Sefaria Bava Kamma 19a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:4 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

 Sefaria Bava Kamma 19a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim  3:4 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

Level four:

Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.

About This Text

Bava Kamma

Talmud

Bava Kamma (״The First Gate״) is the first of a series of three tractates in Seder Nezikin (“Order of Damages") that deal with civil matters. Bava Kamma focuses on the laws of torts: the first six chapters mostly address damages inflicted by one’s property, while the last four chapters discuss damages inflicted by people, such as theft and injury.

Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 – c.550 CE)נוצר/נערך: בבל התלמודית (450 – 550 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic

Select Translation

Aramaic from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text Analysis.
Punctuation: Rabbi Shimon MarylesRead More

Source: korenpub.co.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

William Davidson Edition - English

Select Translation

English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel SteinsaltzRead More

Source: korenpub.com

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Bava Kamma 19a:1 with About (sefaria.org)

19a

וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין הַעֲדָאָה?

And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the first tanna in the baraita cited by Rami bar Yeḥezkel, holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage, Rav Yosef, holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles.

לָא; בְּחַד זִמְנָא, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי. וְהָא מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא! דְּאִית בֵּיהּ בִּזְרָנֵי.

The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the rooster or animal damaged the vessel one time. And the tanna’im disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis, concerning compensation for damage caused by pebbles. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it atypical behavior for an animal to insert its head into a glass vessel, and isn’t all atypical behavior classified within the category of Goring, meaning that the owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The case is one where there were seeds in the vessel, and therefore the rooster extending its head into the vessel is considered typical behavior.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: יֵשׁ שִׁנּוּי לִצְרוֹרוֹת לִרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק, אוֹ אֵין שִׁנּוּי לִצְרוֹרוֹת לִרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק?

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is there any halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, and therefore if an animal propelled pebbles in an atypical manner its owner is liable to pay one-quarter of the damage, i.e., half the restitution for damage caused by pebbles? Or, is there no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, and therefore, even in an atypical case, the owner pays the standard restitution of half the cost of the damage?

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרָבָא, דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת, אוֹ אֵין הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת? מִכְּלָל דְּאֵין שִׁנּוּי.

The Gemara answers: Resolve Rav Ashi’s dilemma from Rava’s dilemma, as Rava raises a dilemma: Is there forewarning for pebbles, or is there no forewarning for pebbles? Based on that dilemma, one may conclude by inference that there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to pebbles propelled by an animal, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, as, were that the case, forewarning would lead to an animal owner’s liability to pay half the cost of the damage.

דִּלְמָא רָבָא ״אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר״ קָאָמַר – אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר אֵין שִׁנּוּי, יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה, אוֹ אֵין הַעֲדָאָה? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps Rava stated his dilemma employing the style of: If you say. If you say that there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, and the owner pays half the cost of the damage in every case, is there forewarning for pebbles, meaning that after three incidents the owner pays the full cost of the damage, or is there no forewarning for pebbles? According to that understanding, the halakha with regard to Rav Ashi’s dilemma cannot be inferred from Rava’s dilemma. Rav Ashi’s dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ לְסוֹמְכוֹס, כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי אוֹ לָא?

Rav Ashi raises another dilemma with regard to pebbles: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, what is the halakha with regard to damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by the animal’s action? Is the status of that secondary force like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action, in which case the owner is liable, or is its status not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action?

מִי גְּמִיר הֲלָכָה – וּמוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא גְּמִיר הֲלָכָה כְּלָל? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara elaborates: Did Sumakhos learn the halakha that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles as a tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and he interprets that tradition as applying in a case where the damage was caused by a force generated by a force generated by the action of an animal? By contrast, in a typical case of damage caused by pebbles, which is an example of a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. Or perhaps he did not learn any halakha as a tradition in this regard at all, and therefore even in a case where the damage was caused by a force generated by a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma, too, shall stand unresolved.

הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ, וְשָׁבְרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר?

§ The mishna teaches: If the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it occurred that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the tanna of the mishna speaking?

הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת כְּאוֹרְחַיְיהוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וְרַבָּנַן הִיא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, הָא כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וּמַנִּי – סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא?

