Comentario sobre Baba Kama 1:5

Four fathers of damages; the Ox and the Pit and the 'Maaveh'

ארבעה אבות נזיקין – because there are for every one of these (“chief actional damages”), derivatives, we call them "אבות"/chief, actionable [damages].

Introduction The first mishnah in Bava Kamma serves as an introduction to the first six chapters of the tractate. As such, if all of the details are unclear now, they will hopefully become clearer as we continue to learn. The mishnah discusses four primary causes of injury, literary “fathers of injuries”. These are archetypal causes of injury mentioned in the Torah, from which we will learn many other types of injury and subsets of laws in the following chapters.

These 4 principles from damages, they are the damages that are to do with one's property.

השור – this is the foot, meaning, what the animal damages with her feet while she is walking, as it is written (Exodus 22:4): “When a man lets his livestock loose [to graze in another’s land, and so allows a field or a vineyard to be grazed bare],” and teaches "ושלח" /”lets loose” – this is the foot and similarly he states (Isaiah 32:20): “Who let loose the feet of cattle and asses,” and it is a derivative of the foot when it (i.e., the animal) causes damage with her body while walking or in the gates while walking when utensils that were attached to the gates and [the animal] dragged them and broke them or with the saddle bag that is upon her. And this is a burden that is in large sacks, and the packing bags that are upon her or in the bell that is on her neck.

1. There are four primary causes of injury: the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and fire. 2. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, which are alive, like [that of] fire, which is not alive; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. 3. What they have in common is that it is their way to do injury and that you are responsible for caring over them; and if one of them did injury whoever [is responsible] for the injury must make restitution [to the damaged party] with the best of his land. The four causes of injury mentioned in the first clause mishnah are all derived from the Torah: the ox (Exodus 21:35-36), the pit (Exodus 21:33-34), the crop-destroying beast (Exodus 22:4) and fire (Exodus 22:5). The mishnah then raises a question generally asked in midrashic texts (texts that explain the Torah): why does the Torah need to mention all four types of injury? In other words, why couldn’t the Torah have mentioned one, two or three primary causes of injury, from which we would have learned the rest? The Rabbis believed that no law in the Torah was superfluous and therefore each must come to teach us something that we could not have learned from the other laws. The mishnah therefore explains that each “cause of injury” has its unique characteristic and therefore we would not have been able to derive the laws of the other causes of damages without all four examples in the Torah. Note how the mishnah is both dependent on, yet independent from the Torah. This is typical of Jewish oral Torah; it explains the Torah yet it can usually be understood on its own. Questions for further thought:  What type of injury does an ox cause? What therefore is the difference between an ox and a crop-destroying beast?  The Mishnah tells you things that you are obligated to watch and that if they are yours and they injure you will have to pay the damaged party. Is there anything you can already imagine for which a person will not be obligated if it causes damage? (We will learn the answers to these questions as we go on, but it is worthwhile to start thinking of them now).

And the Ox implies the legs of the Ox, as it's said, it damages what it tramples and it breaks what it breaks and ruins in the way of his walking with his legs. And the 'Maaveh' implies the tooth (of the Ox), and its damage is the result of his eating what he eats from it. It's called with this name from its action since it uproots and seeks what it eats, as it says (Obadiah 1:6): How uprooted is Esau, how sought out (Maaveh) his hidden things.

והבור – whomever opens a pit in the public domain and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, if the pit was ten handbreadths deep or caused damage, if it was is less than ten handbreadths [deep], as it is written (Exodus 21:22): “When a man opens a pit [or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it],” and a derivative of a pit such as the phlegm brought out by coughing or hawking (see Talmud Bava Kamma 3b) after they were placed in the public domain and caused damage.

The Ox is not like the Maaveh

והמבעה – this is the tooth, for the animal ate in the field of his fellow as it states (Exodus 22:4): “and so allows a field or vineyard to be grazed bare in another’s land,” and the tooth is called מבעה/damaging the crop because it sometimes is covered and sometimes uncovered/revealed, from the language (Obadiah 1:6): ”How ransacked his hoards!”/”Its hidden treasures were laid bare” (made empty, which refers to eating up – see the comment of Shmuel in Talmud Bava Kamma 3b), as we translate into Aramaic: the hidden object is revealed; and it is a derivative of the tooth, the animal scratching itself against a wall for her gratification (see Talmud Bava Kamma 3a) in the manner of animals scratching themselves, and when she broke the wall or soiled (with excrements, secretions) the fruits (by rolling in them) when she scratched herself on them for her gratification.

Implying that it was necessary for the Torah to delineate each of these 4 damagers one by one because it is impossible to learn out one from the other through a 'kal ve chomer' (lesser to more severe exegesis), that since in each of them there is in it a principle which is not in the other, therefore comparison is not appropriate. The Legs whose damage is common is not comparable to the Tooth whose damage is not common. And it is not comparable, the Tooth, that there is in it benefit to the damage to compare to the Legs that there is not benefit in the damage. And it is not comparable, this and this, that there are in them spirit of life, to compare to the Fire that does not have in it spirit of life. And not, this and this, that on the road they go forth and damage to compare to the Pit that does not go forth on the road and damage. Thus in each and every one of them there is in it a principle which is not found in the others so it is necessary for scripture to explain each one from them that they are obligated in damages. And this is not to say that if God may his name be blessed wrote the law of pit and one from the remaining three, we wouldn't learn from them the remaining two in the way of tzaad ha shaveh (exegesis) as is alluded to, however scripture partitioned into 4 laws to establish all from them have a law apart from the other. Tooth and Legs are exempt in the public domain, Pit is exempt from vessels, Fire is exempt from concealed items and further this will all be explained. And it was not necessary to mention at all the 'father'- 'Horn' (of the ox) because there is in it a difference if it's 'Accustomed' and 'Simple' as is explained in scripture.

ההבער – this is the fire/conflagration, for it went out and caused damage, as it is written (Exodus 22:5): “When a fire is started [and spreads to thorns], so that stacked, standing or growing grain is consumed.” And the derivative of fire is his rock and his knife and his burden that he placed them on the upper portion of his roof, and they fell with an ordinary wind and it caused damage that resembles fire where the wind leads it. But surely, our Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] did not consider a horn [of an animal] under the category of the chief actionable damages, because we are not speaking about other than damages which are when an animal whose owner stands forewarned (on account of three successive injuries) from their outset, meaning to say, that they pay full indemnity from their outset. But when they (the animals) are innocuous (i.e., one that did injury for the first time, or before warning had been given) it doesn’t speak of this.

And we say the common principle that is in them etc...

לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה – meaning to say, if the Merciful One had written [only] "שור"/the ox, we would not derive "מבעה"/the tooth from it. For I would have said that a foot that caused damage is an ordinary occurrence (and must be guarded against), and the Merciful One made it liable (see Talmud Bava Kamma 2b). But the tooth whose damage is not an ordinary occurrence, the Merciful One did not make it liable. But if the Merciful One [only] wrote "שן" /the tooth, I would have said that the damage done by a tooth is connected with a benefit (to the animal), is liable. But the "רגל"/foot which is not connected with a benefit (to the animal), it is not liable. But if the Merciful One had written “tooth” and “foot” and but did not write “tooth,” I would have said that “tooth” and “foot” which have in them a living spirit, meaning to say that that they come from the strength of living creatures, it is liable, but the fire which has no living spirit in it is not be made liable. But if three of them were written, but the Merciful One did not write "בור"/pit, I would have said that these (three) whose manner is to go and do damage, but the pit, whose manner is not to go and do damage, I would not be liable for it; because of this, it was necessary for [the Mishnah to state] all of them. And in the Gemara (Talmud Bava Kamma 5b) brings up, that if it wrote “pit” and one of these, all of the rest of them would come except for “horn,” through the points common to both, that their manner is to cause damage, and they didn’t need all of them other than because they are divided in their [specific] Halakhot, for this one has what the is not found in the other- that the “tooth” and the “foot” are exempt in the public domain, which is not the case with the “pit” and the “fire.” Scripture exempted the “pit” [from punishment] for humans and utensils, as it is written (Exodus 21:33): “[When a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it], and an ox or an ass falls into it,” that we expound, “an ox” but not a human being; “an ass,” but not utensils, which is not the case with the other chief actional damages. “Fire,” exempts what is hidden, for if there were hidden clothes in a stack of grain, the person who sets fire is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 22:5): “[so that stacked], standing [or growing gain is consumed],” just as standing grain is revealed, so also all that is revealed, and the rest of the chief actional damages did not exempt that which is hidden.

Implying everything whose way is to do damage, it is upon you to guard it, if it damages, the damager is obligated to fulfill the payment of damage with the best of the land as we have already explained, the best of the field and land he shall pay. And this has already been explained to us in the fifth section of gittin. And these fathers have offspring that are subcategories, the Legs, if it damages with its body or its hair as it's walking. The offspring of the Tooth that it rubs against a wall for its benefit or spoils fruits for its benefit. The offspring of Fire; a stone, a knife, or a load are placed on the top of a roof and fall because of a typical wind and damage. The offspring of Pit- spit and phlegm which come out from someone. And further these laws will be explained with their principles and sub-categories.

הצד השוה שבהן וכו' – even I will bring all that is normal to cause damage and its protection is upon you, that if he caused damage, the one who caused damage is liable make the payment for the damages that he committed.

במיטב הארץ – from the best of his possessions, from the most praiseworthy of them, if he comes to take for himself land as payment for his damage, as it is written (Exodus 22:4): “he must make restitution for the impairment (lit. “excellence”) of that field or vineyard.” But, if he comes to give him “movables,” we hold that every word "מיטב"/the best for if he doesn’t sell here, he will sell in another town, and he will give him all what he requires, even bran, and these words are for damages. But for someone who is a creditor, if he (i.e., the borrower) has money, we make him liable to give money, and if he lacks money, he will give movables, what ever he needs. And if he collects land, he will give him mid-range [land]. And a renter, even if the landlord lacks money, he is not able to give him his rent/wages, but rather [only] zuzim. And we obligate him to sell from his possessions until money is found and he gives it to him.

"All that I am obligated to guard, I have enabled its damage etc... "

כל שחבתי בשמירתו וכו' – everything that I became obligated to guard.

Introduction The second mishnah in Bava Kamma continues in the vein of the previous mishnah, providing us with general information about damage law that we will continue to learn about in subsequent chapters of the mishnah. Again, some of the details may not be clear, but they will become clearer as we continue to learn. If you have trouble understanding the mishnah, do not despair: this mishnah baffled even the great sages of the Talmud!

This (usage) of “hechsher” in the Mishnah is the name that falls upon instances prepared to receive a law from these laws like is explained at the beginning of (mesechta) eruvin. And it says ‘All that one is obligated to guard’ that it does not do damage to a person, that thing is prepared that whenever it damages, even if the owner is not aware, to obligate him to make payment since he did not guard it and this is the reason we say he enabled the damage, thus he enabled all of it. If he enables a part of the damage he is obligated in all the damage, as if he enabled all the damage, for example, a pit as is mentioned, is only obligated in what is appropriate for it. That a pit is obligated in damages once it is dug to 10 handbreadths, and there is not a difference whether he digs a pit of 10 handbreadths or he dug an (additional) handbreadth from a pit that was dug to 9 handbreadths to make it dug to 10, that since he has made it appropriate to damage that it is as if he dug it from the beginning, and this is why it says that ‘if he has enabled a part of the damage he is obligated to pay for all damages as he enabled all of the damage’.

הכשרתי את נזקו – if I didn’t guard it appropriately and it caused damage, I am the one who became legally rendered possible and arranged that damage, and I am liable for it such as sending his bull to a deaf-mute, imbecile or a minor, is liable, for upon him was placed the guarding of the bull and indeed, he did not guard in the appropriate manner for it.

