Commentary for Bava Kamma 2:1

כֵּיצַד הָרֶגֶל מוּעֶדֶת. לְשַׁבֵּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ וְשִׁבְּרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וְשִׁבְּרַתּוֹ, וְנָפַל עַל כְּלִי וּשְׁבָרוֹ, עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים מוּעָדִין לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּן וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיָה דְלִיל קָשׁוּר בְּרַגְלָיו, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְהַדֵּס וּמְשַׁבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק:

How is regel a muad? [i.e., In respect to what is regel a muad?] In respect to breaking [vessels] as it walks. The beast is a muad to walk as is its wont and to break. [The first part speaks of avoth — regel per se — treading with the foot. And the second part speaks of toldoth, a beast walking as is its wont and breaking things with its body, through (entanglement in) its hair, or with the shalif that is upon it (see 1:1) as it walks.] If it kicked [This is a shinui (a deviation from the norm), and a toldah of keren, for which reason he (the owner) pays a half nezek and not more], or if pebbles (tzroroth) sprung from under its legs [(Even though this is not a shinui, but the norm, still, he pays a half-nezek and not more, it being a halachah to Moses upon Sinai. And this, in a private domain, for in the public domain it is exempt, tzroroth being a toldah of regel, and thus, exempt in the public domain.)], and it broke vessels, he pays a half-nezek. If it stepped upon a vessel and broke it, and it (fragments thereof) fell upon a (second) vessel and broke that — for the first he pays a full nezek, and for the second, a half-nezek. [The first is a nezek of regel, for which reason he pays a full nezek, and the second, breaking by tzroroth, pays a half-nezek.] Chickens are muadin to walk as is their wont and to break. If dalil were attached to its leg [(Anything that becomes attached to a chicken's foot is called "dalil." Some read it as "d'li" (a pail)], or if it were mehadess ["dancing" (Others explain it as digging in the earth with its claws in the manner of chickens)], and it broke vessels, he pays a half-nezek. [For "dalil" is tzroroth. For with that dalil it flings tzroroth upon a vessel. And hiduss, too — as when it flung tzroroth, which broke vessels.]

Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma

In which manner is it that the leg is accustomed to break in its way of walking... The main idea of this whole type of damage, that it is all damage that comes from an animal while it is doing what it's accustomed to do all the time or most of the time. This is the case that is said about it that it is normal and full damages are paid. And that which is not normal, that there will be in it a thing that it did that was uncommon for it, or that it came through an intermediary of another action, and the animal, the one that did that deed, was not the primary catalyst, for this he's obligated in half damages and this is the half damage he's obligated in for pebbles that shoot out from under his feet. That he pays (is assessed for) the full amount of damage, as it's explained in the 8th perek of this tractate. And the explanation of 'a bucket'- a thing that was tied to its foot or it was jumping and digs its feet into the ground. And this the chicken does more than other birds.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

כיצד הרגל מועדת – meaning to say, in which manner does the foot become forewarned? And it answers to break something while it is walking. As such it is forewarned when it smashes utensils while it is walking.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma

How is the leg [of a beast] an attested danger to break [what it tramples upon] as it walks along? A beast is an attested danger [only] in so far as it goes along in its usual way and breaks [an object]. If it kicked, or if small stones were tossed out from beneath its feet and it thus broke other vessels, one pays half damages. If it trampled upon a vessel and broke it, and this [broken vessel] fell upon another vessel and broke it, for the first one pays full damages and for the other half damages.
Fowls (chickens and are an attested danger in so far as they go along in their usual way and break [objects]. But if the fowl had its feet entangled, or if it was jumping and it thereby broke any vessel one pays half damages.
This mishnah deals with damages done by an animal through trampling. We learned in the mishnah at the end of chapter one that when an animal causes damages in a usual manner, meaning it is an attested danger (muad) for that damage, the owner is obligated to make full restitution. However, if the damages are done in an unusual manner, for which the animal is an unattested danger (tam), the owner is only obligated to make half restitution. This mishnah continues to deal with these concepts with regards to damages done by trampling.
The first section of the mishnah deals with damages done by a beast, meaning a domesticated animal, cow, sheep or goat, by trampling on another object. If the damage is done in an anticipated, usual manner, the owner is obligated for full damages. She should have watched over her animal, and since she did not, she is obligated to make full restitution. Section 1c brings up a strange circumstance whereby with one action the animal damages two vessels. For the first vessel the owner is obligated for full restitution and for the second vessel only half restitution.
The second section of the mishnah basically states that the same is generally true for damages done by fowl. They too are attested dangers to damage while walking in their usual manner. Section 2a brings up special circumstances in which the fowl damaged in an unusual way, and therefore the owner is only obligated for half restitution.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

הבהמה מועדת – the first part [of the Mishnah] teaches chief actionable damages of the “foot” that she treaded on with her feet, and the concluding part [of the Mishnah] teaches derivates that the animal is forewarned to walk in her manner and to bread with her body and with her hair and the sliding pouch that is upon her while she is walking.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

או שהיו צרורות מנתזין – even though it is not a change, but rather, the way things happen, nevertheless, half-damages and not more, for this is the normative Halakha for this and we are speaking about the domain of the person who suffered the damages, but in the public domain, he is exempt [from damages] for pebbles are a derivative of the “foot” to make them exempt in the public domain.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

ונפל על כלי אחר – these are the first damages of the “foot” and she (i.e., its owner) pays full damages and the latter are through broken pebbles, therefore, half-damage.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

דליל קשור ברגלו – everything that is attacked onto the foot of the chicken is called is דליל/anything irregularly wound/entangled, and there are those who have the reading דלי/bucket.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

מהדס – (scratch) to dance, and there are those who interpret it as digging with its feet in the earth in the manner of chickens.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

משלם חצי נזק – that is entangled/irregularly wound that is pebbles are judged as pebbles on the utensils, and incisions/scratches also, such as that pebbles that were tossed and they broke the utensils.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse