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: 81Compared to the Mishnah in the Babli and in the independent Mishnah mss., this Mishnah is very much abridged. The Halakhah in parts refers to the longer version.
The Mishnah is explained in detail in the Tosephta 1:1. Anything I am obligated to watch82E. g., cattle or a pit in the ground. 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 claims83If there was a shallow pit in the ground and a person came and deepened it to become a real danger, that person becomes liable for any damages caused by the pit.. 84Missing here: “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta,” i. e., the laws of restitution only apply to profane objects. Properties of people of the covenant85Damages to Gentile property cannot be prosecuted in rabbinic court. and private property, except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage86Where usually the property owner cannot be sued.; but property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage87Who might have to share the cost of damages. falls under the rules of restitution.
הלכה: כָּל־שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִשְׁמִירָתוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. זֶה הַשּׁוֹר וְהַבּוֹר. וְהָאֵשׁ לֹא תָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִין כֵּינִי הָאֵשׁ לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקָיו מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו הַהַתְרָייָה 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 stated88Tosephta 1:1.: This refers to cattle and pit. But he did not state “fire”89The same question in the Babli, 9b.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the fire set up for damage claims90If a person is injured by fire, even if the fire was started completely legally, he is treated as being injured by the direct action of the person starting the fire. This responsibility exceeds by far the responsibility of a rancher to watch his herd or of the person digging a pit in the public domain.? Rebbi Yose said, if the fire were [more than] damage claims, should he not accept warning according to this opinion and be whipped91Injuring another person is a criminal act subject to prosecution. We do not find that a person making a legal fire might be criminally prosecuted.? How is this? The fire in setting up for damage claims he accepts [responsibility] for damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame17,These five kinds of payment are due for injuries suffered at the hands of another person, Mishnah 8:1; it is based on Ex. 21:19. “Suffering” means [payment for]bodily pain; “shame” refers to [payment for] mental anguish caused by loss of face.92This is the excess liability which puts fire in a category different from cattle and pit..
הִכְשַׁרְתִּי בְּמִקְצָת נִזְקוֹ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר כָּל־נִזְקוֹ. זֶה הַבּוֹר. דְּתַנֵּי. חָפַר בּוֹר עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּבָא אַחֵר וְעָמַק בּוֹ טֶפַח הָאַחֲרוֹן חַייָב. 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 וְסִייָדוֹ וְכִייָרוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן חַייָבִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסִייָדוֹ וְכִייָרוֹ יְהֵא חַייָב. בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ. סוֹד אֶת הַ(בַּיִת) [בּוֹר] הַזֶּה וּקְנֵה אוֹתוֹ. דָּמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. שְׁמִירַת נְזָקִין כִּשְׁמִירַת קִנְייָן. אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּחוֹפֵר בַּחוֹלוֹת. דְּתַנֵּי. חָפַר זֶה עֲשָׂרָה וְזֶה עֲשָׂרָה זֶה עֶשְׂרִים וְזֶה עֶשְׂרִים זֶה מֵאָה וְזֶה מֵאָה כּוּלְּהֹן חַייָבִין. כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּרָן לְהָמִית. עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וּלְהַזִּיק. כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. סוּמַכוֹס אוֹמֵר. לְעוֹמְקוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. לְאוֹרְכּוֹ וְרָחְבּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר 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 pit88Tosephta 1:1., as it was stated93Tosephta 6:8; Babli 10a (missing in Munich ms.), 51a.: If somebody dug a pit ten handbreadths deep94Since it is stated later in the Halakhah that an animal might be killed if it falls into a pit ten handbreadths deep, it is clear that here it must be assumed that the first digger stopped short of a full ten handbreadths. The second digger then turned an obstacle which might cause damage into an obstacle which endangered the life of animals. In Tosephta and Babli one reads “nine handbreadths”. and another came and deepened it another handbreadth, the latter is responsible. Rebbi95This also is the reading of the Babli and one Tosephta ms. In the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and the editio princeps: R. Jehudah. 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 damages96This is the Babli’s version of Rebbi’s statement. For material damage, anybody who digs in the public domain and does not securely cover the pit is liable for damages.. If he dug [a pit] ten handbreadths deep and another person came, whitewashed and lined it, both of them are liable97Tosephta 6:9, Babli 51a.. Is he liable because he whitewashed and lined it98In Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 11, and Babli the second one is liable not because he improved the pit but because he did not cover it correctly when he had finished his work, as Ex. 21:33 states: “If somebody would open a pit or dig a pit without covering it.” Therefore, the last one to work on the pit is liable if he failed to cover it.? When he told him, whitewash this (house) [pit]99The text in brackets is that of the original scribe (correct); that in parentheses is the corrector’s, copied in editio princeps (incorrect). and acquire it100By ḥazaqah, cf. Ketubot 5:5, Note 100., for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the prevention of damages follows the rules of guarding an acquisition101Any transfer of property is at the same time transfer of liability for that property.. Rebbi Simon said, explain it when he was digging in the dunes102Where a simple pit would have disappeared in a short time. The second person by installing permanent walls only created the danger.. And it was stated: If each of them dug ten, or each one twenty, or each one a hundred, they are all liable93,Tosephta 6:8; Babli 10a (missing in Munich ms.), 51a.103In the Babylonian sources, one person digs ten, the next enlarges it two twenty, the third digs down to 100.. How deep does it have to be104To require a cover to protect the digger from damage suits; Tosephta 6:12.? To be deadly, ten handbreadths105This is undisputed in both Talmudim. If an animal is killed falling into a pit less than ten handbreadths deep, it is purely a matter of material damage.. To do damage, anything. Symmachos says106He disagrees only with the statement that any pothole in the public domain is cause for a damage suit; he requires a minimal size., 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 בַּיי֨. 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 שֶׁחַייָב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתֶן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִיחֵשׁ. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בַּיי֨ וְכִיחֵשׁ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁירִין וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים פְּסוּלִין. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַייָב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתֶן אֲפִילוּ הֵן לַיי֨ קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִחֵשׁ וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן קוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָהֶן בַּיי֨ וְכִחֵשׁ וְלֹא בָּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִחֵשׁ. New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.84,Missing here: “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta,” i. e., the laws of restitution only apply to profane objects.107The laws of torts are “between a man and his neighbor,” which exludes all Temple property and those sacrifices which do not remain the owner’s property.” As it was stated: “These properties108Since this baraita is not quoted elsewhere, it is not known what “these properties” are. Some commentators want to read הַנְּכָסִים שֶּׁחִלְּלוֹ “properties which he redeemed” (from the Temple administrator). This is very farfetched. are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta109Since the Temple acquires and sells property by monetary transaction without any other act of acquisition (Qiddušin 1:6), other property can be acquired together with Temple property under the same rules. For example, if the Temple treasurer sold some Temple property together with his own, the entire transaction is legal if done under Temple rules. Similarly, if a person acquires two animals, one dedicated as “Heaven’s property” (elevation, purification, or reparation offering) subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta, the other as “simple sacrifice” (well-being sacrifice) which remains private property, the holier sacrifice determines the rules..” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This110He disagrees with the interpretation given and holds that the Mishnah means what it says; only sacrificial animals not under the laws of misappropriation of sancta are subject to the laws of torts. follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated111Sifra Wayyiqra Dibbura Deḥoba Pereq 22(3); Babli Bava qama 12b–13a, Temurah 8a; a related text in Tosephta 7:21. Partial quotes in Bava batra123b, Qiddušin 52b, Sanhedrin 112a, Zebaḥim 114a, Bekhorot 53b.: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal112Lev. 5:21.,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta113In the Babli: “Simple sancta which are his property.” The question raised is the status of firstlings and animal tithe, which are Heaven’s property in the hands of the rancher. Since Lev. 5:21 reads: “If a person sins, commits fraud against the Eternal, and lies against his fellow …” it perfectly describes wrongdoing involving simple sancta which in one action represents wrong both against the Eternal and one’s fellow man.. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices114And all sacrifices following rules of well-being sacrifices, firstlings, and animal tithe. The firstling has to be given to a Cohen, the animal tithe is eaten by the rancher and his family in Jerusalem; in both cases the altar only receives the blood but no part of the meat.. Abba Yose ben Dosai125Since this statement is already implied by the preceding one. says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling116Animal tithes..” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes117It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.. But he who says tithes117It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food. excludes the firstling117It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated118If a person vows “an animal” as sacrifice and anything happens to the animal designated as sacrifice, he is obligated to provide a replacement; he is responsible for its alienation. But if he vows “this animal” and anything happens to it, he is not obligated to provide a replacement; he is not responsible for its alienation. In Lev., the first kind of vow is called נֶדֶר “vow”, the second kind is נְדָבָה “free offering”., I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied112Lev. 5:21.’