MISHNAH: A bull which gored four or five bulls, one after the other [A tame bull went on a goring spree before it could be declared notorious in court. The damage which it caused has to be liquidated by the rules of the tame bull; i. e., the bull has to be sold and from the proceeds half the damages have to be paid.] , should pay for the last of them [According to R. Meïr, a bull which gored becomes the property of its victim’s owner. The original owner has a claim to the excess of the sale price over the claim for restitution. Assuming that the bull was worth a; it gored n bulls, worth a1, a2, … ,an. The owner of the last bull claims an/2 from the owner of the bull gored as the penultimate. If a - an/2 > 0, the owner of that bull satisfies himself up to the amount an-1/2. If a - an/2 - an-1/2 > 0, the preceding owner can satisfy himself up to an-2/2, and so on until all of the proceeds a are used up. In practically all cases, the owner of the attacking bull ends up with nothing.] If there is anything left, it should revert to the penultimate. If then there is anything left, it should revert to the one before the penultimate. The later one is always advantaged, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon [He holds that the original owner and the owner of the victim become co-owners of the attacking bull. The last owner takes a/2; the owner of the penultimate victim then is a 50% owner of the remaining a/2, and so on. In this way, the owner of the j-th bull gored gets a/2; the owner of the attacking bull is left with the same amount as the one given to the owner of the first victim, a/2. If the values of the bulls are distinct, the last owner takes an/2, the one before him min(an-1/2, a/2-an/4) and so on.] says, if a bull worth 200 gored a bull worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, each one takes a mina. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100 and the preceding each take 50. If then it gored another bull worth 200, the last one takes 100, the preceding one takes 50 zuz4 [Silver denars.] , and the two first ones each a gold denar [25 silver denars.] .
HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored four or five bulls,” etc. [The basic explanation of this paragraph is given by Nachmanides, Milḥamot Hashem, to Mishnah 4:1.] Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi Meïr attacks him [The arguments given to the owner of the bull gored last against the owner of the bull gored as the penultimate.] from two sides: As you take it, if it is yours [As explained in Note 2.] , give it to me. If it is not yours [But you are part owner as claimed by R. Simeon.] , hand it over to me that I may satisfy my claim. But did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the guarding of damages parallels the guarding of acquisitions [The property rights given by the Torah to the owner of the dead bull is one of ownership, not possession (cf. Qiddušin 1, Note 352). Therefore, the potential owner of the bull cannot be liable for the damages done by an animal not in his actual possession.] ? [In the Babli, 26b, this is labelled as R. Aqiba’s opinion.] Rebbi Jehudah told him, it was delivered to him for his damages but it remains a pledge [Since he becomes owner for monetary gain, he is obligated for damages as if he were a paid trustee. The second argument attributed to R. Meïr really is valid only if the penultimate owner actually took possession of the offending bull.] .
What is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, dedication is between them. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the first [owner] [In this paragraph, one assumes that the bull gored only once. The first owner is the original one; the second is the the owner of the dead bull.] may dedicate [The second owner is co-owner, but as long as he did not actually take possession of the bull, the first can pay him off as mortgage-holder and be both owner and in possession. Therefore, only he may dedicate since nobody can dedicate what is not in his possession (cf. Ketubot 5:5, Notes 105–106; Tosephta 5:1; Babli 33b).] . In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, [only] both together may dedicate it [While the bull is still in the possession of the first, ownership belongs to the second. They can only act together. The same reasoning applies to the following examples.] . If it went up in price. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, it increased for the first. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, it increased for the second. If it was rented out, in Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the rent belongs to the first. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, [the rent] belongs to both of them. If it improved [Cf. Chapter 3, Note 130.] , in Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the improvement belongs to the first. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, the improvement belongs to both of them.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon stated the same. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, he acquired, so Rebbi Simeon said, he acquired [The owner of the injured animal becomes part owner with the owner of the attacker.] , only that Rebbi Jehudah says, he acquired the living and the dead [Chapter 3, Note 135; Tosephta 3:3. The owner of the attacker also becomes part owner of the carcass.] ; but Rebbi Simeon says he only acquired the (dead) [This certainly should read: the living. R. Simeon only discusses the case that the carcass be without value; this skirts the issue of ownership of an injured animal.] .
[Mishnah Ketubot 10:4. The text and its relation to the corresponding one in Ketubot 10:4 is explained there in Notes 73–75.] There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital} one adds together and splits {proportionally to the capital invested}. Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly here and make as much as you do.
It was stated: [Tosephta Ketubot 10:4.] Three who invested together and suffered theft, absorb [the loss] in the same way [The distribution algorithm described in Ketubot 10:4 (Note 62).] . But was it not stated: If those [precious] stones were stolen, half for each one [Each of the investors absorbs the same amount of loss.] . Rebbi Shammai said, tetradrachmas are large [Probably one should interchange the positions of “large” and “easy”. Money can be divided easily and exactly; precious stones are a one or nothing affair as noted in the preceding paragraph.] and it is possible to subdivide exactly but stones are easy [Probably one should interchange the positions of “large” and “easy”. Money can be divided easily and exactly; precious stones are a one or nothing affair as noted in the preceding paragraph.] and it is impossible to know which part in it belongs to whom. Because of the doubt, each one takes proportional to his investment. What did you see to say that we deal with theft, maybe one deals only with what is left [Which is money and therefore easily distributed.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say that we deal with theft, would not equity be hurt? Think of it, if one invested 50 and the other 150. If 50 was stolen, would not the one with 50 not lose anything [This is difficult to understand. There are 150 left and the sum total of the claims is 200. By the method of Mishnah Ketubot 10:4, the first 50 are claimed by both investors, the remaining 100 only by the second. Therefore, the first gets 25, the second 125; each one loses 25. If the loss were distributed proportional to the investment, the first investor would take 37.5, the second 113.5. It is a matter of opinion which method be more equitable.] ?
[Cf. Ketubot 10:4, Notes 76–79.] There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones each a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.
MISHNAH: A bull which is notorious for its kind but not notorious for other species, notorious for humans but not notorious for animals, notorious for small ones but not notorious for large ones, pays full damages for what it is notorious for, but half damages for what it is not notorious for. They asked before Rebbi Jehudah: If it was notorious on the Sabbath but not on weekdays? He answered, it pays full damages on Sabbaths but half damages on weekdays. When does it revert to be tame? If it changed its ways for three Sabbath days [Following R. Jehuda’s opinion in Mishnah 2:6.] .
HALAKHAH: “A bull which is notorious for its kind,” etc. After it killed one human, is it not notorious [Any animal which killed “a man or a woman” has to be killed (Ex. 21:28). How can such an animal ever become notorious after three times if it is killed after the first time?] ? Rav said, if it killed three Gentiles [Who are not subsumed under the appellation “man or woman”. Babli 41a, in the name of Rav Sheshet.] . Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if it pursued three times and it was estimated that every pursuit was for goring [For endangering humans, an animal may become notorious for trying three times.] .
[Halakhah 2:6, Notes 90–96.] If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.
Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr for the tame animal and Rebbi Jehudah for testimony.
We wanted to ask: what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah [He accepts that a bull may be notorious only for the Sabbath. Is it reasonable to expect animals to change their behavior according to a human calendar?] ? Because it sees us dressed [E reads מניין נקיין, a misspelling for מָנִין נְקִיִין “clean garments”. Quoted in Hebrew translation by Tosaphot 37a s.v. הרי; explaining that the bull does not recognize its master and attendants wearing Sabbath clothing.] cleanly, it changes its behavior.
MISHNAH: The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of Temple property or the bull of Temple property which gored a bull of an Israel are not liable since it was said “his neighbor’s bull” [Ex. 21:35.] , not a bull of Temple property. The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable; the bull of a non-Jew which gored a bull of an Israel pays full damages, whether tame or notorious.
HALAKHAH: “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles [Hab. 3:6. The usual translation is: “He saw and made peoples jump” (by an earthquake).] ,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money [In the Babli, 38a, a statement of R. Abbahu, applies to those Gentiles who violate the Noahide commandments. Cf. Lev. rabba 13(2); Tanḥuma Buber Šemini 10; Deut. rabba Eqeb 1 (some mss.).] . Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran [Deut. 33.2. The list of peoples living around Sinai is traditionally interpreted as a list of those to whom the Torah was offered first but who declined, and only Israel did accept (Babli Avodah zarah 2b; Sifry Deut.343; Pesiqta dR. Cahana Berakhah, ed. Buber 199b; Tanḥuma Berakhah 4 (Buber 3); Pseudo-Jonathan Deut. 32:2); Midrash Tannaïm Deut. 32:2.] ,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor [This statement possibly is fragmentary; cf. the formulations in the sources indicated in the preceding two Notes.] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws [It 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.] . Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated [Tosephta 4:2.] : If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.
[Babli 38a; Sifry Deut. 344; Midrash Tannaïm(Midrash Haggadol Deut. 32:2).] It happened that the [Roman] government sent two officials to study Torah with Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practice, and homilies. At the end, they told him: All of your teachings are beautiful and commendable except two things which you say: “A Jewish woman shall not act as midwife to a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may act as midwife for a Jewish woman; a Jewish woman shall not nurse the child of a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may nurse for a Jewish woman with her consent; what was robbed from a Jew is forbidden but from a Gentile it is permitted [In this version, a Jew could be a fence for goods stolen from a Gentile. In Midrash Haggadol: “what was robbed from a Jew is forbidden but what was lost by a Gentile is permitted.” The entire sentence is missing in the Babli.] .” At that moment did Rabban Gamliel decide that what was robbed from a Gentile be forbidden because of desecration of the Name. “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew is not liable,” etc. But we shall not inform the government of this. Nevertheless, by the time they reached the Tyrian ladder they had forgotten everything.
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 liable [Since these persons cannot appear in court, they cannot be sued.] . If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one [In the Mishnah in the Babli: “The court”.] appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them [About 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 guardian [Since 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 Meïr [He 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 stadion [Trained for bullfights.] is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.
HALAKHAH: “If a bull of a sane person,” etc. So is the Mishnah [The 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.
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” [The 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 owner [This 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: [Babli 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 damages [The 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, he [Since 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 tame [Same 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 gore [But the borrower was not informed that the animal had been declared notorious by action of the court.] . It was stated [Tosephta 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 liable [Since 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 rendered [That 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 liable [Since he returned the bull; its changed legal status is not apparent.] .”
[This 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 one [The 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.
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.
Abba bar Rab Huna said: This [The 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 caused [Even though in general one does not allow suits for indirectly caused damages.] .
MISHNAH: A bull which gored a human who then died, if it is notorious [the owner] pays weregilt [Ex. 21:30.] , if tame he is not liable for weregilt; in both cases they have to be killed [Ex. 21:28,29.] . The same holds for a son or a daughter [There is no difference whether the victim was adult or underage. The statement is only necessary since the verse, Ex. 21:31, stresses that the same rules apply to underage as to adult victims.] . It it gored a male or female slave, [the owner] pays 30 tetradrachmas [Ex. 21:32.] , whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold [This reading is also found in some Babli mss., Alfasi, and the Naples print of the Mishnah. In other texts: “one (silver) denar”.] denar.
HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated [Babli 41b; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 10 (Horovitz-Rabin p. 283); Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai21:28, Midrash Tannaïm(Midrash Haggadol Ex. 21:28, ed. Margaliut p. 484.)] : “But the owner of the bull is free [Ex. 21:28.] ,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place [As the formulation of the Babli makes explicit, since any damages caused by a tame animal are paid from its body and a bull which killed a human is stoned and its carcass forbidden for usufruct, there is nothing from which either damages or fine might be paid.] ? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human [The 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.] , etc. [A list of similar situations as given later in the paragraph.] Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself [Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.] ? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it [As stated in Mishnah 9, the bull’s meat becomes forbidden only when it is stoned. If the owners slaughter it immediately after the attack, before the court had time to intervene, the meat is valuable and its proceeds are available to cover damages.] . But some want to say, from what [Reading מִן “from” instead of מאן “who” (I. Lewy).] we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel [It 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.] , still birth but killed a viable [child] [Killing 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.] , he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free” [Ex. 21:28.] ’ [Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.] ? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him, [Ex. 21:30.] ” the verse speaks of the notorious [Therefore, the notion of weregilt is not applicable to the tame bull; the exemption needs no verse.] . Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned [Ex. 21:29. This verse imposes weregilt for the killing of a free person by a notorious bull.] ,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned. [Ex. 21:32. This verse imposes a fine for the killing of a slave.] ” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious [Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull.] . But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned [Ex. 21:28.] ”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned” [Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull.] .
Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something [A baraita.] from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them [Ex. 21:28 discusses the tame bull which kills a human. Verses 29–32 deal with the notorious bull which is killing. Verses 35–36 then deal with both kinds of bulls as damaging goods.] . I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave [Since the payment for killed slaves is not treated as weregilt but as payment of damages to the owner for the loss of his slave, might it not be trated as part of the rules for payment of damages?] ; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free [Ex. 21:28.] ;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said [A different but parallel argument is in the Babli, 42b.] , everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) [It seems that one has ro read: “a male or female slave”.] the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free [Ex. 21:28.] ;” free from paying for fetuses [There is an obvious lacuna here which is filled by E: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: “but the owner of the bull is free,” free from paying for fetuses. The scribe’s error was induced by the repetition of the same text. For the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah, cf. Note 71. The payment for fetuses refers to Ex. 21:22: If quarelling people unintentionally hit a pregnant woman who then has a miscarriage, they have to indemnify her husband. The argument in the text presupposes the statement later in the text: “ ‘people’ but not bulls.” (cf. Midrash Haggadol to Ex. 21:22) This exempts the owner of a notorious bull from payment if it causes a miscarriage. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the owner of a tame bull should pay. Why should R. Eleazar b. Azariah have to mention it?] . Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free [Ex. 21:28.] ;” free from paying for a slave [It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.] . Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free [Ex. 21:28.] ;” free from paying for a slave [It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.] . But is it not written: “If people quarrel [Ex. 21:22.] ”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free [Ex. 21:28.] ;” free from paying for a slave [It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.] . But is it not written: “When they quarrel [Ex. 21:22.] ,” “when they brawl [Ex. 21:18, specifying the payments due for intentionally inflicted injuries.] ”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl [There is missing the corresponding rhetorical question “and fight the same as quarrel”? It is in E. The arguments are used to impose the payments mentioned in Ex. 21:18 for intentional injuries on the unintentional injuries mentioned in 21:22, and vice-versa (Nazir 9:5, Notes 183–184; Sanhedrin 9:3, 27a l. 58; Midrash Haggadol21:22).] ? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this [Which of the two contradictory arguments is to be accepted? Neither.] ? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.
From where damages for a slave [If a slave was injured by an animal but was not killed. May his owner sue the animal’s owner for damages.] ? The verse says, “or it gores a son, or it gores a daughter, …, and if a slave [Verses Ex. 21:31,32 treat attacks on minors and on slaves in parallel. It is implied that any payments due for an injured child are due for a slave.] , etc.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac. One said, the addition may not be more than the main thing [Since for a slave killed the payment is 30 tetradrachmas, payments for an injured slave can be at most 30 tetradrachmas. This opinion is not found in the Babli.] . But the other said, he has to pay the entire damages. [All payments due for a free person (medical costs, lost wages, payment for pain and suffering) are due for a slave without limitation. The Babli, 43b, attributes this opinion to R. Samuel b. R. Isaac.]
