costs

Insomuch that Seleucus of Asia of his own revenues bare all the costs belonging to the service of the sacrifices.

Now as Agrippa was a great builder in many places, he paid a peculiar regard to the people of Berytus; for he erected a theater for them, superior to many others of that sort, both in Sumptuousness and elegance, as also an amphitheater, built at vast expenses; and besides these, he built them baths and porticoes, and spared for no costs in any of his edifices, to render them both handsome and large. He also spent a great deal upon their dedication, and exhibited shows upon them, and brought thither musicians of all sorts, and such as made the most delightful music of the greatest variety. He also showed his magnificence upon the theater, in his great number of gladiators; and there it was that he exhibited the several antagonists, in order to please the spectators; no fewer indeed than seven hundred men to fight with seven hundred other men and allotted all the malefactors he had for this exercise, that both the malefactors might receive their punishment, and that this operation of war might be a recreation in peace. And thus were these criminals all destroyed at once.

How does one redeem the fruit of a plant in its fourth year? The owner puts down a basket in the presence of three [people] and says: “How many such baskets would a man wish to redeem for himself for a sela on condition that the costs [to produce the fruit] shall be on his house? And then he puts down the money and says: “Whatever shall be picked from this plant may it be exchanged for this money at the price of so many baskets for a sela.”

In the morning he would wear Pelusian linen worth twelve minas (1200 dinar/zuz); at dusk Indian linen worth eight hundred zuz, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: in the morning he would wear [garments] worth eighteen minas and at dusk [garments] worth twelve minas, altogether thirty minas. These [costs] were at the charge of the community and if he wanted to add, he adds more out of his own pocket.

If a man went to a country beyond the sea and [in his absence] the path to his field was lost, Admon ruled: let him walk [to his field] by the shortest way. But the Sages say: let him purchase a path for himself even if it costs him a hundred maneh or let him fly through the air.

The law is more strict in the case of a man than in the case of an ox: for a man must pay for injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income and indignity, and make restitution for the value of the young; whereas the ox pays only for injury and is not liable for the value of the young.

If a man’s land surrounded his fellow’s land on three sides, and he fenced it on the first and the second and the third sides, they do not obligate him [to share in the costs]. Rabbi Yose says: “If he rose and built a fence on the fourth side, they obligate him to share in all of the costs.”

If a man’s land surrounded his fellow’s land on three sides, and he fenced it on the first and the second and the third sides, they do not obligate him [to share in the costs]. Rabbi Yose says: “If he rose and built a fence on the fourth side, they obligate him to share in all of the costs.”

If the wall of a courtyard fell down they obligate each of the partners to help in building it up to a height of four cubits. He is presumed to have paid [his share] unless the other brings proof that he has not paid. [If the fence was built] four cubits or higher, they do not obligate him [to help in building it.] If [the one who did not contribute] built another wall near it, even if he did not put a roof upon it, they obligate him to share in all of the costs. He is presumed not to have paid [his share] unless he brings proof that he has.

If two testify that he has had the use [of property] during three years and they are found to be false witnesses, they must make full restitution to the owner. If two [false witnesses] testify of the first year, two of the second, and two of the third, they divide up the costs of restitution between them. If three brothers testify and another is included with them, they offer three different acts of testimony, but their words count as a single act of testimony when the evidence is proved false.

If a man sold a ship, he has also sold the mast, the sail, the anchor, and all the means of steering it. But he has not sold the slaves, the packing-bags, or the lading. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. If a man sold a wagon, he has not sold the mules, and if he sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. If he sold the yoke, he has not sold the oxen, and if he sold the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Judah says: “The price tells all. How is this so? If one said to him, “Sell me your yoke for 200 zuz, it is known that no yoke costs 200 zuz.” But the sages say: “The price is not proof.”

