The three tractates of Nezikin ("Damages") – Bava Kamma, Bava Mezia, and Bava Batra in the Jerusalem Talmud differ in a fundamental and striking way from the remainder. The difference extends to style, terminology, and even to the names of the amoraim who are mentioned there. The vast majority of amoraim quoted belong to the first and second generations; those of the next two generations are hardly mentioned at all; and many of those mentioned in this order are rarely mentioned in the other orders. Nezikin has a different terminology and includes old Hebrew words which do not occur elsewhere. It is distinguished by its brevity and shows every sign of being in an unfinished state. Where discussions are found on an identical passage in this and the other orders, that in Nezikin often comes to an entirely different conclusion, or gives different answers to those given in the other discussion. Moreover, discussions left incomplete in this order are found completed in the others. That the Jerusalem Talmud to Nezikin is fundamentally different from the rest is universally accepted. Originally explanations of this phenomenon focused on identifying a different location for the redaction of these three tractates. The first to suggest that it emanated from a different source was I. Levy (Jahresbuch des juedischen theologischen Seminars, Breslau, 20/21 (1895)). Although it was previously maintained that it was compiled in Tiberias and represents the teachings of the school there, the brilliant research of S. Lieberman argued vigorously against this conclusion. In his opinion, the Jerusalem Talmud to Nezikin represents the school of Caesarea, where it was compiled about the middle of the fourth century C.E., half a century before the compilation of the rest. Among the evidence put forward by Lieberman the following may be mentioned. In the Jerusalem Talmud to tractate Shabbat (which emanates from Tiberias), the "rabbis of Caesarea" are contrasted with "the local rabbis"; R. Nasa, who is elsewhere (Est. R. 2:9; TJ, Shab. 7:1, 9b; Pes. 2:2, 29a, etc.) mentioned as hailing from Caesarea, is mentioned no less than 14 times in Nezikin; the only time the word "here" is mentioned in Nezikin (BM 6:3, 11a) the reference is clearly to Caesarea; and lastly, statements attributed in the three Bava tractates to amoraim without any qualification are in other parts of the Jerusalem Talmud attributed to "the rabbis of Caesarea" (cf., e.g., BB 3:1, 13d with Kid. 4:2, 65d; BK 8:4, 6b with Ket. 5:5, 30a). Recently, however, the focus has moved away somewhat from the aspect of location, and more attention has been given to the aspect of time – that the redaction of Yerushalmi Nezikin represents an earlier stage in the development of the talmudic tradition, before the isolated memrot and baraitot were incorporated into extended synthetic and dialectical compositions (Sussmann, Mehkare Talmud I).

Bava Kamma with commentary Netivot Yerushalayim was published in Vilna 1880.

עמ' 111-109: "הדרן למס' בבא מציעא... נדפס בספרי 'אמרי יושר', אמנם המבקר <צענזאר>... מחק סוף ההדרן... מפני כן הנני מדפיסו... שלם". עמ' 112: "הדרן על סדר נזיקין" מאת בן המחבר ר' בצלאל רב דק"ק עדינבורג. הסכמות: ר' יוסף זכריה שטערען, שאוויל, יד אדר-א תרמ"ג; ר' אליעזר לאנדא, הורדנא, ראש חדש תמוז תר"ם; ר' אלי[הו] חיים מייזיל אב"ד לאדז, ווארשא, יב אב תר"ם.

מסכת בבא בתרא מן תלמוד ירושלמי עם פירוש נתיבות ירושלים, חובר מאתי... ישראל חיים דייכעס בן הרב... ארי' צבי זצ"ל, החונה בק"ק ליעדז... בסוף המס' נדפס מאמר ע"ד [על דבר] משפטי התלמוד בחוקי רומי, מאת בן המחבר הרב... שמואל דר. דייכעס. שנת ת'למ'ו'דא דמ'ער'בא'

עמ' [4-3]: "ביאור ירושלמי יומא" פרק ד הלכה א. עמ' 95-92: "הדרן לסיום הש"ס... דפה ליעדז... טו טבת שנת תרס"ז". עמ' 97-96: "ביאור דבר הלכה... דיכולין בני עיר לתקן... לעשות פורים ביום שנעשה בו נס". עמ' 100: "הערה לפירוש המשנה בבבא בתרא לח", מאת בן המחבר ר' שמואל דייכעס.

הסכמות: ארבע ההסכמות הראשונות ל"מסכת בבא קמא מן תלמוד ירושלמי עם פירוש נתיבות ירושלים", ווילנא תר"ם.