Tout ce que je suis obligé de garder, j'en ai fait les dommages, [c'est-à-dire, si je ne l'ai pas bien protégé et qu'il a causé des dommages, c'est moi qui ai effectué et «préparé» ce dommage, et j'en suis responsable. Si quelqu'un, par exemple, donne son bœuf à un sourd-muet, à un imbécile ou à un mineur (et que cela cause des dommages), il en est responsable, car la garde de son bœuf lui incombe, et il ne l'a pas gardé. correctement.] Si j'ai effectué une partie de ses dommages, [même si je n'ai pas «préparé» le tout], je suis redevable du paiement comme si j'avais effectué le tout, [comme quand on creusait une fosse neuf tefachim (mains) dans le domaine public et un autre sont venus et l'ont complété à dix, et un bœuf ou un âne y est tombé et est mort, auquel cas le completer est responsable. Car s'il n'a préparé qu'une partie du dommage, c'est comme s'il avait effectué le tout, il n'y a pas eu de mort dans neuf ans.] [Et quels biens suis-je redevable si je les endommage?] Des biens qui ne me sont pas soumis ». ilah (profanation), [c.-à-d. propriété non-Temple. Car si j'endommage hekdesh (propriété du Temple), je ne suis pas responsable, il est écrit (Exode 21:35): "le bœuf de son prochain"—et non le bœuf de hekdesh. Il en va de même pour tous les autres dommages.], Propriété des «enfants de l'alliance» [Si un bien endommagé d'un gentil, il en est exempt.], Propriété distinctive, [c'est-à-dire propriété qui a des propriétaires distinctifs. S'il a endommagé la propriété de hefker (propriété sans propriétaire), il n'est pas responsable.] [Partout où ce qui appartient à un homme endommage ce qui appartient à son voisin, le mazik est responsable] sauf (dans) le domaine qui est exclusivement celui du mazik, [de sorte que si le bœuf du nizak (celui qui a été endommagé) est entré dans le domaine du mazik et que le bœuf du mazik l'a blessé, le mazik n'est pas responsable; car il peut lui dire: "Que fait ton bœuf dans ma propriété!" Ceci, seulement lorsque ses possessions (celles du mazik) ont causé le dommage; mais si le mazik lui-même a blessé son voisin, bien qu'il (ce dernier) se trouve dans son domaine (le mazik), il est responsable. Car le nizak peut lui dire: "Certes, vous avez le droit de m'éjecter, mais vous n'avez pas le droit de me blesser."], Et (sauf dans) le domaine [qui est distinctement celui] du nizak et du mazik [ c'est-à-dire, dans une cour appartenant aux deux, si le bœuf de l'un d'eux est endommagé par shen ou regel, il (le propriétaire) n'est pas responsable. Ceci, si cette cour est également réservée aux bœufs. Mais s'il a été mis de côté pour les fruits et non pour les bœufs, et s'il a été endommagé par shen ou regel, il est responsable. Et si elle a été endommagée par keren, il est responsable en tout état de cause.] Et si elle a causé des dommages, le mazik doit payer les dommages avec le meilleur de sa propriété.
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
"All that I am obligated to guard, I have enabled its damage etc... "
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
כל שחבתי בשמירתו וכו' – everything that I became obligated to guard.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
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!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
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’.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
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?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
נכסים של בני ברית – that if he damages the property of the heathen, he is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
נכסים המיוחדים – they have special honors that if he damaged ownerless property, he is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
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.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
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.