The Gemara elaborates: Is the tanna saying that if the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, which is a subcategory of Goring, or if the animal was walking and propelled pebbles in its typical manner, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage, and, accordingly, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one pays half the cost of damage caused by pebbles? Or perhaps the tanna is saying: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, or if the animal propelled pebbles due to its kick and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, one may infer: But if the animal propelled pebbles as it was walking in its typical manner, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos.

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וּשְׁבָרַתּוּ, וְנָפַל הַשֶּׁבֶר עַל כְּלִי אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְאִי סוֹמְכוֹס, מִי אִית לֵיהּ חֲצִי נֶזֶק?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the latter clause of the mishna: If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel. And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, does he hold that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles?

וְכִי תֵּימָא ״רִאשׁוֹן״ – רִאשׁוֹן לְהַתָּזָה, וְ״שֵׁנִי״ – שֵׁנִי לְהַתָּזָה; וְשָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְסוֹמְכוֹס בֵּין כֹּחוֹ לְכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ;

And if you would say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, and can be understood as follows: The first vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage, is the first vessel damaged following the propelling of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the second vessel that was broken. And the second vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage, is the second vessel following the propelling of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the third vessel that was broken by shards from the second vessel. And the reason for the difference in liability is that there is a difference, according to Sumakhos, between damage caused by a force generated by the action of an animal, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by its action, for which he pays for only half the cost of the damage.

אֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ לְסוֹמְכוֹס, כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי אוֹ לָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי? תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ דְּלָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי!

But if one were to say this explanation, what can be said of that dilemma which Rav Ashi raised: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, what is the halakha with regard to damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by the animal’s action? Is the status of that secondary force like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action, in which case the owner is liable, or is its status not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action? Why does he have a dilemma? Let him resolve from here that its status is not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action.

רַב אָשֵׁי כְּרַבָּנַן מוֹקֵי לַהּ, וּבָעֵי לַהּ הָכִי – הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת כְּאוֹרְחַיְיהוּ – חֲצִי נֶזֶק. הָא מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט – רְבִיעַ נֶזֶק, וְיֵשׁ שִׁנּוּי;

The Gemara answers: Perhaps Rav Ashi interprets the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, and he raises this dilemma: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, which is a subcategory of Goring, or if the animal was walking and propelled pebbles in its typical manner, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, one may infer: But if the pebbles were propelled due to a kick, the owner pays one-quarter of the damage. And there is halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage.

אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת וְהִזִּיקָה בְּבִיעוּטָהּ, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט – חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וְאֵין שִׁנּוּי? תֵּיקוּ.

Or perhaps the tanna is saying: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick or if the animal propelled pebbles due to its kick and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. And there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles. The Gemara concludes: Rav Ashi’s dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מְנַתֶּזֶת, וּבִעֲטָה וְהִתִּיזָה וְהִזִּיקָה, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַהּ – אוֹרְחַיהּ הוּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא מֵחֲמַת בִּיעוּט קָמְנַתְּזָה צְרוֹרוֹת? תֵּיקוּ.

§ Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and some say that it was before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If the animal was walking in a place where it is impossible for it to walk without propelling pebbles as it proceeds, and it kicked and propelled pebbles and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Does one say that since it is impossible for it to walk without propelling pebbles, propelling pebbles is its typical manner in that situation and the halakha in this case would be the same as any case of pebbles? Or perhaps, since now, in any event, the pebbles were propelled due to a kick, it is different. The Gemara concludes: Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבִעֲטָה וְהִתִּיזָה וְהִזִּיקָה, מַהוּ? לְקֶרֶן מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ – וְחַיֶּיבֶת, אוֹ דִלְמָא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל הוּא – וּפְטוּרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא, תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל הוּא.

§ Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked and propelled pebbles and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we liken the damage in this instance to Goring, since the action was performed with intent, and therefore the owner of the animal is liable even though the incident transpired in the public domain? Or perhaps, since this is a case of pebbles, it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling and the owner is exempt from liability in the public domain. Rabbi Zeira said to him: It stands to reason that it is a subcategory of Trampling.

הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲקִירָה אֵין כָּאן, הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן?!

Rabbi Yirmeya continued and asked Rabbi Zeira another question: If an animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira said to him, employing terminology from the halakhot of Shabbat: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Since the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain, the owner is exempt from liability for any damage that it causes. The fact that the damage occurred on private property is not relevant.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהִתִּיזָה, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – חַיָּיב. מַאי, לָאו הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים? לָא, הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: עֲקִירָה אֵין כָּאן, הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s first statement, that one is exempt from liability for one’s animal propelling pebbles in the public domain because it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, from a baraita: If an animal was walking along the way and it propelled pebbles, whether it was on private property and whether it was in the public domain, the owner is liable to pay damages. What, is it not a case where the pebbles were propelled in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain? Rabbi Zeira replied: No, the reference is to a case where the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property. Rabbi Yirmeya asked him: But didn’t you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement, as there is proof from the baraita that there is liability in that case.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וּשְׁבָרַתּוּ, וְנָפַל הַשֶּׁבֶר עַל כְּלִי אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּטוּרָה וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיֶּיבֶת. מַאי, לָאו הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים?

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s first statement from the mishna: If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this halakha: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the incident transpired on the private property of the injured party; but if it transpired in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability for the first vessel, as it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, and he is liable for the damage to the second vessel. What, is it not that the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and it caused damage in the public domain, indicating that one does not pay for damage caused by pebbles in the public domain?

לֹא, הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. וְהָאָמְרַתְּ עֲקִירָה אֵין כָּאן הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.

Rabbi Zeira replied: No, perhaps the reference in the mishna is to a case where the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and it caused damage on private property. Rabbi Yirmeya said: But didn’t you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement.

אִינִי?!

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an additional objection to Rabbi Zeira’s statement: Is that so? Is the owner of the animal exempt from liability for pebbles propelled by his animal in the public domain?

19b

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין חֲצִי נֶזֶק חָלוּק לֹא לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְלֹא לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מַאי, לָאו הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים? לָא; הִתִּיזָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.

But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Payment of half the cost of the damage is not differentiated between private and public domains, as there is no exemption from payment neither for damage on private property nor for damage in the public domain? What, is this principle not stated even in a case where the animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain? Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, Rabbi Yoḥanan stated this principle in a case where the animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property.

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: עֲקִירָה אֵין, כָּאן הַנָּחָה יֵשׁ כָּאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – אֲקַרַן.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: But didn’t you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement. Or, if you wish, say instead: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that payment of half the cost of the damage is not differentiated between private and public domains, and there is no exemption from payment neither for damage on private property nor for damage in the public domain, he said it only with regard to damage in the category of Goring, but not with regard to the case of propelled pebbles, for which one is exempt in the public domain.

יָתֵיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נְפַק מִילְּתָא מִבֵּינַיְיהוּ: כִּשְׁכְּשָׁה בִּזְנָבָהּ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: וְכִי יֹאחֲזֶנָּה בִּזְנָבָהּ וְיֵלֵךְ?! אִי הָכִי, קֶרֶן נָמֵי, נֵימָא: וְכִי יֹאחֲזֶנָּה בְּקֶרֶן וְיֵלֵךְ?!

§ The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and Rabbi Oshaya sat in the antechamber [akil’a] of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. A matter emerged from among them and one of them raised a dilemma: If an animal swung its tail and thereby caused damage, what is the halakha? The other Sage said to him: Must the owner grasp its tail and walk to prevent the animal from causing damage? Since this is typical behavior for the animal, the owner should be exempt from liability. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to damage in the category of Goring, too, let us say: Must the owner grasp its horn and walk to prevent the animal from causing damage? Nevertheless, the halakha is that the owner is liable for damage in the category of Goring.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! קֶרֶן לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, הָא אוֹרְחַיהּ.

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Damage in the category of Goring is not caused in the course of the typical behavior of the animal. Consequently, the owner is required to prevent his animal from causing damage in that manner. This damage caused by the swinging of an animal’s tail is caused in the course of its typical behavior, and one cannot hold the owner responsible for an animal's normal behavior.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאוֹרְחַיהּ, מַאי מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? כִּשְׁכּוּשׁ יַתִּירָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: And since that is its typical behavior, what is the dilemma that he raised? Obviously one has no liability for the damage caused by the typical behavior of his animal in the public domain. The Gemara answers: He raised a dilemma with regard to a case of excessive tail swinging; is excessive tail swinging considered typical behavior?

בָּעֵי רַב עֵינָא: כִּשְׁכְּשָׁה בְּאַמָּתָהּ מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקֶּרֶן – קֶרֶן לָאו יִצְרָא קָתָקֵיף לֵיהּ? הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, קֶרֶן כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ לְהַזִּיק, הָא אֵין כַּוּוֹנָתָהּ לְהַזִּיק? תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Eina raises a dilemma: If an animal swung its penis and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say just as it is with regard to Goring: Is it not so in a case of Goring that the animal’s inclination overcame it and caused it to gore? Here too, it is no different: The animal’s inclination overcame it and that is why it caused damage. Or perhaps the cases are different, as in the case of damage in the category of Goring the objective of its action is to cause damage, whereas in this case the objective of its action is not to cause damage. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין מוּעָדִין לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּן וּלְשַׁבֵּר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְשַׁר מֵאֵלָיו, אֲבָל קְשָׁרוֹ אָדָם – חַיָּיב.

§ The mishna teaches: Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects. If there was a string tied to a chicken’s leg and it broke a vessel, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. Rav Huna says: They taught that one pays half the cost of the damage only in a case where the string was tied to the leg of the chicken on its own, i.e., a string became entangled on the leg of a chicken without the involvement of the owner and an item was broken by the string; but if a person tied the string to the chicken, he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage, as the string is in the category of Pit.

נִקְשַׁר מֵאֵלָיו – מַאן חַיָּיב? אִילֵימָא בַּעַל הַדְּלִיל, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַצְנְעֵיהּ – אָנוּס הוּא! וְאִי לָא אַצְנְעֵיהּ – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא!

The Gemara asks: If the string was tied on its own, who is liable to pay half the cost of the damage? If we say it is the owner of the string who pays, as the damage was caused by the string, what are the circumstances? If it is a case where the owner of the string concealed the string in a secure place and the chicken became entangled in it, the owner of the string is a victim of circumstances beyond his control and would be exempt from payment. And if he did not conceal it and instead left it exposed where it could become entangled in the feet of a passing chicken, he is negligent and liable as though he actually tied the string to the chicken.

אֶלָּא חַיָּיב בַּעַל תַּרְנְגוֹל? מַאי שְׁנָא כּוּלֵּיהּ נֶזֶק דְּלָא – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בּוֹר; חֲצִי נֶזֶק נָמֵי, ״אִישׁ בּוֹר״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בּוֹר!

Rather, the case in the mishna is one where the owner of the string concealed it and is exempt from liability, and Rav Huna means that the owner of the chicken is liable. Here too, the question arises: What is different in this case where one is not obligated to pay the full cost of the damage, as it is written (Exodus 21:33): “If a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein,” he pays the damage, and it is not written: If an ox shall open a pit. This indicates that if an ox opens a pit, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability. With regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage as well, the owner should be exempt from liability, as it is written: “If a man shall open a pit,” and it is not written: If an ox shall open a pit.

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין בִּדְאַדְּיֵיהּ אַדּוֹיֵי. וְכִי אִתְּמַר דְּרַב הוּנָא – בְּעָלְמָא אִתְּמַר. דְּלִיל הֶפְקֵר – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נִקְשַׁר מֵאֵלָיו – פָּטוּר, קְשָׁרוֹ אָדָם – חַיָּיב.

Rather, the case in the mishna is one where the chicken moved the string and thereby caused damage. Since the chicken did not cause damage with its body, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, as he does in a case of pebbles. And when Rav Huna’s distinction between whether the string was tied on its own or by a person was stated, it was stated in a general sense, and not with regard to the halakha in the mishna. With regard to an ownerless string tied to the leg of a chicken, Rav Huna says: If the string was tied to the leg of the chicken on its own, the owner of the chicken is exempt; but if a person tied the string to the chicken, he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.

מִשּׁוּם מַאי חַיָּיב? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ: מִשּׁוּם בּוֹרוֹ הַמִּתְגַּלְגֵּל בְּרַגְלֵי אָדָם וּבְרַגְלֵי בְהֵמָה.

The Gemara asks: Due to what primary category of damage is he liable? Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ says: He is liable due to the fact that although the string is not stationary, as in the standard obstacle in the primary category of Pit, this is an example of his pit that is rolled at the feet of a person and at the hooves of an animal, and that too is a subcategory of Pit.

מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת? לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל פֵּירוֹת וִירָקוֹת. אָכְלָה כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – פָּטוּר.

MISHNA: Within the context of the primary category of Eating, for what damage caused with the tooth is an animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption. The domesticated animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. If the animal ate garments or vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. As these are not items fit for its consumption, the animal is not deemed forewarned in this case. In what case is this statement applied, that one pays the full value of the food eaten by the animal? It is a case where the animal ate the food on the property of the injured party; but if the animal ate food in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability.

וְאִם נֶהֱנֵית – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית.

And even if the animal ate food in the public domain, if the animal derives benefit from eating another’s produce in the public domain, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives, just not for the full cost of the food.

כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית? אָכְלָה מִתּוֹךְ הָרְחָבָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית, מִצִּדֵּי הָרְחָבָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה. מִפֶּתַח הַחֲנוּת – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית, מִתּוֹךְ הַחֲנוּת – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה.

Under what circumstances does the owner of the animal pay for the benefit that it derives? If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that it derives. If the animal ate from food placed at the side of the public square, which is not a public thoroughfare, the owner of the animal pays for what it damaged, as the legal status of that area is like that of the property of the injured party. If the animal ate produce from the entrance of the store, its owner pays for the benefit that it derives, as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. If the animal ate produce from inside the store, its owner pays for what it damaged.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ – כֵּיצַד? בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, וְאָכְלָה אוֹכָלִין הָרְאוּיִין לָהּ וְשָׁתְתָה מַשְׁקִין הָרְאוּיִין לָהּ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. וְכֵן חַיָּה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, וְטָרְפָה בְּהֵמָה וְאָכְלָה בָּשָׂר – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Eating is deemed forewarned in that an animal tends to eat that which is fit for it to eat. How is this applied? In the case of a domesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured party and it ate food fit for it to eat, or if it drank drinks fit for it to drink, the owner of the animal must pay the full cost of the damage. And similarly, in the case of an undomesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured party and tore apart a domesticated animal and ate its meat there, the owner must pay the full cost of the damage.

וּפָרָה שֶׁאָכְלָה שְׂעוֹרִין, וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁאָכַל כַּרְשִׁינִין, וְכֶלֶב שֶׁלִּיקֵּק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וַחֲזִיר שֶׁאָכַל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר – מְשַׁלְּמִין נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּלָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, וְאָכְלָה לֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק – שְׁמֵיהּ אֲכִילָה; הַאי שׁוּנָּרָא דַּאֲכַל תַּמְרֵי, וַחֲמָרָא דַּאֲכַיל בִּינִיתָא – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

And in the case of a cow that ate barley, although this is not normally a food that a cow would eat, or in the case of a donkey that ate vetches, i.e., legumes which are usually fed to cows but not to donkeys, or in the case of a dog that licked oil or a pig ate meat, the owner of the animal must pay the full cost of the damage. Although these animals do not ordinarily consume these items, doing so is not a significant deviation from the animal’s typical behavior. Rav Pappa said: Now that you said that eating anything that is not typical for an animal to eat but it eats it under duress is considered an ordinary act of eating, it can be deduced that in the case of a cat that eats dates or a donkey that is eating fish, the owner must pay the full cost of the damage, despite the fact that these animals do not ordinarily eat these items.

הָהוּא חַמְרָא דַּאֲכַל נַהֲמָא וּפַלְּסֵיהּ לְסַלָּא, חַיְּיבֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם אַנַּהֲמָא, וְאַסַּלָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְאַמַּאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ לְמֵיכַל נַהֲמָא – אוֹרְחֵיהּ נָמֵי לְפַלּוֹסֵי סַלָּא! דַּאֲכַל וַהֲדַר פַּלֵּיס.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain donkey that ate bread and while eating it also broke the basket in which the bread was stored. Rav Yehuda obligated the owner to pay the full cost of the damage for the loss of the bread and half the cost of the damage to the basket. The Gemara asks: But why? Since it is typical for a donkey to eat bread, it is also typical for it to break the basket in which the bread is stored; therefore, the owner should pay the full cost of the damage for the basket as well. The Gemara answers: This case is one where the donkey ate the bread and then afterward broke the basket, a sequence which demonstrates that its intent was to cause damage. The breaking of the basket is therefore a subcategory of Goring, and the owner is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

וּפַת אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: אָכְלָה פַּת וּבָשָׂר וְתַבְשִׁיל – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. מַאי, לָאו בִּבְהֵמָה? לֹא, בְּחַיָּה.

The Gemara asks: But is it typical for a donkey to eat bread? The Gemara raises a contradiction against this based on a baraita: If it ate bread or meat or a cooked dish, its owner must pay for half the cost of the damage. What, is it not referring to a domesticated animal and thereby implying that it is not typical for a domesticated animal to eat bread? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is discussing an undomesticated animal, which does not typically eat bread, but a domesticated animal does eat bread.

חַיָּה – בָּשָׂר אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא! דְּמִטְּוֵי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּטַבְיָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם בִּבְהֵמָה, וּבְפָתוּרָא.

The Gemara questions this explanation: If the baraita is discussing an undomesticated animal, then it is typical for it to eat meat. The Gemara clarifies: The baraita is referring meat that is roasted, and it is not typical for an undomesticated animal to eat roasted meat. Or, if you wish, say instead that the halakha of the baraita is not stated with regard to an undomesticated predator, but with regard to a deer, which does not ordinarily eat meat and bread. Or, if you wish, say that actually it is discussing a domesticated animal, but it is discussing a case where the animal ate at the table, and this is not typical behavior for an animal.

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:4

Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

About This Text

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Talmud

Kilayim (“Mixtures”) is a tractate in Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) that discusses biblical prohibitions of mixed species, based in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. These include planting certain mixtures of seeds, grafting different species of trees, growing plants other than grapevines in a vineyard, crossbreeding animals, working certain animals together, and mixing wool and linen in clothing.

Composed: Talmudic Israel (c.375 – c.425 CE)נוצר/נערך: ישראל התלמודית (375 – 425 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

The Jerusalem Talmud, edition by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Version

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Translation

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History


For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:4:1 with About (sefaria.org)

3:4

משנה: הַנּוֹטֵעַ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי מוּתָּר. שׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי אָסוּר. שׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי וְשׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. נוֹטֵעַ אָדָם קִישּׁוּת וּדְלַעַת לְתוֹךְ גּוּמָא אַחַת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא זוֹ נוֹטָה לְצַד זוֹ וְזוֹ נוֹטָה לְצַד זוֹ. (וְנוֹטֵעַ שֵׂעָר שֵׁל זוֹ לְכָאן וְשֵׁל זוֹ לְכָאן. שֶׁכֵּן מַה שֶׁאָֽסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לֹא גָֽזְרוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.)

MISHNAH: If someone plants two rows of green melons, two rows of pumpkin, two rows of Egyptian beans, this is permitted. One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans is forbidden. One row each of melons, pumpkin, Egyptian beans, and one row of melons, Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages forbid.

One may plant melon and pumpkin in the same hole on condition that one of them points to one side, the other to the other side. (One plants so that the hair of one be here, the hair of the other one there, for what the Sages forbade is only because of the misleading impression.)

הלכה: הַנּוֹטֵעַ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת כו׳. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. אוּף הָכָא שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אוֹף הָכָא בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. יָפֶה כֹּחַ מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַמּוּקְשִׁיּוֹת לְהַצִּיל בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה.

HALAKHAH: “If one plants two rows”, etc. Ḥizqiah said, there is disagreement. He who says there 12 [cubits], here also 12 [cubits]. He who says there eight, here also eight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this Mishnah is according to everybody. A strip of melon is good enough among strips of melons to be saved by eight.

