rebbi

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; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. 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. 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. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable. 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. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.

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; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. 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. 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. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable. 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. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.

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; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. 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. 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. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable. 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. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “A bull gored a cow”, etc. Do all cows have miscarriages? Should we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Yose said, in another case they applied a majority argument in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: “If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that certainly the one in heat killed it.”

HALAKHAH: “A bull gored a cow”, etc. Do all cows have miscarriages? Should we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Yose said, in another case they applied a majority argument in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: “If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that certainly the one in heat killed it.”

And Rebbi Yannai said, so is the Mishnah: He pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow. Rebbi Yose said, each of them gives half. What is the difference between them? If the calves died. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and a quarter of the damage from the calf, each one pays his part of the damage. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow, one pays the damage, but the other one says, I did not want these, here they are before you.

And Rebbi Yannai said, so is the Mishnah: He pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow. Rebbi Yose said, each of them gives half. What is the difference between them? If the calves died. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and a quarter of the damage from the calf, each one pays his part of the damage. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow, one pays the damage, but the other one says, I did not want these, here they are before you.

“And similarly, if a cow gored an ox,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: Because it is in doubt; therefore if it were certain, each one would give half? Would I say that a foot of a person is the entire person? Each one would give half? He said to him, the Mishnah deals with a notorious animal. “Its foot is sold to you,” he sold half. “Its second foot is sold to you,” he sold half of the [remaining] half. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all these traditions are Levi’s.

“And similarly, if a cow gored an ox,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: Because it is in doubt; therefore if it were certain, each one would give half? Would I say that a foot of a person is the entire person? Each one would give half? He said to him, the Mishnah deals with a notorious animal. “Its foot is sold to you,” he sold half. “Its second foot is sold to you,” he sold half of the [remaining] half. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all these traditions are Levi’s.

“And similarly, if a cow gored an ox,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: Because it is in doubt; therefore if it were certain, each one would give half? Would I say that a foot of a person is the entire person? Each one would give half? He said to him, the Mishnah deals with a notorious animal. “Its foot is sold to you,” he sold half. “Its second foot is sold to you,” he sold half of the [remaining] half. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all these traditions are Levi’s.

MISHNAH: If somebody put his bull in a private courtyard without permission and the owner’s bull gored it or his dog bit it, [the owner] is not liable; if it gored the owner’s bull, he is liable. If it fell into his cistern and caused it to stink, he is liable. If his father or son were inside, he pays weregilt. But if he put it in by permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable; Rebbi says, in all these cases, only if he agreed to watch.

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.”

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

It was stated: “I am selling you a fertile slave girl, her children increase her value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, this is buttocks.” It is written: “If quarrelling men hit a pregnant woman and she loses her children.” Abba Yose ben Ḥanan said, from the meaning of “and she loses her children” would I not know that she was pregnant? Then why does the verse say “pregnant”? It tells you that he is not liable unless he hits her at the place of her pregnancy. Therefore, if he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, he is not liable. “As the woman’s husband will put on him”. Do I understand, even if the pregnancy is not his? The verse says, “pregnant”. It tells that he pays only to the master of the pregnancy. Rebbi Uqba asked, if somebody sleeps with his mother or his sister, is that one not also the master of the pregnancy? The verse says “husband”, somebody who may be called “husband”. This excludes those who cannot be called “husband”.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’ One understands “eye”. Tooth? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the baraita: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’ One understands “eye”. Tooth? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the baraita: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’ One understands “eye”. Tooth? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the baraita: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’ One understands “eye”. Tooth? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the baraita: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’

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.

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.

Rebbi Mana asked: Can the depth be considered like the height? How is that? If about him who comes from up high, he sees it. But for him who comes from below.

HALAKHAH: “A pit dug by two partners,” etc. How is a pit of two partners possible? Rebbi Yannai said, explain it if they both together put in the last stone. And why did they not explain that each of them dug ten handbreadths? Because he wants to explain it for a pit ten handbreadths deep of two partners.

