Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 4:9

מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וּלְשׁוֹאֵל, לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וּלְשׂוֹכֵר, נִכְנְסוּ תַחַת הַבְּעָלִים, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. קְשָׁרוֹ בְעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵרָה, וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק, אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, תָּם חַיָּב וּמוּעָד פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו, וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין:

If he gave it (the ox) to an unpaid watcher, a borrower, a watchman for hire, or a hirer, they stand in place of the owner — a muad pays a full nezek, and a tam, a half-nezek. If its owner tied it with a rein and closed it in appropriately [with a door that could withstand a normal wind, this being "minimal" guarding], and it went out and caused damage, whether tam or muad, it is liable. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: A tam is liable; a muad is not liable [in point of its muad aspect, but its tam aspect remains in place, and it pays a half-nezek as a tam], it being written [in respect to muad] (Exodus 21:36): "and its owner did not guard it" [at all, then he is liable as a muad]; but this one was [somewhat] guarded. R. Eliezer says: It [a muad] has no "guarding" but a knife [i.e., He must slaughter it. There are three different views here: According to R. Meir, with minimal guarding, it is liable; with "prime" guarding, not liable. According to R. Yehudah, with minimal guarding, too, it is not liable in point of its muad aspect, but liable in point of its tam aspect, not being completely exempt) unless there is prime guarding. And according to R. Eliezer, with prime guarding, too, it is liable. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah. In any event, ab initio, it is a mitzvah to slaughter an ox that is a muad to remove (the possibility of) damage.]

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 4:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.