Talmud for Gittin 5:4

יְתוֹמִים שֶׁסָּמְכוּ אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁמִּנָּה לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן. אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. מִנָּהוּ בֵית דִּין, לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, חִלּוּף הַדְּבָרִים. הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ בְּשׁוֹגֵג, פָּטוּר. בְּמֵזִיד, חַיָּב. הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּגְּלוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ מְזִידִין, חַיָּבִין:

If orphans relied upon a householder [to conduct their affairs — even though he were not appointed an apotropos, he is deemed one ("apotropos," from the Latin: father-"pater"; children-"potos" — hence: "apotropos"-"the father of the young")], or if their father appointed an apotropos for them, he must tithe their fruits. If an apotropos were appointed by the father of the orphans, he must swear (that he did not misappropriate anything of theirs). [For if he derived no benefit, he would not be an apotropos for him, and the oath would not act as a deterrent (to his accepting the appointment)]. If beth-din appointed him, he does not swear. [For he is doing beth-din a "favor" by accepting their charge and exerting himself gratis; and if he had to swear, this would act as a deterrent.] Abba Shaul sys: "Just the opposite." [If beth-din appointed him, he must swear. For because he derived the satisfaction of gaining the reputation of an honest man, trusted by beth-din, the oath would not act as a deterrent. But if the father of the orphans appointed him, he does not swear, for he is doing him a favor by exerting himself gratis for his children, and if an oath were imposed upon him, it would act as a deterrent. The halachah is in accordance with Abba Shaul.] If one defiles [the clean produce of his neighbor] or mixes [terumah with his neighbor's chullin (mundane produce), causing him a loss by constraining him to sell it cheap to the Cohanim], or mixes [libational wine with kosher wine, so that benefit may not be derived from it] — (if he does so) unwittingly, he is not liable; if intentionally, he is liable. [By law, he should not be liable, for "Non-recognizable damage is not called 'damage,.'"; but because of "the general good," that men not go and defile their neighbor's produce under exemption from liability, (he was rendered liable).] If Cohanim invalidated in the sanctuary [offerings that they slaughtered and whose blood they sprinkled, by the thought of eating them outside of their proper time, disqualifying them (as offerings) for their owners] — (if they did so) intentionally, they are liable. [For they knew that they rendered it unfit thereby. They must reimburse the owners, who must bring other offerings. And even if it were a gift-offering, which must not be replaced, still, the owner is chagrined at his offering's not being sacrificed, for it was his desire to bring it as a gift.]

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”⁵¹The Mishnah seems self-contradictory. Either incompetent persons are not liable or they have to be represented by guardians whose duty it will be to indemnify the victims of the animals of the incompetent. The question is also asked in the Babli, 39a. It is answered there but here left unanswered. One may not assume that the treatment of the Babli is valid for the Yerushalmi. It is more likely that the question is not answered because the Mishnah has a straightforward interpretation: The incompetent are not liable, but it is the duty of the court to intervene and appoint guardians responsible for future control of the dangerous animals (Midrash Haggadol Ex. 21:36).? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner⁵²This text seems to be devoid of sense. One may adopt the emendation of Pene Moshe and switch the objects: “So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner. If testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian?” This text refers to the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Yose. For the latter, a notorious beast always remains notorious. For R. Meïr the designation of “notorious” lapses if the animal is handed over to the grown-up owner by the guardian. What would be his opinion if an owner of a notorious beast developed a mental illness and his estate were handed to a guardian by the court? Does he also hold that the designation of “notorious” lapses in this case?? Let us hear from the following: ⁵³Babli 40a, Tosephta 5:4.“If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages⁵⁴The owner has to pay full damages for the notorious animal. Since he failed to inform the borrower, he has regress on him only for half the damages since the borrower is responsible to watch the animal to make sure it causes no damage as “tame”. (For the different versions of the Tosephta, cf. S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah.).” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he⁵⁵Since for R. Yose the status of the animal does not change with a change of control, the borrower should be liable for the entire damage. should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame⁵⁶Same explanation given in the Babli, 40a.. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore⁵⁷But the borrower was not informed that the animal had been declared notorious by action of the court.. It was stated⁵⁸Tosephta 5:4; cf. Babli 44b/45a, 98b.: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable⁵⁹Since he handed back a bull, he does not have to replace it even though after judgment the bull will not be worth anything., after judgment was rendered⁶⁰That the bull has to be killed and its carcass forbidden for usufruct (Ex. 21:28). he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable⁶¹Since he returned the bull; its changed legal status is not apparent..”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse