Bava Kamma 2

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.]

כֵּיצַד הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת. לֶאֱכֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכֹל פֵּרוֹת וִירָקוֹת. אָכְלָה כְסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, פָּטוּר. אִם נֶהֱנֵית, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. אָכְלָה מִתּוֹךְ הָרְחָבָה, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. מִצִּדֵּי הָרְחָבָה, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה. מִפֶּתַח הַחֲנוּת, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. מִתּוֹךְ הַחֲנוּת, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה:

How [i.e., in respect to what] is shen a muad? In respect to eating what is fit for it. The beast is a muad to eat fruits and greens. If it ate clothing or vessels, he pays a half-nezek, [this being meshuneh (a deviation from the norm)]. When is this so? In the domain of the nizak; but in the public domain, it is exempt. [This refers to eating fruits and greens; for in the public domain it is exempt, it being written (Exodus 22:4): "…and it eat in another's field." But if it ate clothing or vessels, even in the public domain, he pays a half-nezek. For people are apt to place clothing and vessels in the public domain temporarily, so that it (eating them) is keren in the public domain, and liability obtains.] If it derives benefit, he (the owner) pays the (amount of) the benefit. [Not actual payment; but, if it ate something dear, it is perceived as if it were barley, and he pays only the "cheap price" of barley. That is, a third less than the market price. And if it ate something cheaper than barley, he pays the "cheap price" of what was eaten. And if it ate something harmful to it, such as wheat, since it did not benefit, he is not liable.] If it ate from the midst of the thoroughfare, he pays the (amount of the) benefit. (If it ate) from the sides of the thoroughfare, he pays the (amount of the) damage. [i.e., If it went and stood on the sides of the thoroughfare in a place where oxen are not wont to walk, it is not like the public domain and he pays what it damages.] (If it ate) from the shop-entrance, he pays the (amount of the) benefit. From the midst of the shop, he pays the (amount of) the damage.

הַכֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁקָּפְצוּ מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג וְשִׁבְּרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מוּעָדִין. הַכֶּלֶב שֶׁנָּטַל חֲרָרָה וְהָלַךְ לַגָּדִישׁ, אָכַל הַחֲרָרָה וְהִדְלִיק הַגָּדִישׁ, עַל הַחֲרָרָה מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הַגָּדִישׁ מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק:

If one's dog or goat jumped from the top of a roof and broke vessels, he pays a full nezek, for they are muadin [to jump. This, in the domain of the nizak, it being a toldah of regel.] If one's dog took a chararah [a cake baked on coals], and went to a (grain stack, and ate the chararah and set fire to the stack — for the chararah he pays a full nezek, [it being shen in the domain of the nizak], and for the stack, a half-nezek, [it being like tzroroth, which pays a half-nezek — a halachah to Moses upon Sinai.]

אֵיזֶה הוּא תָם, וְאֵיזֶה הוּא מוּעָד. מוּעָד, כֹּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים. וְתָם, מִשֶּׁיַּחֲזֹר בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד, שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְתָם, כֹּל שֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵחַ:

Which is a tam, and which is a muad? A muad — an (ox) which was testified against (as having gored) three days. And a tam? Desisting three days [i.e., If it sees oxen and does not gore them, it reverts to its state of tam.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: A muad — (an ox) which was testified against three times, [even in one day. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir, it not being a muad until it is testified against (as having gored) three days.] And a tam — any (ox) which the children fondle, [i.e., which they pull and play with] without its butting. [And in this the halachah is in accordance with R. Meir, that an ox which is a muad does not revert to its state of tam until the children fondle it.]

שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק כֵּיצַד. נָגַח, נָגַף, נָשַׁךְ, רָבַץ, בָּעַט, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וּמַה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהֵקֵל עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר, הֶחְמִיר עֲלֵיהֶם בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, מְקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְמִיר עַל הַקֶּרֶן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, לְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן, מַה בִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אַף בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמַר לָהֶם, אֲנִי לֹא אָדוּן קֶרֶן מִקֶּרֶן, אֲנִי אָדוּן קֶרֶן מֵרֶגֶל. וּמַה בִמְקוֹם שֶׁהֵקֵל עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, הֶחְמִיר בַּקֶּרֶן, מְקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְמִיר עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל, בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּחְמִיר בַּקֶּרֶן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן, מַה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אַף בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק חֲצִי נֶזֶק:

"An ox that damages in the domain of the nizak" (1:4). How so? If it gored, butted, bit, lay down, or kicked, [all toldoth of keren] — In the public domain, he pays a half-nezek; in the domain of the nizak, R. Tarfon says he pays a full nezek, and the sages say a half-nezek. R. Tarfon said to them: Now if in a place where (Scripture) was lenient with shen and regel — in the public domain — where they are exempt, (Scripture) was stringent with them in the domain of the nizak, making them pay a full nezek — then, in a place where (Scripture) was (relatively) stringent with keren — in the public domain — making it pay a half-nezek, does it not follow that we should be stringent with it in the domain of the nizak and make it pay a full nezek! They said to him: It is sufficient that what is derived from a law be like the law it is derived from. Just as in the public domain (he pays) a half-nezek, so in the domain of the nizak (he pays) a half-nezek. [Keren in the domain of the nizak, which you derive from the law of keren in the public domain, saying: "Keren, with which Scripture was stringent in the public domain, does it not follow that we should be stringent with it in the domain of the nizak" — it is sufficient that it be as (stringent) as the law it is derived from, keren in the public domain, and that it be liable for only a half-nezek in the domain of the nizak as it is in the public domain.] He said to them: I shall not derive keren from keren: [as above, but] I shall derive keren from regel. [In a place where Scripture was stringent with shen and regel, does it not follow that we should be stringent with keren, viz.:] Now if in a place where (Scripture) was lenient with shen and regel — in the public domain — it was stringent with keren — then in a place where it was stringent with shen and regel — in the domain of the nizak — does it not follow that we should be stringent with keren! They said to him: It is sufficient that what is derived from a law be as (stringent) as the law it is derived from. Just as in the public domain (he pays) a half-nezek, so in the domain of the nizak (he pays) a half-nizak. [For in the last analysis, if not for keren in the public domain, the a fortiori argument (kal vachomer) could not be constructed. And R. Tarfon, even though he holds that "It is sufficient, etc." is a Scriptural principle, viz. (Numbers 12:14): "And if her father had spat in her face, would she not be humiliated for seven days!" — a fortiori, vis-à-vis the Shechinah, fourteen days! — but it is sufficient that what is derived from a law be as (stringent) as the law itself, for which reason she is confined for seven days and not more — still, in our instance R. Tarfon does not hold that "It is sufficient, etc." obtains, holding that it applies only where the a fortiori argument is not refuted, as in the above instance, where the seven days of the Shechinah not being written, the a fortiori argument is adduced for fourteen-day liability, and "It is sufficient, etc." removes seven and leaves seven, so that the a fortiori argument is found to establish seven-day liability and is not entirely refuted. But here, where, Scripture prescribes a half-nezek both for the public domain and the domain of the nizak, and the a fortiori argument is adduced for an additional half-nezek, making it a full nezek — if "It is sufficient, etc." were posited and payment were established as a half-nezek as in the beginning, the a fortiori argument would have been entirely refuted, availing naught. And the rabbis hold that even in such an instance, "It is sufficient, etc." is posited. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]

אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג, בֵּין מֵזִיד, בֵּין עֵר, בֵּין יָשֵׁן. סִמֵּא אֶת עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ וְשִׁבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:

A man is a muad always, whether unwitting or witting, whether sleeping or awake. [If he were sleeping and another came and slept at his side and caused him injury, he is liable. But if the first injured the second, he is not liable. And if they lay down together, each who injures the other is liable, both being muadim, vis-à-vis each other.] If he blinded his neighbor's eye or broke vessels, he pays full damages. [Even (if he blinded his eye) unwittingly, he is liable for the injury, but not for the four (other) things (see 8:1), one being liable for these things only if his act is witting or nearly so.]