
הלכה: מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כִּשְׁמִירַת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. מָסַר שׁוֹר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק פָּטוּר. יָצָא וְנִטְרַף פָּטוּר. לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק חַיָיב. יָצָא וְנִטְרַף פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. מָסַר שׁוֹר מוּעָד לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק חַיָיב. יָצָא וְנִטְרַף פָּטוּר. לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. יָצָא וְהִזִּיק חַיָיב. נִטְרַף חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וַהֲלֹא שָׁמוּר הוּא וְהַתּוֹרָה חִיַּיבְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּל שְׁמִירָה שֶׁאָמְרָה תוֹרָה אֲפִילוּ הִקִּיפוֹ חוֹמַת בַּרְזֶל אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בְגוּפוֹ. לְפִיכַךְ רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ אִם רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַיָיב.
HALAKHAH: “If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr that watching for damages is on the level of an unpaid trustee130The unpaid trustee has to pay only if anything happens because of his negligence. Therefore, it seems that R. Eleazar refers to R. Meïr’s position as articulated in Tosephta and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Note 127.; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee131The paid trustee has to pay for any damage which it was in his power to prevent. R. Jehudah frees the person guarding a notorious bull from being liable only because of an exemption granted by the verse.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull132In E and Rashba: “a tame bull”. This seems to be required by the next paragraph. to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable130The unpaid trustee has to pay only if anything happens because of his negligence. Therefore, it seems that R. Eleazar refers to R. Meïr’s position as articulated in Tosephta and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Note 127.; if it went out and became torn133The bull is attacked and severely damaged by another., he is not liable134In E and Rashba: “is liable”. In Rashba’s explanation, the person who accepts the duty to watch over an animal becomes liable if the animal is damaged.
The text of L seems to be preferable since the unpaid trustee is freed from liability if he can swear that the damage was not caused by his negligence.. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable135It seems that one has to read: “is liable”. The clause is missing in Rashba’s quote.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah: If one handed over a notorious bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable136Since even the paid shepherd does not have to pay for the torn, by Ex. 22:12.. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable137Even though Ex. 22:12 frees the paid trustee from paying for a torn animal, here he should have prevented the bull from getting out in the first place.. Rebbi Eleazar said, was it not watched? But the Torah declared him liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, for every guarding required by the Torah, even if it was done by enclosing in an iron wall, one only qualifies by personal presence138Mechanical devices cannot replace personal supervision. Even the unpaid trustee will be liable if he relies on a mechanical device instead of his personal supervision.. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.
HALAKHAH: “If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr that watching for damages is on the level of an unpaid trustee130The unpaid trustee has to pay only if anything happens because of his negligence. Therefore, it seems that R. Eleazar refers to R. Meïr’s position as articulated in Tosephta and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Note 127.; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee131The paid trustee has to pay for any damage which it was in his power to prevent. R. Jehudah frees the person guarding a notorious bull from being liable only because of an exemption granted by the verse.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull132In E and Rashba: “a tame bull”. This seems to be required by the next paragraph. to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable130The unpaid trustee has to pay only if anything happens because of his negligence. Therefore, it seems that R. Eleazar refers to R. Meïr’s position as articulated in Tosephta and Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Note 127.; if it went out and became torn133The bull is attacked and severely damaged by another., he is not liable134In E and Rashba: “is liable”. In Rashba’s explanation, the person who accepts the duty to watch over an animal becomes liable if the animal is damaged.
The text of L seems to be preferable since the unpaid trustee is freed from liability if he can swear that the damage was not caused by his negligence.. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable135It seems that one has to read: “is liable”. The clause is missing in Rashba’s quote.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah: If one handed over a notorious bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable136Since even the paid shepherd does not have to pay for the torn, by Ex. 22:12.. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable137Even though Ex. 22:12 frees the paid trustee from paying for a torn animal, here he should have prevented the bull from getting out in the first place.. Rebbi Eleazar said, was it not watched? But the Torah declared him liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, for every guarding required by the Torah, even if it was done by enclosing in an iron wall, one only qualifies by personal presence138Mechanical devices cannot replace personal supervision. Even the unpaid trustee will be liable if he relies on a mechanical device instead of his personal supervision.. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.