Se lo ha lasciato al sole o lo ha dato a un sordomuto, imbecille o minore, e si è spento e ha causato danni, è responsabile. [("Se lo ha lasciato al sole" :) Il sole lo affligge, quindi non è sufficiente una "corretta chiusura" con una porta in grado di resistere a un vento normale.] Se lo ha dato a un pastore, il pastore si alza al suo posto. [E non diciamo in tal caso che "un guardiano che dà (la sua carica) a un altro guardiano è responsabile". Perché è consuetudine che un guardiano anziano dia (il suo incarico) al suo minore, per questo motivo quest'ultimo è responsabile.] Se cadde in un giardino e ne ricava un beneficio, paga il (importo del) beneficio derivato. [("Se è caduto in un giardino" :) Come quando è scivolato e è caduto, ma se è stato spinto giù (nel giardino) dalle altre pecore, paga ciò che ha danneggiato, il proprietario è stato abbandonato per non aver guidato loro singolo file. ("il beneficio deriva" :) ciò che ha beneficiato (mangiando) e non ciò che ha danneggiato.] Se è andato giù come è stato e non è danneggiato, paga ciò che ha danneggiato. Come paga ciò che ha danneggiato? Un beth sa'ah (cinquanta per cinquanta cubiti) viene valutato in quel campo—quanto valeva e quanto vale. [Il solco non è valutato in sé. Poiché il mazik avrebbe perso, il solco sarebbe stato valutato al suo pieno valore (mentre la Scrittura afferma (Esodo 22: 4): "E mangia nel campo di un altro", che è spiegato: i danni sono stimati sulla base di un altro campo. ) Piuttosto, un beth sa'ah viene valutato in quel campo—quanto valeva prima che questo solco fosse consumato e quanto vale ora, in modo che il mazik non paghi ora l'intero valore del solco. Per chi compra un beth sa'ah con i suoi prodotti paga solo un po 'meno se manca un solco.] R. Shimon dice: Se ha mangiato frutta finita, paga (il valore di) frutta finita—se una sa'ah, una sa'ah; se due sa'ah, due sa'ah. [Se ha mangiato frutta finita e completamente matura, paga l'intero nezek. Quando lo valutiamo sulla base del campo? Quando il frutto non è ancora finito. L'halachah è conforme a R. Shimon.]
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
if he left it in the sun (typo in sefaria ... be chama not behema) or if he gave it to a deaf mute, an imbecile, or a child ....
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
הניחה בחמה – the sun hurts her and it is not sufficient for her closing properly for it is in a door where she is able to stand only in an ordinary wind.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
Two If he left the flock in the sun, or he delivered it to the care of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor, and it came out and caused damage, he is liable. If he delivered it to a shepherd, the shepherd takes the place of the owner. If the flock fell into a garden and derived any benefit, he pays for the benefit. If the flock went down [into the garden] in its usual way and caused damage, he must pay for the damage it caused. How does he pay for the damage it caused? They assess what a seah’s space of ground in that field was worth before and what it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they consumed fully grown produce he must repay with fully grown produce; if they destroyed on seah he must repay one seah, if two seah, two seahs. Section one deals mostly with the owner of the flock turning his flock over to another person. If he should turn it over to someone who cannot take proper responsibility for the flock, he will still be liable for damages. However, if he turns it over to a shepherd, the shepherd now becomes liable for any subsequent damages. In the beginning of the mishnah we additionally learn that if he leaves the flock in the hot sun and they break out, he is liable, even if he properly enclosed them. Leaving animals in the sun, where they will overheat, will drive them to go crazy and break out. Since he should have anticipated the consequences, he is liable. Section two deals with a flock that entered a garden and ate the produce. If the flock fell into the garden, the owner is not liable for damages because it was an unavoidable accident. (Note, that in Israel crops are often grown on the sides of hills. Falling into a garden is not, therefore, an unlikely circumstance.) In this case he will be liable to pay only for what the animal benefited. (See Bava Kamma 2:2 for a definition of this assessment). If, however, the flock entered the garden in a normal fashion, he is obligated to pay for actual damages, which will be a higher payment. Section three contains a dispute on how to assess payment for crop damages. According to the first opinion one estimates how much an area of the field that could grow a seah was worth before the flock ate the row of crops and how much it was worth after. The difference is the damage payment. Rabbi Shimon holds that we assess damages based on the crops actually eaten. His assessment will certainly be higher than the assessment based on the previous opinion.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
It is the way of shepards that there is to them helpers under their hand, they will give over to them flocks of sheep to guard them. And it says also that when the main shepard gives over to the other shepards who are under his hand, they enter in his place and when it damages, he will be obligated in the damage- the second shepard which is under the main shepard, and not the first shepard that is the main shepard. And we do not say in this case a guardian who gives over to a guardian is obligated, because the customs of shepards is as such.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
And the topic of it falling, for example, he trips on a stone or a tree and falls, but that when it pushed some of the sheep to some others and they fall and damage, he pays what they damaged, that this was the cause of the damage... that when he passed them all at one time and their way is that some push others, and it would have been appropriate to pass them one by one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
נפלה לגינה – as in the case when she slipped and fell in by accident. But if her “friends” pushed her and caused her to abort [her fetus] he (i.e., the owner) pays what she damaged for she was negligent in it and he should have passed through one at a time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
We have already explained in the second chapter how it is the law of what we said that it pays what it benefited from. And the idea of the evaluation for that which it damaged in this way. And it is that we will know the amount of the field, we say how much is the value of the plantings of a 60 cubits field from these vegetables or these fruits. And once we know that value, after this we will say how much is the value () of this portion from the field that has in it 60 cubits of this type of seed, and this cubit that the animil ate which sprouted from the group of 60 cubits and we know what is the difference between the two evaluations and he will pay the damages. And similarly whatever amount the animal eats will be evaluated in 60 parts like that (ie if he ate 1 pound we evaluate as a field with 60 pounds), and this is the principle which we said 'in that field' (in the mishnah) means to say if he ate a Seah it will be evaluated with 60 Seahs in that (type of) field. And there is an allusion to what is said by God (in the torah) "and it will eat in the field of another" and we learn based on a tradition that it teaches we evaluate as a portion of a different field. And this law is in order to make a compromise between the damagee and the damager, because if we were to say, "how much is the value of a an amah that he ate of sprouted fruit" He would obligagted in a lot of money, and if we said also how much this field is worth with this seed as such and such Seahs(ie the actual field- which is generally much larger than 60 Seahs). And we'll say afterwards how much is it worth after it was eaten from it 1 cubit it comes out that it will be the difference between the 2 amounts- a very small amount- because there is not an amount to the purchaser that is 1 cubit in a thousand is not comparable to the amount of 1 in 60 cubits. And thus they calculated this as a 60th, just like most amounts by us are a 60th as is explained in tractate Chulin.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
מה שנהנית – according to her pleasure and not according to her damage.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
And Rebbe Shimon says that this law is concerning fruits that needs the field to complete ripening. And this is why we evaluate as part of the filed as we have explained. However complete fruit their law is as if they are detached, and they will not be evaluated except for the amount what it ate alone. And the law is like Rebbe Shimon.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
שמין בית סאה באותה שדה – we do not estimate the garden bed alone because the damage causes loss when we estimate it according to its value, and the All-Merciful stated (Exodus 22:4): “[When a man lets his livestock loose] to graze in another’s land,” and we expound that it teaches that we estimate it on top of another field, but we estimate a Bet-Seah ( 2500 square cubits or 50 cubits square) in that field how much it was worth before the garden bed was eaten from how much it is worth now. But now, he does not pay all of its monetary value, for whomever purchases a Bet Seah when it is with its grain does not despise it for the loss of one garden bed for it is a small amount.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
ר' שמעון אומר אכלה פירות גמורים – for already they ripened fully – she (i.e., the owner of the animal) pays all the damages. But where we estimate on account of a field where it had not yet fully where it had not fully ripened. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.