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”119An anonymous baraita in the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 58a/b. Debts towards Heaven have to be discharged at the rate of 125%; those towards one’s fellow man by the rate of 100%.. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta120Which for some reason are not accepted by the altar., if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal121Most holy sacrifices which either are holocausts on the altar or whose meat is eaten by male Cohanim within the Temple precinct., I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated122Even for well-being sacrifices, most of which is eaten by the donor’s family., 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 חַייֶבֶת. 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 חַייֶבֶת וְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן פְטוּרָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶם חַייֶבֶת. מָאן דָּמַר חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין חַייֶבֶת וְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן פְטוּרָה. דִּכְתִיב מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲפִילוּ חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן חַייֶבֶת. דִּכְתִיב וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר. מִכָּל מָקוֹם. New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile123The Gentile cannot claim damages in a Jewish court. In particular, claims for half damages are only possible between Jewish parties; for all others it is all or nothing.. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued124Since any animal not belonging to the owner of the property is trespassing; the rancher does not have to interfere if his animals defend their territory.. “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”125Since this statement is already implied by the preceding one.? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter18,These four entries do not refer to kinds of payments for damages but to the obligations of persons who hold other people’s property in case that property is lost, stolen, or damaged, as specified in Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a 7:9 (based on Ex. 22:6–12). The unpaid trustee does not pay if he can swear that he did not use the property; the borrower pays for everything; the paid trustee and the renter have to pay for what was lost or stolen but may swear that it was not their fault if the damage was caused by an act of God or forcible robbery.126If somebody received an animal under the terms of one of the four kinds of trusteeship and that animal did damage, the owner is responsible.. 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 them127The formulation “courtyard” instead of “property” indicates that in this case both animals are illegally in the place where the damage occurred.. 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.128Ex. 22:4, speaking of damage inflicted by animals grazing (tooth) and trampling (foot). This paragraph only deals with damage caused by foot and tooth.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.128Ex. 22:4, speaking of damage inflicted by animals grazing (tooth) and trampling (foot). This paragraph only deals with damage caused by foot and tooth.”
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חָצֵר הַשּׁוּתָפִין חַייֶבֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. וַאֲנָא דְאַייְתִיתָהּ 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 וְהַדְּחִייָה אִם תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִייָה. לַנִּיזָּק וְלֹא לַמַּזִּיק חַייָב 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 וְהַדְּחִייָה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִייָה. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A condominium courtyard is obligated129Based on the preceding paragraph and the following Tosephta, one would have expected “free”, not “obligated”. I. Lewy emends the text in this sense, but R. Eliahu Fulda notes: “I do not feel empowered to emend.”. Rebbi Yasa said: and I deduced that from what Rebbi Hoshaia stated130Tosephta 1:9, Babli 14a.: 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 valley131בקעה “valley” is agricultural land accessible only by footpaths, without roadway. During the growing season it is clear that the only animals allowed there are the owners’ beasts used for agricultural work; one has to assume that the Tosephta refers to the time between harvest and new ploughing. In both Babylonian texts, the “valley” is classified as permitted to both parties. or public property132It is difficult to understand what is meant; in both Babylonian texts, “public domain” is classified as permitted to both parties. One has to assume that what is meant is neither a public road nor commons, but public property barred to private animals, such as a park. In the Babylonian texts, the sentence refers to a courtyard owned by a third party. and similar situations, he is not liable133In both Babylonian texts: “is 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 damages10It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused., for a notorious one he pays full damages from his storage room11For which full damages have to be paid..