Halakhah for Bava Kamma 168:4

אמרי שור בשור ושור באדם נמי לא קים לן בגויה אלא פוק חזי היכא מזדבני תורא בשוקא אדם באדם ואדם בשור נמי פוק חזי היכא מזדבני עבדי בשוקא

— It may, however, be said that we act as their agents only in regard to a matter of payment which we can fix definitely, whereas in a matter of payment which we are not able to fix definitely [but which requires valuation] we do not act as their agents. But I might object that [payment for damage done] to chattel by Cattle or to chattel by Man we are similarly not able to fix definitely, but we have to say, 'Go out and see at what price an ox is sold on the market place.' Why then in the case of man [injured] by Man, or man [injured] by Cattle should you not similarly say, 'Go out and see at what price slaves are sold on the market place'? Moreover, why in the case of double payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For theft. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>

Sefer HaChinukh

Its laws are, for example, what are the places in which one is liable for the tooth and the foot and what are the ones in which one is not liable for them (Bava Kamma 24b); the difference in the law if it eats what is fitting for it to eat or it eats something not fitting, and so [too,] that which is fitting under duress - for example a cow that ate barley, a donkey that ate vetch or fish, a pig that ate meat, a dog that licked oil or a cat that ate dates - that if it derived benefit, it pays according to what it benefited. And the rest of its details - are in Gittin and in [Bava] Kamma. And there in the chapter [entitled] Hachovel (Bava Kamma 84b), they said that that which Rava said that we collect, with an ox against an ox, for the tooth or the foot, is with those that are muad from the beginning (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat 399-406).

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse