damages

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

“If an ox and its equipment fell in and broke, a donkey and its equipment and was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment.” Samuel said, when it became disoriented because of the air, but if it hit the ground he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if it hit the ground, he is not liable: The Torah absolved from liability when it fell down. “An ox or a donkey fell in there;” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment. Since it looked logical: If a pit of damages, where one is not liable for death, one is liable for vessels; would it not be logical that for a pit ten handbreadths deep, for which one is liable for death, should one not be liable for vessels? The verse says, “an ox or a donkey fell in there;” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment.

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.

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.

MISHNAH: This is more severe regarding a human than an ox since a human pays damages and pays for unborn children, but the ox pays only damages and does not pay for unborn children. A person who hits his father or mother without causing a concussion or who causes injury on the Day of Atonement is liable for everything. He who injures a Hebrew slave is liable for everything except for lost earnings if he is his own. He who injures another person’s Canaanite slave is liable for everything. Rebbi Jehudah says, slaves have no claim for embarrassment.

MISHNAH: This is more severe regarding a human than an ox since a human pays damages and pays for unborn children, but the ox pays only damages and does not pay for unborn children. A person who hits his father or mother without causing a concussion or who causes injury on the Day of Atonement is liable for everything. He who injures a Hebrew slave is liable for everything except for lost earnings if he is his own. He who injures another person’s Canaanite slave is liable for everything. Rebbi Jehudah says, slaves have no claim for embarrassment.

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: “If one say: Blind my eye, cut off my hand,” etc. “If he says, blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which really means “no”. But for a “yes” which does mean “yes” he is not liable. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar is about the family’s loss of standing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which means “yes”. But for a “yes” which means “no”, he is liable. The statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish imples that one estimates the relatives’ loss of standing. It was stated: “If Gentiles forced a Jew and took from him another person’s money in his presence, he is not liable. If he handed it over, he is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, that means if they simply demanded “money”. But “X’s money”, he is not liable even if he handed it over.

HALAKHAH: “If one say: Blind my eye, cut off my hand,” etc. “If he says, blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which really means “no”. But for a “yes” which does mean “yes” he is not liable. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar is about the family’s loss of standing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which means “yes”. But for a “yes” which means “no”, he is liable. The statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish imples that one estimates the relatives’ loss of standing. It was stated: “If Gentiles forced a Jew and took from him another person’s money in his presence, he is not liable. If he handed it over, he is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, that means if they simply demanded “money”. But “X’s money”, he is not liable even if he handed it over.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for wheat he may not sow flax. For flax may he not sow wheat? Flax damages the soil for three years and you say so? Rebbi Menaḥem, the brother of Rebbi Gorion, explained before Rebbi La: It is better to sow flax after flax but not barley after barley.

MISHNAH: Money matters are judged by three [judges]; robberies and injuries by three [judges], damages, half damages, double restitution quadruple and quintuple restitution. The rapist, the seducer, and the calumniator are judged by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that the calumniator is judged by 23 because it might be a capital case.

MISHNAH: Money matters are judged by three [judges]; robberies and injuries by three [judges], damages, half damages, double restitution quadruple and quintuple restitution. The rapist, the seducer, and the calumniator are judged by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that the calumniator is judged by 23 because it might be a capital case.

Rebbi Abbahu asked: Following Rebbi Meïr, should an ox which is stoned have to pay damages by a court of three and be stoned by 23? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun told him, the rules of an ox which is stoned are all about money; it is a decision of the verse that it should be stoned.

“Capital crimes [are judged] by 23.” Rebbi Abbahu asked: Following Rebbi Meïr, should an ox which is stoned have to pay damages by a court of three and be stoned by 23? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun told him, the rules of an ox which is stoned are all about money; it is a decision of the verse that it should be stoned.

HALAKHAH: “All those stoned are hanged, the words of Rebbi Eliezer,” etc. It was stated: “Adding his own height, these are five.” Here you say, adding his own height, these are five. But for a pit in matters of damages, you say even ten handbreadths. One cannot compare one who falls consciously, and one who falls accidentally. Rebbi Jonathan ben Ḥali, Rebbi Eudaimon the son of Rebbi Tabi’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Josia: Those who throw down an ox with all their might do not cause any of its limbs to break. In the days of Rebbi Phineas they threw down an ox with all their might. He told them, By yourlives, free it. They freed it, it got up and fled. He said, praised be He Who selected the Sages and their pronouncements, for they say, those who throw down an ox with all their might not cause any of its limbs to break.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that X owes me full damages or half damages, double restitution or quadruple and quintuple restitution, that X raped or seduced my daughter, or that my son hit me, or that my neighbor injured me, or that he set fire to my grain stack on the Day of Atonement;” these are liable.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that X owes me full damages or half damages, double restitution or quadruple and quintuple restitution, that X raped or seduced my daughter, or that my son hit me, or that my neighbor injured me, or that he set fire to my grain stack on the Day of Atonement;” these are liable.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard, when a worker entered to collect his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and injured him, he is liable. If he died, he does not go into exile, for it is not like a forest. Rebbi Ḥanina stated, he is not liable. They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when they did not see him. But what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, when they saw him. When they did not see him, from the moment he told him: enter, should he not be liable? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he is not liable. Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some would say, since he told him to enter, it becomes like the courtyard of partners. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard; they object to one another in a courtyard, and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say, if he filled the entire public domain? This did not fill the entire public domain! Since they usually walk in the entire domain, it is as if he had filled the entire domain.

Rab Pappa asked Abbai : How were our predecessors different from us that miracles occurred for them but not for us? Is it a question of learning ? In the time of Rab Judah, their whole study was limited to the Order "Damages," whereas we study the six Orders; and when Rab Judah reached the paragraph in Mishnah 'Uksin : "If a woman presses vegetables in a pot" (some declare it was the paragraph : "Olives which are pressed with their leaves are clean"), he said, "We see here the conflicts of Rab and Samuel," whereas we study 'Uksin in thirteen lessons ! Yet, with respect to Rab Judah, when he took off one of his shoes, the rain descended ; but we afflict our souls and cry aloud and there is none that takes notice of us !

were confined to the Section Neziḳin (Damages), while our studies embrace much more; when R. Judah reached in his studies the Mishnah (Ṭeharot, II, 1): 'If a woman was pressing vegetables in a pot,' or, as some say, the Mishnah ('Uḳḳaẓin, II, 1): 'Olives which have been pressed with their leaves are clean,' he would say: 'I see here problems as difficult as the discussions of Rab and Samuel,' while we to-day teach the tractate 'Uḳḳaẓin in thirteen different recensions. [And yet when R. Judah took off one of his shoes rain fell, while we cry (for rain) the whole day and nobody heeds us! Should it be because of our conduct—if there is anybody who has noticed anything wrong, let him testify against me.] However, what can the leaders do when the generation does not appear good enough in the eyes of God!"

No [that's wrong], everybody agrees that it is a case of ascent. And this is not a problem [they still have a disagreement]. Here [one is talking about the issue of] damages [where he would be obligated to pay the compensation for damages caused] and the other [is talking about the issue of] exile [from which he would be exempted].

No [that's wrong], everybody agrees that it is a case of ascent. And this is not a problem [they still have a disagreement]. Here [one is talking about the issue of] damages [where he would be obligated to pay the compensation for damages caused] and the other [is talking about the issue of] exile [from which he would be exempted].