Comentário sobre Baba Kamma 1:4

"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.”