1. Anything that I am responsible to guard, I have rendered it possible to do injury [for which I will become obligated]. 2. If I have partially rendered it possible to do injury, I must make restitution for that injury as if I totally rendered it possible to do injury. 3. When one damages [property that fits all of the following categories]: property that does not have “sacrilege” [i.e. sacrificial animals or property that belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem], property that belongs to other members of the covenant [Jews], property that is owned, and the injury is done in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and injurer, in these cases the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land. This mishnah teaches several laws, albeit in language that is difficult to render into coherent English: 1) In order to be obligated to pay damages, the damage must be caused by an object over which I have an obligation to watch. For instance, I am not responsible for full damages the first time my ox gores another ox, since I had no way of knowing that my ox gores. However, the third time my ox gores, I am obligated because my ox is now known as a “goring ox” which I am obligated to guard carefully. 2) If I partially enable damage to happen I am obligated for full damages. For instance if there was a pit that was already 4 feet deep, and a six foot deep pit will kill an animal which falls into it, and I came along and deepened the pit by two feet, thereby making a four foot pit into a six foot pit, I am obligated as if I dug the whole pit. 3) A person is obligated for damages caused only to certain types of property, namely property that belongs to Jewish individuals when the damages are done either on the injured person’s property or in the public domain. In all other cases the owner of the damaging object is exempt. Questions for further thought:  If a person only created part of the object that caused the damage, why is he obligated? Should the person who dug the first four feet of the pit also be obligated to join in paying the damages?  If a person enters my property and my animal injures his belongings, for instance my animal eats his expensive leather shoes, why am I not obligated? Could there be a way that I might become obligated for this type of damage?

After this the Tanna gives five conditions and says that a man is not obligated to pay for damages caused by his property if one of these 5 conditions is missing: The First. That it is not consecrated as holy, for example, if his ox was a sin offering or a burnt offering and it damages, he is not obligated to pay a thing, and this is the idea when we say it is not ‘meilah’, since if one benefits from consecrated property that he is obligated in a meilah sacrifice [as has been explained in mesechta meilah]. And the second. That he damages a son of the covenant, but if the ox of a Jew gores the ox of a Canaanite, the Jew does not pay anything as is explained. And the third, that those possessions which caused from them damage should be identifiable and the owner identifiable, but if one says it is your ox that damaged and the other says it was your ox that damaged and it is not known which ox of these oxen did damage or if the ox is ownerless and damages, that since it doesn’t have an identifiable owner at the time it damaged there is no owner to be obligated to pay for the damage. But if someone else acquires the ox which did damage after it damaged, it has in it as all the rules of all ownerless property (ie, the owner of the damaged ox cannot claim a lien on the damaging ox as is the case with owned property, rather anyone can acquire the damaging ox and there is no lien upon it). The fourth, that the damage was done outside the personal domain of the damager, but if the ox of Reuven entered the house of Shimon and was damaged, Shimon is not obligated in anything, as he will say to him ‘your ox was in my domain, what was it doing there?’ And if Shimon himself damaged it, eg he struck it and it was wounded or died, he is obligated to pay, as he (Reuven) will say to him- ‘you have permission to move him but you do not have permission to damage him’. The fifth, that the damage happens in an area they both are allowed to be, for example, that there was a field owned by the damagee and damager and the ox of the damager damages the field with the Tooth of the Foot, they are not obligated in anything. But if it damages with the Horn he is obligated as will be explained. And it’s explained that this is as long as it’s a place that they both own that is set aside for fruits and oxen, but if it was specifically for fruits and one of the partners went over and brought his ox in and he damaged with Tooth or Foot, he is obligated, even though they both have permission to be there. When all these conditions are complete and there is damage, the damager is obligated to complete the payment of damage with the best of the land.

הכשרתי במקצת נזקו וכו' – even though I did not arranged it and I repaired everything, I have made myself liable for it, as if I had arranged it such as the case of digging a pit nine [handbreadths] in the public domain and another came and completed it to be ten [handbreadths] and the bull or the ass fell in there and died, the last person is liable even though he had not established other than part of the damages, it is as if he had done all the damage since that the nine [handbreadths] there is no death [penalty].

נכסים שאין בהם מעילה – and upon which property I am liable to pay if I caused damage. On those possessions that lack religious sacrilege, such as property which is not sanctified to the Temple, for if I damaged properties of the Holy things dedicated to the Temple, I am not liable to pay, as it is written, (Exodus 21:35): “[When a man’s ox injures] his neighbor’s ox [and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide its price; they shall also divide the dead animal],” and not the ox that belongs to the Temple. And the same law applies to all the rest of damages.

נכסים של בני ברית – that if he damages the property of the heathen, he is exempt.

נכסים המיוחדים – they have special honors that if he damaged ownerless property, he is exempt.

חוץ מרשות המיוחדת למזיק – in every place where his possessions damaged the property of his fellow, the one who damaged them is liable, except for the special domain of the one who damages. For if the ox of the damaged party enters the domain of the one who damages and the bull of the one who damages caused damage, he is exempt, for he (i.e., the one who theoretically caused damage) says to him (i.e., the one who suffered damage): Your bull was in my domain, what does he need, and specifically if it damaged his possessions. But the one who causes damage itself who injured his fellow, even though he (i..e, the latter) is standing in his domain is liable, for the one who was injured says to him:” assuming that that you have permission to go out and cause damage, you don’t have permission.”

ורשות הניזק והמזיק – and it is a special domain to the one who suffered damage and the one who causes damage such as the courtyard of both of them. For the bull of one of them does damage in the same courtyard with a tooth and foot and is exempt, and this will be in the same courtyard that is set aside for bulls also, but if it was specially for fruit/produce but not for bulls and it damaged with is tooth and/or foot, he liable, and if it damaged with its horn in any matter, he is liable.

"Evaluations are in money and things equal to money, before a court and witnesses etc.. "

שום כסף – this assessment of damages will not be other than with money, so that the Jewish court will assess how much the damage is worthy and he (i.e., the one who caused the damage) will pay him. But if the cow of Reuven damaged the tallit/garment of Shimon as it tread upon it in the domain of the who was damaged and broke it and afterwards it happened that the foot of Reuven’s cow was broken by the garment of Shimon in the public domain and it was also a pit in the public domain, we don’t say that since this one did damage and the other one did damage, this one’s damage was excluded by the damage of the other, but they assess the two damages monetarily – and the one who damaged his fellow more pays.

Introduction The third mishnah of Bava Kamma continues to give us introductory information to the general laws of damages which will be learned throughout the tractate. The previous mishnahs dealt with the causes of injury (mishnah one) and the type of property for which one would be liable if damaged (mishnah two). Mishnah three basically deals with the judiciary procedure through with the damages will be assessed.

That since we brought up these instances of damage with the conditions where a man is obligated to pay for all the damages caused by his possessions, and now (the Mishnah) begins to explain how to make payment and says that evaluation of damages should be made in money, and we don’t say take out from this thing (that damaged), for example, if an ox eats fruits we do not say to the owner of the fruits to take out from the ox the portion which he ate for yourself, rather, we assess what he ate for himself in money and we force the owner of the ox to pay.

שוה כסף – and when they come to pay the damages from the property of the orphans and they do not collect other than land that has monetary value and not from movables which are themselves money. And all movable things are considered as if it is money, for if he doesn’t sell it here, he will sell it in another town.

1. Assessment [of injury] in money or things worth money must be made before a court of law and by witnesses that are free and Children of the Covenant (Jews). 2. Women may be parties in [suits concerning] injury. 3. The injured and the injurer [in certain cases may share] in the compensation. 1. The first clause of the mishnah deals with assessing both the monetary amount of the damages and the monetary evaluation of the payment that the injurer will give to the injured party. For instance, if my ox gores your ox and your ox dies, we need to go to the court to assess two things: 1) how much your ox was worth, 2) how big of a piece of land must I give you in order to compensate you for your loss. These assessments must be done in front of a court, which according to Jewish law must have three judges. The witnesses who testify in cases involving the laws of damages must be free and Jewish. 2. The second clause of the mishnah states that with regards to damage law, men and women are equal. This means that if a man or his property damages a woman or her property, or a woman or her property damages a man or his property, in all cases we judge according to the same law. Perhaps the reason why the mishnah feels the necessity to state this law is that the Torah uses the word “ish”, man, in many of the verses concerning damage law (Exodus 21:33, 35, 37, Exodus 22:4, 6, 9, 13). One may have explained that according to the Torah only men’s damages are considered to be important. The mishnah states the opposite, that women are also a part of damage law (see also Exodus 21:28). 3. The final clause of the mishnah refers to the case of “half damages”. When an ox that is not known to gore gores another ox, the owner of the goring ox is only obligated for half damages, since his ox was not known to be a “goring ox”. In this case it is as if the injurer pays half for the dead ox and the injured also pays half.

And that it says ‘an equivalence of money’ implies that since the court does not say to pay for damages for one who inherits (literally 'orphans') a liability except from land, not from that which is movable, since movable things are themselves money. And says that since they don’t confiscate except what is equivalent to money, which is land, and this law applies specifically to inheritors. However if the damager himself pays his portion that he damaged from moveable objects, the hand of the court will be removed from his land.

בפני ב"ד – for the assessment and the payment of damages do not take place other than in from of a Jewish court of experts, and not before a Jewish court of lay persons.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why must property evaluation be done in front of the court? Why can’t people just come to an agreement?
• We have seen now in several mishnahs that damage laws as described in the Torah and in the mishnah apply only to free Jews? Why do you think this is so?

And that evaluation and payment will not be made except in a court of experts and not laymen. And with witnesses that are free men and jewish but not the testimony of slaves or gentiles, that it was necessary to exclude them, because it may arise in your mind to give in and be lenient in testimony for damages, because it happens a lot, and it is rare that there happens to be upon them at the time kosher witnesses, that since collisions between people and between animals mostly happen in the presence of simple people and slaves and gentiles. Therefore it lets us know that we only accept in court kosher witnesses as we say with other testimony.

ועל פי עדים בני חורין ובני ברית – to exclude salves and idolaters who are not fit for serving as witnesses of damages.

And there is no distinction between men and women in damages whether she damages or gets damaged.

והנשים בכלל הנזק – whether she caused damages to others or whether others caused damage to her, the claim of a man and the claim of a woman are equivalent in damages.

And what we say that the damagee and the damager share in payment allude to matters where they are obligated in half damages as will be explained that the damager pays half the damage and the damagee will lose half, and this half also will not happen except when full damages apply, implying with witnesses and a court of experts and the possessions of jews and the rest of the conditions, apart from what we said with the best of the land because this is not fitting for half damages as will be explained.

הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין – sometimes that one who suffered damage belongs with the one who causes damages in payments of the one who suffered damage, such as if the worth of the carrion became less from the time that it died until the time that it was brought to justice, for the lessened [value] of the carrion belonged to the one who suffered damage whether it was an innocuous animal or one whose owner had been warned after it committed damage (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4), and it is found that the one who did damage does not pay him even the one-half damages that the Torah made him worthy of if the animal was innocuous, or full damages if it was a warned animal, for the one who suffered damages loses money and is attached to these damages as is the one who causes the damage.

"5 Simple ones and 5 Accustomed ones, an animal is not Accustomed etc... "

חמשה תמין – that are not accustomed to cause damage, and if they do cause damage, they pay one-half the damage.

Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings.
The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger.
What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and.
This mishnah introduces us to an extremely important concept in Mishnaic damage law, that is the difference between agents of damage which are likely to damage and those that are not likely to damage. The first are called “muad”, warned or attested danger and the second are called “tam”, innocent, or usually harmless. We will continue to talk about these concepts as we proceed to learn Bava Kamma. The major difference between these two types of agents of damage is that a person is obligated for full restitution on the first type and only half restitution for damages done by the second type. The idea lying behind this concept is that a person who owns, for instance, an animal that is likely to cause a certain type of damage should be aware of this and therefore guard the animal more carefully. The Torah already speaks of this concept in Exodus 21:29 with regards to the ox that is known to gore.
The mishnah lists various types of damaging agents and categorizes them all into things which are likely to cause damage and things that are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, the beginning mishnah distinguishes between different activities of a domesticated animal, some of which the animal is likely to do and some that it is unlikely to do. For instance, a normal cow is unlikely to kick and therefore if it causes damage by doing so, the owner is only obligated half damages (section 1a). However, the cow is likely to trample on things over which it walks(section 1c), and therefore if it damages in this manner, the owner is obligated for full restitution. Wild animals are always likely to damage (section 2) and therefore if one owns a wild animal he will be obligated for full restitution for any damage the animal might cause. Human beings (section 1f) who cause damage are always obligated full restitution.
Section 3 explains the two differences between harmless and attested agents of damage. The first I already explained in the introduction. The second difference is that if the owner of a harmless agent of damage becomes obligated to pay damages, he must only make restitution up to the value of the animal that caused the injury. For instance if my cow that is worth 1000 dollars should kick you, thereby breaking your 5000 dollar Rolex diamond and gold watch, I am only obligated to pay 1000 dollars. Even though half damages are 2500 dollars I cannot be obligated more than the total value of the cow that caused the injury. Kicking is not an attested form of damage, at least for a cow. However, if my cow were to do the same action, however this time on your property, I would have to pay the full 5000 dollars (see section 1e).
For further explanation of the concepts of “tam” and “muad” see the Steinsaltz Reference Guide, pages 212 and 272. One can also find entries there for “shen” (tooth), page 268, “shor” (ox), page 264), regel (leg), page 257, and “adam muad laolam” a person is always an attested danger), page 158. The concepts of “hezi nezek” (half damages), page 193 and “nezek shalem” (full damages), page 228, are explained there as well,. Again, we will continue to learn these concepts as we proceed.

What is the difference between Simple and Accustomed? Etc...

וחמשה מועדין – the are accustomed to cause damage and pay full damages.

It's called Simple the thing that does not damage regularly and it's not its way that there should come from it specifically damage rather it happened as happenstance. And it's called Accustomed this thing which regularly comes from it this action, always or most of the time. And goring will only be with the horn, and butting will be with whatever limb it happens to be from the limbs of the body.

לא ליגף – with the horn.

The Accustomed ox that is said about it that the owner had been warned etc.. that it gores typically.

ולא ליגוף – pushing the entire body and all of them are derivatives of the “horn” and they (i.e., the owners) pay half-damages. These are the five innocuous actions of animals.

And what that it says the ox that damages in the domain of the damagee, it is the opinion of those that hold [that] even the Simple in the domain of the damaged pays the full damage and this law is akin to the law of Accustomed. And further it's explained that the law is not like this.

ושור המועד – three times to gore or to push or lie down or kick or bite these are the five actions of animals whose owners have been warned who have to pay full damages, and concerning a warned animal, each one is considered one [kind of damage].

And this Mishnah is lacking, and the language should be completed to say thus- There are 5 Simple from the beginning, and if warned, they are accustomed Accustomed, and Tooth and Legs are Accustomed from the outset, and there are other Accustomed ones just like them, they are the wolf etc...

ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק – even a horn of an innocuous animal, for an owner warned about its animal pays full damages and our Mishnah brings according to the one who states that the corner of the courtyard of the one who suffers damages as he pays full damages, and even if the animal is innocuous. But the Halakha is not like this.

And why it was not necessary to count out all of them and say there are 11 Accustomed is since it is uncommon that it happens in a settlement, all the more so it's not seen in a city.

והאדם – is considered warned from his beginning, also and pays full damages if he caused damages (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 6).

And the panther is the animal which is called in the Arabic language eltzva

[הזאב] והארי וכו'- their owners are considered as warned from their beginnings, and they are not considered as within the five kinds of damages listed above so that there are eleven animals considered as warned because these do not belong in society.

And what that it says from the best implies from the best of his possessions and the choicest from them. Similarly it's said that the damage is assessed for them with the best fields.

ברדלס – a beast that we call in Arabic “Eltzabah.”

And the halakah is not like R Eliezer.

רבי אליעזר אומר וכו' – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

מן העליה – from the best of his property, and even if the goring is not worth the measure of the damage of the “warned” animal (as it is written (Exodus 21:36): “[and its owner has failed to guard it] he must restore ox for ox”, but it is not written there “that from the body of the goring animal, he will be paid.”