Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 10, scan section 55

cludes nothing but the particular, this means to say that only ox and ass are meant, and nothing else ? Nay, it states, at the last commandments, also *' all\ of thy cattle," and the word * Leeser translates " beast." \ The Talmud translates the Hebrew term literally, "all," while Leeser trans- lates it " any." TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 129 "all" adds all other beasts. Is it really so, that wherever "all" is written it adds something? Is not the same word used at tithing, and still it is construed to be a case oi general and particular ? (See Erubim, p. 64.) We may say that " all " is sometimes also a general, but in this particular instance it must be explained only as to add ; for it would have been suffi- cient to state only " and cattle," as it does in the first com- mandments, and still it states, " and all cattle," to infer that it plainly means to add. Now, having come to the conclusion that Luis " all" means to add, why was it necessary to state " cattle " in the first and " ox " and " ass " in the last commandments ? It can be ex- plained that these particular expressions were mentioned for the purpose of deducing muzzling, unloading, and kilayim by the analogy of expression stated above. If also (that as regards kilayim it is deduced from Sabbath), let even a man be prohib- ited from drawing a wagon together with an animal, as he is also prohibited as regards Sabbath ? Why, then, have we learned in the following Mishna: " A man is permitted with all of them to plough and draw" ? Said R. Papa: One of the inhabitants of Papanai knew the reason for that, and that was R. A'ha bar Jacob, who explained it thus: It is written [ibid. 14] : "In order that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou " — that means that they are compared to them only as regards rest, but not as regards any other thing. R. Hanina b. Egil asked R. Hyya b. Aba: Why in the first commandments is it not written " that it may be well with thee," and in the second commandments it is so written [Deut. V. 16] ? He rejoined: " Instead of asking me for the reason, you had better ask me whether it is so written at all; for I did not notice it. You had better go to R. Tan'hum b. Hanilai, who used to frequent R. Joshua b. Levi, who was well versed in Agadah." He went there and got the answer from R. Tan'hum. From R. Joshua b. Levi I heard nothing about it, but so told me Samuel b. Na'hum the brother of R. Aha b. Hanina's mother [according to others, the father of the same] : The reason is because the first commandments (contained on the tables) were destined to be broken. And if so, what of it ? Said R. Ashi: If this had been written thereon and subsequently (the tables) had been broken, Heaven save! "good" would have ceased from Israel. R. Jehushua said: One who sees the letter" Teth'' in his 9 I3C THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. dream, it is a good omen for him. Why so ? Because the first time this letter is used in the Scripture is in the word " Tobh " (good) in the verse [Gen. i. 4] : " And God saw the Hght, that it was good (tobh)." "And so also a beast y' etc. Said Resh Lakish: In this Mishna Rabh teaches us that a cock and a peacock and a pheas- ant are considered kilayim with each other. Is this not self- evident ? Said R. Habiba : Because they are usually raised together, one might say that they are one species. Hence this statement. Samuel said : The ordinary goose and the wild goose are con- sidered kilayim. Rabha b. R. Hanan opposed. Why so ? If because the one has a long beak and the other a short one, then let a Persian and an Arabian camel also be kilayim, because the one has a thick and the other a thin neck ? Therefore said Abayi: The reason is because the one has his testicles on the outside, while the other has them inside. R. Papa said: The one hatches one egg at a time, while the other hatches many at a time. CHAPTER VI. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE GUARDING OF ANIMALS AGAINST DOING DAMAGE. CONCERNING THE STARTING OF FIRE ; IF IT PASSES OVER A WALL. FOR WHAT DISTANCES PASSED BY A FIRE IS THE ONE WHO STARTED IT LIABLE? MISHNA /. : If one drive his sheep into a sheep-cot and properly bolt the gate, but still they manage to come out and do damage, he is free. If he do not properly bolt the gate, he is liable. If they break out in the night time, or robbers break in the gate, and the sheep come out and cause damage, he is free. If the robbers lead them out, they are responsible for the damage. If one exposes his cattle to the sun, or he places them in the custody of a deaf-mute, a fool, or a minor, and they break away and do damage, he is liable ; if, however, he places them with a (professional) shepherd, the latter substitutes him (as regards liability for damages). If the cattle fall into a gar- den and consume something, the value of the benefit they de- rive is to be paid. If, however, they enter the garden in the usual way, the value of the damage is paid. How is the value of the damage to be ascertained ? It is appraised how much a measure of the land required for planting a saah was worth before and how much it is worth after. R. Simeon says: If they consume ripe fruit, the value of ripe fruit is paid ; if they consume one saah, the value of one ; if two, the value of two is paid. GEMARA: The rabbis taught: When is it called properly and when not properly bolted ? If the gate is bolted so as to withstand an ordinary wind, it is called " properly"; if not, it is called ** improperly." Said R. Mani b. Patish: Who is the Tana who holds that slight care is sufficient for a vicious one ? It is R. Jehudah of the following Mishna {supra, page 104): If his owner secured him with the rope and properly locked him up, and still he came out and did damage, whether he was non- vicious or he was vicious, there is a liability. Such is the dic- tum of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, says: For a non-vicious 131 132 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. there is, but for a vicious one there is no liability; as it is writ- ten [Ex. xxi. 36] : " And his owner had 7iot kept him in," but here he had. R. Elazar, however, said: "There is no other care for a vicious one than the knife." It can be said that the Mishna is in accordance with R. Meir also, but the tooth and foot are different, for the Scripture required only slight care with them, as R. Elazar, and according to others a Boraitha taught: " There are four things regarding which the Scripture diminished the amount of care, and they are the pit, the fire, the tooth, and the foot: The pit, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 33] : ** And if a man open a pit, or if a man dig a pit, and do not cover it"; but if he had only covered it (without placing