MISHNAH: One does not give to the poor who is travelling from one place to another less than a loaf that costs a dupondius at a time when four seah cost a sela‘. If he stays overnight, one provides him with a bed for sleeping. If he stays over the Sabbath, one gives him food for three meals. He who has food for two meals should not take from the tamḥui, if for fourteen meals, he should not take from the charity chest. The chest is collected by two people and distributed by three.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The heirs of her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has a ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The heirs of her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has a ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

When does he redeem it? In the fourth or the fifth [year]? It seems reasonable in the fifth, since in the fourth it costs him money. But the rabbis of Caesarea say, it is only reasonable in the fourth, since it is written: “And in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy for praise to the Eternal.”

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Her heirs, those who inherit her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has no ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Her heirs, those who inherit her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has no ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

As you say, after deduction for her ketubah, after deduction of burial costs, after deduction of loans by witnesses or by contract. After deduction for daughters’ dowries? For him who says, one forecloses from mortgaged property for daughters’ dowries, the dowries are privileged. For him who says, one does not foreclose from mortgaged property for daughters’ dowries, the dowries are not privileged. Let us hear from the following: The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank. The widow does not push the sons aside and the widow does not push the daughters aside. How is that? If there was enough for 12 months sustenance and a widow to sustain. That explains that sometimes the widow pushes out the sons by means of the daughters. Just as she pushes out the sons by means of the daughters, should she not push them out by means of the sons? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance.

We have stated: “Four main categories of damages.” But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thirteen: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame; the unpaid trustee, and the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Say now, what we stated [refers to] responsibility for damages. What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated [refers to] both responsibility for damages and bodily injury. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: How can we state “four main categories”? If everything was said about one bull; let us state “three,” if it was said about three bulls, let us state “five”! But as it is presented in the verse, thus it is presented in the Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: “Anything I am obligated to watch I did set up for damage claims,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: This refers to cattle and pit. But he did not state “fire”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the fire set up for damage claims? Rebbi Yose said, if the fire were [more than] damage claims, should he not accept warning according to this opinion and be whipped? How is this? The fire in setting up for damage claims he accepts [responsibility] for damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame.

MISHNAH: One who injures another person owes him under five categories: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment. How are damages determined? If he blinded his eye, or cut off his hand, or broke his leg, one considers it as if he were sold as a slave; how much was he worth and how much is he worth now. Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound, one estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

MISHNAH: Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.

MISHNAH: Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.

MISHNAH: Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.

MISHNAH: Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.

MISHNAH: Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.

HALAKHAH: “Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule? Since it is written: “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable]. It was stated in another baraita: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon says, in this paragraph Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”

HALAKHAH: “Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule? Since it is written: “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable]. It was stated in another baraita: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon says, in this paragraph Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”

HALAKHAH: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Matthew, a man who goes to another place to preliminarily marry a woman has to stipulate with her and tell her, on condition that you work so and so much and eat for such and such costs.

MISHNAH: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned, he was requisitioned from the estate. If he fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are his own. If some of the brothers together sent a wedding gift during their father’s lifetime, if a corresponding gift was returned, it returned to them in common since wedding gifts can be sued for in court. But if somebody’s friend sent him pitchers of wine or oil they cannot be sued for since they represent deeds of charity.

If she fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are on the estate. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah; if it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate.” As the following: The eye of a female relative of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba hurt. She came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor mention a fixed fee? If [the fee] is fixed, from your ketubah, if it is not fixed, your husband will give it to you. But did we not state: “Do not turn yourself into a pleader”, and did not Rebbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is forbidden to disclose a judgment to a party? They said, Rebbi Joḥanan knew her to be an honest woman; therefore, he disclosed it to her. If her husband wants a treatment at a fixed rate, but she wants one without fixed rate, does one not listen to her husband? Rebbi Mattaniah said, only if the case not be before him. But if the case be before him, he has to tell it as it is.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

“If one intended to kill an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would survive but he died; is it not common for the living to die? Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would die but he survived; is it not common for the dying to live. Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs.

“If one intended to kill an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would survive but he died; is it not common for the living to die? Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would die but he survived; is it not common for the dying to live. Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs.

“If one intended to kill an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would survive but he died; is it not common for the living to die? Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would die but he survived; is it not common for the dying to live. Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs.

“If one intended to kill an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would survive but he died; is it not common for the living to die? Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would die but he survived; is it not common for the dying to live. Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs.