Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 10, scan section 11

sale with responsibility, and he must pay to him what he lost, but in money, and therefore he must pay one-fourth in money and one-fourth in land), therefore he must pay one-fourth in land and one-fourth in money. But what is meant by the state- ment " it is as good as land " ? that it is considered " best " ? then it is again the same statement made by R. Huna ? Say: ** And so also said R. Assi." R. Zera in the name of R. Huna said: In case one does a meritorious thing he shall do it up to one-third. What does this mean ? Shall we assume that it means up to one-third of his own property ? If so, then if he has occasion to perform three meritorious things he must spend his whole property? Said R. Zera: It means up to one-third in endeavoring to adorn the meritorious thing {e.g., if there are two scrolls of Law, and one is more expensive than the other, he shall spend one-third more to buy the more expensive one). R. Assi questioned: * The reason why this was not stated till now is that there should be no inter- ruption in the discussion of R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba. 14 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Does it mean one-third of the cheaper one, or does it mean one-third should be added? This question remains unanswered. In the West it was said in the name of R. Zera: Up to one- third he shall spend from his own (without expectation to be rewarded in this world), thenceforward from the Holy One's, blessed be He {i.e., that part will be repaid to him in this world). MISHNA //. : (The following is the rule 🙂 In all that which I am charged with taking care of I have prepared the damage {i.e., if damage was done it is considered that I was instrumental in doing it). If I prepare only a part of the damage I am responsi- ble nevertheless for the whole, as if I prepared the whole. And only as to property which cannot be desecrated (but for that which is desecrated there is no responsibility), or property of persons governed by laws adopted by their community,* or such that has an owner, and at any place (the damage was done), ex- cept if done on the ground exclusively belonging to the defend- ant, or on that belonging to both together, the defendant and the plaintiff. If damage was done, the defendant must complete the payment of the damages with the best of his estates. GEMARA: The rabbis taught: "In all that which I am charged with taking care of," etc. How so? If one intrusts a deaf man, a fool, or a minor with the charge over a pit, or an ox, and they cause damage he must pay for such damage, which is not so in case of fire (explained further on). What case is treated of here ? when the ox was kept on a rope, or the pit was covered, equivalent to which in case of fire is as if it were live coals; and if you should ask why there should be a differ- ence (between the former and the latter), (it may be said) in the case of the ox he is likely to get loosened, and in the case of a pit the cover is likely to slip off (and therefore the owner should have that in mind and bestow better care), but in the case of coal it is the reverse, for it is likely to get more and more extinguished. But according to R. Johanan, who said (elsewhere) that if one intrusts even a flame (to those stated above) he is also free (and consequently the statement above, " which is not so in case of fire," must be explained as meaning a flame), and in such a case the equivalent thereof here would be a loosened ox and an uncovered pit. Why should there be a * This seems to be the true meaning of the expression " Bene Brith," and not, as some thought, that it means Israelites. See our introduction to this edition in our " History of the Talmud." TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 15 difference ? There (in case of fire) the deaf man has so closely connected himself with the fire {i.e.y if he would not move it, it would remain stationary), that it is considered that he himself has done the damage (this is according to Rashi's second ex- planation, and it is stated elsewhere that if a deaf man, etc., do damage there is no liability), but here it is not so (for the ox or the pit did the damage without the aid of those mentioned). The rabbis taught : There is a more rigorous rule in the case of the ox than in the cases of the pit and the fire, and vice versa. (How so ?) The rigorousness of the rule in case of the ox is that he (the owner) pays the atoning money (when the ox kills a free man, and 30 shekels if a slave) which is not so in the case of the pit and fire. The rigorousness of the rule in the cases of the pit and the fire is that the pit is originally made to do dam- age, and the fire is considered ** noxious from the beginning," which is not so in case of the ox. There is a more rigorous rule in the case of fire than in the case of the pit, and vice versa. The rigorousness of the rule in case of the pit, which is made origi- nally to do damage, lies in that one is responsible if he intrusted it to a deaf man, minor, or fool, which is not so in case of fire, and the more rigorousness is in the case of fire, which has in its nature to move and to do damage, and is considered nox- ious in that it consumes everything whether fit or unfit for it, which is not so in the case of the pit. Let him also teach that the case of the ox is more rigorous because he is liable for damages to vessels (by breaking them intentionally either with the horn or with the foot), which is not so with the pit. The Tana enumerates some and leaves out others. Is then anything else left out that also this is left out ? Yea, the case of con- cealed articles {e.g., if an ox has kicked upon a sack containing vessels, or an ox carrying a sack containing vessels fell into a pit and the vessels broke, the owner is responsible for the ves- sels, which is not so in case of fire). '* If I have prepared a part of the damage, ' ' etc. The rabbis taught; " How so ? If one dug a pit nine spans deep and an- other one came and completed it to be ten spans deep, the latter is responsible (whether the ox falling into it was killed or only injured). Shall we assume that this is not according to Rabbi (who said further on that for damages both are liable) ? Said R. Papa : The case is that the ox that fell in was killed (in which case Rabbi also agrees that the one who dug the last span must pay). R. Zera opposed : Is this the only case — is it not i6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the same if one left his ox in charge of five persons, and one of them left intentionally and the ox caused damage — is the one who left responsible ? And R. Shesheth also opposed, say- ing that there is another case when one added fuel to a burning fire, and the latter caused damage ; the last one is responsible,