“If the first went by and did not cover it, the second and did not cover it, the second is liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Bizna, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One gives him time to cut cedars from Lebanon. That can be a stringency and it can be a leniency. Sometimes he is close to the Lebanon, sometimes he is far from the Lebanon.

“If the first went by and did not cover it, the second and did not cover it, the second is liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Bizna, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One gives him time to cut cedars from Lebanon. That can be a stringency and it can be a leniency. Sometimes he is close to the Lebanon, sometimes he is far from the Lebanon.

“If the first went by and did not cover it, the second and did not cover it, the second is liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Bizna, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One gives him time to cut cedars from Lebanon. That can be a stringency and it can be a leniency. Sometimes he is close to the Lebanon, sometimes he is far from the Lebanon.

Rebbi Yannai said, in front of him, whether forward ot behind he is (not) liable. Outside, forward he is (not) liable, behind he is [not] liable.

“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.

“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.

“If the ox falling in was deaf-mute, insane, or young, he is liable”. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: an ox which is deaf-mute, an insane ox, [an underage ox]; “a son or daughter, a slave or slave-girl, he is not liable”.

“Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Samuel said, the sea goose is kilaim with domesticated goose. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah does not say so, but an ox and a bison are kilaim with one another; a donkey and a wild donkey are kilaim with one another. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah: “Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and I brought this from the House of Levi: A rooster with a pheasant, a rooster with a peacock-hen are kilaim even though they are similar one to the other.

“Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Samuel said, the sea goose is kilaim with domesticated goose. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah does not say so, but an ox and a bison are kilaim with one another; a donkey and a wild donkey are kilaim with one another. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah: “Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and I brought this from the House of Levi: A rooster with a pheasant, a rooster with a peacock-hen are kilaim even though they are similar one to the other.

“Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Samuel said, the sea goose is kilaim with domesticated goose. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah does not say so, but an ox and a bison are kilaim with one another; a donkey and a wild donkey are kilaim with one another. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah: “Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and I brought this from the House of Levi: A rooster with a pheasant, a rooster with a peacock-hen are kilaim even though they are similar one to the other.

“Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Samuel said, the sea goose is kilaim with domesticated goose. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah does not say so, but an ox and a bison are kilaim with one another; a donkey and a wild donkey are kilaim with one another. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah: “Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and I brought this from the House of Levi: A rooster with a pheasant, a rooster with a peacock-hen are kilaim even though they are similar one to the other.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

It was stated: Rebbi Joshua said, four persons are not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive them until they pay up: A person who knows testimony beneficial to another but does not testify is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up. A person who hires false witnesses against another and collects is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up. A person who bends standing grain towards a fire or who makes a breach in a fence for animals is not required to pay but Heaven will not forgive him until he pays up.

MISHNAH: If he left it in the sun or handed it over to a deaf-and-dumb, an insane, or an underage person, he is liable. If he handed it over to a shepherd, the shepherd takes his place. If it fell into a garden and caused damage, it pays for what it profited. If it entered in due course, it pays for what it damaged. How does it pay for what it damaged? One estimates a bet se’ah of the field; how much was it worth and how much is it worth. Rebbi Simeon says, if it ate ripe produce it pays for ripe produce, whether one or two se’ah.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a shepherd handed his flock over to another shepherd, the first is liable, the second is not liable.” Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, since he handed it over to a responsible person, he is not liable.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

A person stole a hard date. The case came before Samuel who said to him, go and estimate for him at the top of the date palm. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was a preserve of unripe dates.

A person stole a hard date. The case came before Samuel who said to him, go and estimate for him at the top of the date palm. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was a preserve of unripe dates.

HALAKHAH: If somebody stacks his sheaves on another person’s field without permission.” R. Isaac said, are sheaves on a field like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

HALAKHAH: If somebody stacks his sheaves on another person’s field without permission.” R. Isaac said, are sheaves on a field like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, if he handed him a glowing coal. But if he handed him an open flame he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, coal and flame are the same. It is difficult according to Ḥizqiah, for if somebody saw another person’s glowing coal rolling by and did not extinguish it, is he not free from liability? They said, explain it if he handed him an ownerless glowing coal, or also an ownerless flame, and one cannot infer anything.