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 human [The 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 Jew [It 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 child [Killing 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, [Lev. 21:17.] ” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly [The 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 guilty [A tannaïtic statement in Sifra Emor Pereq 20(1).] . “And it killed a man or a woman [Ex. 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 wife [How 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 death [(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 slaughtered [According 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. [Ex.. 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 confusion [The 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 required [Damages 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 required [There 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 liable [Since 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 liable [If neither of them can be held criminally liable, neither of them can be held financially liable.] .
MISHNAH: A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans [Minors for whom no guardian was appointed.] , a bull under a guardian [Property of orphans.] , a wild bull, a bull of Temple property, a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs, these are subject to the death penalty [If they killed a person.] . Rebbi Jehudah says that a wild bull, a bull of Temple property, a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs [Whose estate is ownerless; cf. Qiddushin 1:1, Note 30.] , are not subject to the death penalty since they have no owners.
HALAKHAH: “A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “It was testified to before its owners and they did not watch it; [Ex. 21:29. Tosephta 4:6. The verse speaks of the notorious bull; one seems to understand that no ownerless bull can be brought to court.] ” those have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages [Damage claims are possible only against humans. One must refer to a bull who did damage before its owner dedicated it to the Temple, or was property of a proselyte while the latter was still living.] , Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt [The language of the Tosephta seems to support R. Joḥanan. The formulation of the Babli, 44b (in the name of Rav Huna and a baraita) is inconclusive. (The Babli, 44a, reports a similar disagreement, between Rav and Samuel, referring to Mishnah 7.)] . Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: How does one actually act? He said to him, following Rebbi Hoshaia that in matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable; therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.
MISHNAH: If one dedicates a bull which is led out to be stoned, it is not dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is forbidden [Ex. 21:28 reads in part: “The bull shall be stoned; its meat shall not be eaten.” If the bull is killed by stoning, it is not ritually slaughtered and automatically its meat is forbidden as carcass meat. The specific mention of the prohibition of the meat is interpreted to mean that it becomes forbidden the moment sentence is pronounced. If the owner wants to save something of the value of the bull, he has to slaughter it immediately after it killed [Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 10; dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 21:28, p. 178; Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 2:1 (28c l. 34), ‘Orlah 3:1 Note 26; Babli Pesaḥim22b].] . If its owner dedicated it before sentence was pronounced, it is dedicated, and if it was slaughtered, its meat is permitted.
HALAKHAH: “A bull which is led out to be stoned,” etc. It was stated [Sanhedrin 6:2(23b l.25) an exact copy, 10:8(29d l.14) a reformulation.] : If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it [Since the court declares the bull to be forbidden for usufruct, it cannot remain the property of its owner. When the prohibition of usufruct is lifted because the sentence was declared false, the bull is ownerless. If a third party grabs the bull before the owner can take it back, that third party now is the legal owner. The Babli, Keritut 24a, holds that R. Joḥanan will agree that the bull never was ownerless if the judgment was overturned on the initiative or appeal by the owner.] ; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair [He holds that ownership never was annulled, only that the owner gave up hope of ever having use of the bull again. The bull remains the property of its owner who may use it once the prohibition of usufruct is lifted.] . Similarly, if a slave was led out to be killed when his witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself [He is free and needs no bill of manumission.] ; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.
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 owner [The 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 notorious [In 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 it [Ex.. 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 knife [Once a bull has been declared notorious, it has to be slaughtered immediately.] .
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 trustee [The 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 trustee [The 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 bull [In 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 liable [The 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 torn [The bull is attacked and severely damaged by another.] , he is not liable [In 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 liable [It 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 liable [Since 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 liable [Even 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 presence [Mechanical 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.