Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1.2

משנה: כָּל שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִשְׁמִירָתוֹ הִכְשַׁרְתִּי אֶת נִזְקוֹ. הִכְשַׁרְתִּי בְּמִקְצָת נִזְקוֹ חַבְתִּי בְתַשְׁלוּמֵי נִזְקוֹ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר כָּל נִזְקוֹ. נְכָסִים שֶׁל בְּנֵי בְרִית וּנְכָסִים הַמְיוּחָדִים חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִים.

MISHNAH: Anything I am obligated to watch I did set up for damage claims. If I partially set up for damage claims I am liable for claims as if I had set up for any claims. Properties of people of the covenant and private property, except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage; but property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage falls under the rules of restitution.

הלכה: כָּל שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִשְׁמִירָתוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. זֶה הַשּׁוֹר וְהַבּוֹר. וְהָאֵשׁ לֹא תָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִין כֵּינִי הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו הַהַתְרָיָיה בְדַעַת זוֹ וְלוֹקֶה. מַאי כְדוֹן. הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו נֶזֶק צַעַר רִיפּוּי שֶׁבֶת וּבוֹשֶׁת.

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.

הִכְשַׁרְתִּי בְּמִקְצָת נִזְקוֹ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר כָּל נִזְקוֹ. זֶה הַבּוֹר. דְּתַנֵּי. חָפַר בּוֹר עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּבָא אַחֵר וְעָמַק בּוֹ טֶפַח הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָיב. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אַחַר הָאַחֲרוֹן לְמִיתָה וְאַחַר הָרִאשׁוֹן לִנְזָקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן לְמִיתָה וְאַחַר שְׁנֵיהֶן לִנְזָקִין. חָפַר בּוֹ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּבָא אַחֵר וְסִיָידוֹ וְכִיָירוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָיבִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסִיָידוֹ וְכִיָירוֹ יְהֵא חַיָיב. בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ. סוֹד אֶת הַ(בַּיִת) [בּוֹר] הַזֶּה וּקְנֵה אוֹתוֹ. דָּמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כִּשְׁמִירַת קִנְיָין. אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּחוֹפֵר בַּחוֹלוֹת. דְּתַנֵּי. חָפַר זֶה עֲשָׂרָה וְזֶה עֲשָׂרָה זֶה עֶשְׂרִים וְזֶה עֶשְׂרִים זֶה מֵאָה וְזֶה מֵאָה כּוּלְּהֹן חַיָיבִין. כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּרָן לְהָמִית. עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וּלְהַזִּיק. כָּל שֶׁהוּא. סוּמַכוֹס אוֹמֵר. לְעוֹמְקוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. לְאוֹרְכּוֹ וְרָחְבּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר הַקַּפָּר אוֹמֵר. כִּמְלוֹאוֹ שֶׁלַּנּוֹפֵל. וּמָהוּ מְלוֹאוֹ שֶׁלַּנּוֹפֵל. אֲפִילוּ תַרְנְגוֹל וַאֲפִילוּ גָמָל.

“If I partially set up for damage claims” “as if I had set up for any claims.” This is the pit, as it was stated: If somebody dug a pit ten handbreadths deep and another came and deepened it another handbreadth, the latter is responsible. Rebbi says, one goes after the latter in case of death and after the former for damages. Rebbi Isaac says: So is the baraita: After the latter in case of death and after both of them for damages. If he dug [a pit] ten handbreadths deep and another person came, whitewashed and lined it, both of them are liable. Is he liable because he whitewashed and lined it? When he told him, whitewash this (house) [pit] and acquire it, for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the prevention of damages follows the rules of guarding an acquisition. Rebbi Simon said, explain it when he was digging in the dunes. And it was stated: If each of them dug ten, or each one twenty, or each one a hundred, they are all liable. How deep does it have to be? To be deadly, ten handbreadths. To do damage, anything. Symmachos says, three in depth and four in width. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower says, the length of the animal which falls in. What means the length of the animal which falls in? Whether chicken or camel.