אוֹרְכוֹ בְּכַמָּה חוֹבֵשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא נְלַמְּדֵינָהּ מִן הַכֶּרֶם. כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר גַּבֵּי כֶרֶם לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא אָרְכּוֹ הִיא הֶפְלֵיגוֹ. אַף הָכָא לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא אָרְכּוֹ הִיא הֶפְלֵיגוֹ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה נִיחָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אוֹף הָכָא בִשְׁמוֹנֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹרְכוֹ בְּכַמָּה חוֹבֵשׁ. אִין תֵּימַר בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַבְּצָלִים שֶׁלֹּא יַחְבִּישׁ אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. מַה אִם מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַמּוּקְשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁיַּפִּיתָה כּוֹחוֹ לְהַצִּיל בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה נֶחֱבַשׁ בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה. מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַבְּצָלִים שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּ כּוֹחוֹ לְהַצִּיל בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֶה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יֵחָבֵשׁ אֶלָּא בִשְׁמוֹנֶה. אִין תֵּימַר מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַבְּצָלִים אֵין נֶחֱבָשׁ אֶלָּא בִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַמּוּקְשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יֵחָבֵשׁ אֶלָּא בִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה.

How long does it have to be to jail? Rebbi Zeïra said, let us infer it from a vineyard. Just as you say in regard to a vineyard that there is no difference between length and separation, so here also there is no difference between length and separation. That is fine according to the opinion of Ḥizqiah; there eight and here also eight. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, with how much will it jail? If you say with eight, is there an argument a fortiori that a strip of melons among onions will jail only with twelve? But a melon strip, which you empowered among melon strips to save by a mere eight, will be jailed by eight, melon strips among onions, which you weakened to save only by twelve, certainly will be jailed only by eight. If you say that a melon strip among onions will be jailed only by twelve, then an argument a fortiori shows that a melon strip among melons should be jailed only by twelve.

עָד כְּדוֹן בְּרוֹצֵף. בְּעוֹשֶׂה קְלָחִים יְחִידִים. כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר גַּבֵּי כֶרֶם לֹא שַׁנְייָא הוּא רוֹצֵף הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. אַף הָכָא לֹא שַׁנְייָא הוּא רוֹצֵף הוּא עוֹשֶׂה קְלָחִים יְחִידִים.

So far if [the planting] is covering [the entire area]. What about producing single stalks? Just as you say of a vineyard that there is no difference between covering or producing [single stalks], so here also there is no difference between continuous planting or producing single stalks.

רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לְהַצִּיל וְאֵין שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לֵיאָסֵר. רַב אָמַר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשְּׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לְהַצִּיל כָּךְ שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לֵיאָסֵר. מַתְנִיתִין מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יִנַּאי דְּתַנּינָן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר. מַתְנִיתִין פְּלִיגָא עַל רַב שׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי וְשׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָטַע אֶת הָֽרְבִיעִית לֹא כְבָר נֶאֶסְרוּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּטַע אַרְבַּעְתָּן כְּאַחַת.

Rebbi Yannai said, it is a controversy whether two kinds join together to save but do not join together to prohibit. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion that just as two kinds join together to save so they do join together to prohibit. Our Mishnah supports Rebbi Yannai, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer permits it.” Our Mishnah differs with Rav: “One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans, and one row of melons.” Before he started the fourth one, was it not already forbidden? Explain it that he planted the four rows simultaneously.

נוֹטֵעַ אָדָם קִישּׁוּת כו׳. תַּנֵּי מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ גוּמָא קְטַנָּה עֲמוּקָה טֶפַח וְלִזְרֹעַ בְּתוֹכוֹ אַרְבַּע זֵירְעוֹנִין וּלְהָפְכָּן לְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא שִׁמְעוֹן נְרָשִׁייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּנוֹטִין לְחוֹרֵבָה שָׁנוּ. רִבִּי מָנָא בָּעֵי אִם בְּנוֹטִין לְחוֹרֵבָה נִיתְנֵי שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם מִכָּן וּשְׁנַיִם מִכָּן וּשְׁנַיִם מִכָּן וּשְׁנַיִם מִכָּן.

“One may plant melon”, etc. It was stated: “One may make a small hole in one’s field, one hand-breadth deep, sow in it four seeds, and turn them to the four directions of the compass.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon of Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That was taught regarding those which lean towards a dry spot. Rebbi Mana asked, if we deal with those that lean towards a dry spot, should we not state “eight,” two on each of the edges?

Beit Yisrael International.
Become a member.

Get the Membership from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic Noahite/Lost Tribes of Efrayim /‘Ger Toshav ‘) click: Beit yisrael international

Shulchan Aruch Harav

The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch - Code of Jewish Law

By Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi

With this modern translation of the Shulchan Aruch Harav, the English-reading public can study Jewish law as taught by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the Alter Rebbe, from the original source.

Come and join our Facebook group:

Har HaBait Jewish Sovereign for all Israel

Free download 
google Play 

Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak

Abraham Makovetsky

A must read and guiding line: To go through every step, of the 42 steps in our diaspora until we reach Eretz Yisrael, the unification of Yehuda and Ephraim, when the Jews start to build The Temple and Restoring her Temple Service. It is for all Beit Yisrael International members the way to go.

click:

42 Journeys of the Soul

The Messianic age will elevate the entire universe, including all the spiritual realms.

From the teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi; adapted by Yitzchak Wagshul

Don't make dogma's out of it. But elevate your souls by learning the Mitzvot surrounded by the Jewish Halakhot. 
And the teachings of Chassidut by the Chassidim.

That we may hold on the 'right understanding' in our 'travel' through the 'dessert' our 'diaspora':

click: 

What Is Kabbalah?

The Soul of Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chassidut?

Teachings from the core essence

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chabad?

Do-It-Yourself Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click: 

What Is a Tzaddik?

Being human all the way

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

The Tzaddik HaDor

And…… to all Jews and Ephraimites:

Pirkei Avot 6:10

Dr. Joshua Kulp


חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:

Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).

 

I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:

Zechariah 8:23

 

23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."		כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם:
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred.		עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו':

That may come in fulfillment in our days:

Our souls are bearing the ‘sparks’ (divine aspects) of Messiah.

It is forbidden to pray to bow down to any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or before any image or to lift up a human being as a god…… or to put any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or any image before or instead or between HaShem and us. ('It suf')

“The redemption will come about only through the study of the Torah. And the essential redemption depends upon the study of the Kabbalah” According to: R. ELIYAHU, THE VILNA GAON (Evven Shelemah (a ‘complete, without defect stone’) 11:3)

When Yehuda and Ephraim come to unity (again) Messiah Ben Joseph 'died' and Messiah Ben David shall be revealed and anointed by the Israeli people as the Messiah-King of Israel. As YeshaYahu is teaching:

Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.

Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.

10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.

Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.

11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.

Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.

and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.

And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.

12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.

13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.

Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.

14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.

Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.

and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.

15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.

Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.

over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.

with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”

into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.

and He shall lead: the exiles within it.

with shoes: on dry land.

16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.

Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.

Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say:  "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………

Read my story: 

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click: Welcome To Beit Yisrael

Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel), Meditate and Realization of Chassidut Torah Teachings – The Strong foundation is based on Chabad teachings ( i.e The purpose of creation is to Bringing Heavens Down to Earth and to make Most High a dwelling place here on earth) and its pillars is based on the true concept of the Breslov Teachings ( in the context of Seventh Pillar of Tzaddik ) by following the Jewish Halacha Principles of Shulchan Aruch Halacha.

The Global Community Torah (sefaria.org)

Your Gift. Your Impact.

When you give to Sefaria, you’re powering a living library of more than 3,000 years of Jewish texts. Donate today and support the future of Jewish learning, innovation, and conversation.

CHABAD LUBAVITCH

About Chabad-LubavitchThe RebbeThe OhelChabad-Lubavitch NewsChabad Locator

Donate to ChaBaD

 click:

LEARN HOW TO READ THE BIBLE IN HEBREW ONCE AND FOR ALL

click:

Ulpan and Hebrew Learning Resources Online

Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!

It should be most honest:

'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims

**AMIT HALEVI'S PLAN WOULD GIVE MUSLIMS CONTROL OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT COMPLEX, WHICH CONTAINS THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE, WHILE JEWS WOULD RECEIVE THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN AREAS.

(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**

A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.

Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.

According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.

“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.

Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.

“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.

In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.

“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”

Source: https://www.jns.org/israel-news/jerusalem/23/6/8/293752/

Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?

כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃

No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another;

גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃

if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt—

וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃

then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click:

Purchasing Tefillin - A Buyer’s Guide