There, they say, the Mishnah speaks of a catastrophic wind, but in case of normal wind he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even in case of normal wind he is not liable; for sometimes it blows, sometimes it does not blow.

There, they say, the Mishnah speaks of a catastrophic wind, but in case of normal wind he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even in case of normal wind he is not liable; for sometimes it blows, sometimes it does not blow.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire which consumes wood,” etc. Since thorns are flammable, do I only include flammable material? The verse says, “a stack”. Since a stack of sheaves is particular in that it was harvested, do I only include harvested material? The verse says, “standing grain.” Since all of these are particular in that they are flammable, do I only include flammable material? If it swept his furrow or damaged his stone, from where? The verse says, “or the field.” Should it only have mentioned thorns, standing grain, and stack, but not mentioned field? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah this is acceptable since he says, he pays for everything inside. But according to the rabbis, who say that he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley sheaves, why did it mention “field”, why did it mention “stack”?

“If it crossed a wall four cubits high, or a public road, or a brook, he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah speaks of burning fire. But if it is wind-whipped everybody agrees that he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah speaks of wind-whipped fire, but if it is burning he is not liable.

“If it crossed a wall four cubits high, or a public road, or a brook, he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah speaks of burning fire. But if it is wind-whipped everybody agrees that he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah speaks of wind-whipped fire, but if it is burning he is not liable.

MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,” everything depends on the setting of the fire.

MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,” everything depends on the setting of the fire.

MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,” everything depends on the setting of the fire.

MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,” everything depends on the setting of the fire.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody starts a fire inside his property,” etc. “It happened that a fire crossed the Jordan, because it was a firestorm. How far may a fire spread? Rebbi Eliezer says sixteen cubits like a public road, if there is wind thirty cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says thirty cubits, if there is wind fifty cubits. Rebbi Aqiba says 50 cubits, if there is wind a hundred cubits. It happened in Arabia that a fire jumped more than three hundred cubits. When is this? If it jumps. But if there is wood or it burns continuously, he is liable even up to a mil. If it crossed a river or a pond eight cubits wide, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody starts a fire inside his property,” etc. “It happened that a fire crossed the Jordan, because it was a firestorm. How far may a fire spread? Rebbi Eliezer says sixteen cubits like a public road, if there is wind thirty cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says thirty cubits, if there is wind fifty cubits. Rebbi Aqiba says 50 cubits, if there is wind a hundred cubits. It happened in Arabia that a fire jumped more than three hundred cubits. When is this? If it jumps. But if there is wood or it burns continuously, he is liable even up to a mil. If it crossed a river or a pond eight cubits wide, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody starts a fire inside his property,” etc. “It happened that a fire crossed the Jordan, because it was a firestorm. How far may a fire spread? Rebbi Eliezer says sixteen cubits like a public road, if there is wind thirty cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says thirty cubits, if there is wind fifty cubits. Rebbi Aqiba says 50 cubits, if there is wind a hundred cubits. It happened in Arabia that a fire jumped more than three hundred cubits. When is this? If it jumps. But if there is wood or it burns continuously, he is liable even up to a mil. If it crossed a river or a pond eight cubits wide, he is not liable.”

MISHNAH: He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves which contains implements, Rebbi Jehudah says, he has to pay everything contained in it but the Sages say, he pays only for a stack of wheat sheaves or a stack of barley sheaves. If a goat was tied to it, and a slave was nearby, and they were burned, he is liable. If a slave was tied to it, and a goat was nearby, and they were burned, he is not liable. But the Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that one who sets fire to a building has to pay everything contained in it since people regularly store things in houses.

MISHNAH: He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves which contains implements, Rebbi Jehudah says, he has to pay everything contained in it but the Sages say, he pays only for a stack of wheat sheaves or a stack of barley sheaves. If a goat was tied to it, and a slave was nearby, and they were burned, he is liable. If a slave was tied to it, and a goat was nearby, and they were burned, he is not liable. But the Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that one who sets fire to a building has to pay everything contained in it since people regularly store things in houses.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift.