Commento su Bava Qamma 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:

In che modo regel è un muad? [vale a dire, rispetto a ciò che è regel un muad?] rispetto a rompere [navi] mentre cammina. La bestia è un muad da camminare come è il suo solito e da rompere. [La prima parte parla di avoth— regel di per sé —camminare con il piede. E la seconda parte parla di telloth, una bestia che cammina come è la sua consuetudine e spezza le cose con il suo corpo, attraverso (intreccio tra i suoi capelli) o con lo shalif che è su di esso (vedi 1: 1) mentre cammina.] Se ha preso a calci [Questo è uno shinui (una deviazione dalla norma) e un tellah di keren, per cui lui (il proprietario) paga mezzo nezek e non di più], o se ciottoli (tzroroth) spuntano da sotto le sue gambe [ (Anche se questo non è uno shinui, ma la norma, comunque, paga un mezzo nezek e non di più, essendo un halachah per Mosè sul Sinai. E questo, in un dominio privato, perché nel dominio pubblico è esente , poiché tzroroth è un tellah di regel, e quindi, esente di dominio pubblico.)], e ha rotto le navi, paga un mezzo nezek. Se calpestò una nave e la spezzò, e (frammenti di essa) cadde su una (seconda) nave e la spezzò—per il primo paga un nezek completo, e per il secondo un mezzo nezek. [Il primo è un nezek di regel, per cui paga un nezek completo, e il secondo, rompendo di tzroroth, paga un mezzo nezek.] I polli sono muadin a camminare come fanno i loro desideri e a rompersi. Se il dalil fosse attaccato alla sua gamba [(Tutto ciò che si attacca al piede di un pollo è chiamato "dalil". Alcuni lo leggono come "d'li" (un secchio)], o se fosse mehadess ["ballando" (Altri spiegano come scavando nella terra con i suoi artigli alla maniera dei polli)], e ha rotto i vasi, paga un mezzo nezek. [Perché "il dalil" è tzroroth. Perché con quel dalil si lancia tzroroth su una nave. E nasconde , pure— come quando ha lanciato tzroroth, che ha rotto le navi.]

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

Capitolo completo Versetto successivo