פִּיסְקָא. נְכָסִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הַנְּכָסִין הַלָּלוּ נִיקְנִין עִם נְכָסִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי. וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר. לְהָבִיא קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסַאי אוֹמֵר. לֹא הָיָה בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא עַל הַבְּכוֹר בִּלְבַד. וּמַה בֵינֵיהוֹן. מָאן דָּמַר שְׁלָמִים כָּל שֶּׁכֵּן מַעֲשֵׂר. וּמָאן דָּמַר מַעֲשֵׂר הָא בְּכוֹר לֹא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֶחָד קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָיב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתֶן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִיחֵשׁ. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בַּיי וְכִיחֵשׁ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁירִין וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים פְּסוּלִין. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָיב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתֶן אֲפִילוּ הֵן לַיי קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִחֵשׁ וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בַּיי וְכִחֵשׁ וְלֹא בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִחֵשׁ.

New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” As it was stated: “These properties are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices. Abba Yose ben Dosai says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling.” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes. But he who says tithes excludes the firstling. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.

פִּיסְקָא. נְכָסִים שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלִּבְנֵי בְרִית. פְּרָט לְשׁוֹר שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁלְּנָכְרִי. מִנְּכָסִין הַמְיוּחָדִין. וְלֹא מִנִּיכְסֵי הֶפְקֵר. חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. נוֹהֲגִין הֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אִילּוּ תַנָּא. חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק וְשָׁתַק. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אֶחָד חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין וְאֶחָד חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן חַיֶיבֶת. וְלָמָּה תַנָּא. נוֹהֲגִין הֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. אֶלָּא זֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנָּא. חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק. אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵן נוֹהֲגִין בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. וְלָמָּה תַנָּא. נוֹהֲגִין הֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק. אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין חַיֶיבֶת וְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן פְטוּרָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶם חַיֶיבֶת. מָאן דָּמַר חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין חַיֶיבֶת וְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן פְטוּרָה. דִּכְתִיב מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲפִילוּ חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן חַיֶיבֶת. דִּכְתִיב וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר. מִכָּל מָקוֹם.

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חָצֵר הַשּׁוּתָפִין חַיֶיבֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. וַאֲנָא דְאַיְיתִיתָהּ מֵהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. אַרְבָּעָה כְּלָלוֹת הָיָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר בִּנְזָקִין. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ רְשׁוּת לְנִיזָּק וּלְמַזִּיק כְּגוֹן פוּנְדָקֵי וַחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָפִין וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהֶן. עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הַרֶגֶל פָּטוּר. עַל הַנְּגִיחָה וְהַנְּגִיפָה וְהַנְּשִׁיכָה וְהָרְבִיצָה וְעַל הַבְּעִיטָה וְהַדְּחִיָיה אִם תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָיה. לַנִּיזָּק וְלֹא לַמַּזִּיק חַיָיב בַּכֹּל. לַמַּזִּיק וְלֹא לַנִּיזָּק פָּטוּר מִן הַכֹּל. וְהַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה כְּגוֹן בִּקְעָה וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הַרֶּגֶל פָּטוּר. עַל הַנְּגִיחָה וְעַל הַנְּגִיפָה וְהַנְּשִׁיכָה וְהָרְבִיצָה וְהַבְּעִיטָה וְהַדְּחִיָיה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָיה.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A condominium courtyard is obligated. Rebbi Yasa said: and I deduced that from what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Four principles about damages Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar enunciated in Rebbi Meїr’s name: Any place which is permitted to both the person who sustained the damage and the person who caused it, such as a hostelry or a condominium courtyard and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing by a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from [real estate] of the best quality. [Permitted] to the person who sustained the damage but not the person who caused it, he pays everyting. [Permitted] to the person who caused the damage but not the person who sustained it, he is free from everything. And everybody agrees that if neither of them had access, as a valley or public property and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing from a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from his storage room.