Bava Kamma 110

מתני׳ <big><strong>הכונס</strong></big> צאן לדיר ונעל בפניה כראוי ויצאה והזיקה פטור לא נעל בפניה כראוי ויצאה והזיקה חייב

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN BRINGS SHEEP INTO A SHED AND LOCKS THE DOOR IN FRONT OF THEM PROPERLY, BUT THE SHEEP [NEVERTHELESS] GET OUT AND DO DAMAGE, HE IS NOT LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he is not to blame. ');">¹</span> IF, HOWEVER, HE DOES NOT LOCK THE DOOR IN FRONT OF THEM PROPERLY, HE IS LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he did not discharge his duty of guarding his cattle. ');">²</span>

נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים ויצאה והזיקה פטור הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין

IF [THE WALL] BROKE DOWN AT NIGHT, OR IF ROBBERS BROKE IN, AND THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sheep. ');">³</span> GOT OUT AND DID DAMAGE, HE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE. IF [HOWEVER] ROBBERS TOOK THEM OUT [FROM THE SHED AND LEFT THEM AT LARGE AND THEY DID DAMAGE] THE ROBBERS WOULD BE LIABLE [FOR THE DAMAGE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Done by the sheep, since they have come into the possession of the robbers, who have thus become liable to control them. ');">⁴</span>

הניחה בחמה או שמסרה לחרש שוטה וקטן ויצאה והזיקה חייב

BUT IF THE OWNER HAD LEFT THEM IN A SUNNY PLACE, OR HE HAD HANDED A MINOR, AND THEY GOT AWAY AND DID DAMAGE, HE HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT, HE WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Done by the sheep, since they have come into the possession of the robbers, who have thus become liable to control them. ');">⁴</span> IF HE HAD HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A SHEPHERD, THE SHEPHERD WOULD HAVE ENTERED [INTO ALL RESPONSIBILITIES] INSTEAD OF HIM. IF A SHEEP [ACCIDENTALLY] FELL INTO A GARDEN AND DERIVED BENEFIT [FROM THE FRUIT THERE], PAYMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to the extent of the actual damage: cf. supra 19b. ');">⁵</span>

מסרה לרועה נכנס הרועה תחתיו

WHEREAS IF IT HAD GONE DOWN THERE IN THE USUAL WAY AND DONE DAMAGE, THE PAYMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGE DONE BY IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the law of Tooth. ');">⁶</span> HOW IS PAYMENT MADE FOR THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE DONE BY IT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the law of Tooth. ');">⁶</span>

נפלה לגינה ונהנית משלמת מה שנהנית ירדה כדרכה והזיקה משלמת מה שהזיקה כיצד משלמת מה שהזיקה שמין בית סאה באותה שדה כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה

BY COMPARING THE VALUE OF AN AREA IN THAT FIELD REQUIRING ONE <i>SE'AH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁷</span> [OF SEED] AS IT WAS [PREVIOUSLY] WITH WHAT ITS WORTH IS [NOW]. R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: IF IT CONSUMED RIPE FRUITS THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR RIPE FRUITS; IF ONE <i>SE'AH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

ר' שמעון אומר אכלה פירות גמורים משלמת פירות גמורים אם סאה סאה אם סאתים סאתים:

[IT WOULD BE FOR] ONE <i>SE'AH</i>, IF TWO SE'AHS [FOR] TWO SE'AHS. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: What is denominated 'properly' and what is not 'properly'? — If the door was able to stand against a normal wind,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though unable to withstand an extraordinary wind. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר איזהו כראוי ואיזהו שלא כראוי דלת שיכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה זהו כראוי שאינה יכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה זהו שלא כראוי

it would be 'properly', but if the door could not stand against a normal wind, that would be 'not properly'. R. Manni b. Pattish thereupon said: Who can be the Tanna [who holds] that in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case with Tooth and Foot. ');">¹⁰</span> even inadequate precaution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a door able to withstand a normal wind. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר מני בר פטיש מאן תנא מועד דסגי ליה בשמירה פחותה ר"י היא דתנן קשרו בעליו במוסירה ונעל לפניו כראוי ויצא והזיק אחד תם ואחד מועד חייב דברי ר"מ

suffices [to confer exemption]? It is R. Judah. For we have learnt: If the owner fastened his ox [to the wall inside the stable] with a cord or shut the door in front of it properly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Withstanding a normal wind. ');">¹²</span> and the ox got out and did damage, whether it was <i>Tam</i> or already <i>Mu'ad</i>, he would be liable; so R. Meir. R. Judah, however, says: In the case of <i>Tam</i> he would be liable, but in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> exempt, for it is written, And his owner hath not kept him in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 36. ');">¹³</span>

ר' יהודה אומר תם חייב מועד פטור שנאמר (שמות כא, לו) ולא ישמרנו בעליו ושמור הוא זה ר"א אומר אין לו שמירה אלא סכין

[thus excluding this case where] it was kept in. R. Eliezer, however, says: No precaution is adequate [for <i>Mu'ad</i>] save the [slaughter] knife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 45b. ');">¹⁴</span> [But does not an anonymous Mishnah usually follow the view of R. Meir?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom precaution of a lesser degree would not suffice. ');">¹⁵</span>

אפילו תימא ר"מ שאני שן ורגל דהתורה מיעטה בשמירתן דאמר ר' אלעזר ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא ארבעה דברים התורה מיעטה בשמירתן ואלו הן בור ואש שן ורגל

— We may even say that it is in accordance with R. Meir, for Tooth and Foot are different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Horn. ');">¹⁶</span> [in this respect], since the Torah required a lesser degree of precaution in their case as stated by R. Eleazar, or, according to others, as stated in a Baraitha: There are four cases [of damage] where the Torah requires a lesser degree of precaution. They are these: Pit and Fire, Tooth and Foot. Pit as it is written, And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33. ');">¹⁷</span>

בור דכתיב (שמות כא, לג) כי יפתח איש בור או כי יכרה איש בור ולא יכסנו הא כסהו פטור

implying that if he covered it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he did not fill it with sand. ');">¹⁸</span> he would he exempt. Fire, as it is written, He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 5. ');">¹⁹</span>

אש דכתיב (שמות כב, ה) שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה עד דעביד כעין מבעיר

[that is to say] only where he acted [culpably], as by actually kindling the fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not where any precaution has been taken. ');">²⁰</span> Tooth, as it is written, And he shall send forth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">²¹</span>

שן דכתיב (שמות כב, ד) ובער בשדה אחר עד דעביד כעין ובער

[that is to say] only where he acted [wrongly] as by actually sending it forth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not where any precaution has been taken. ');">²⁰</span> It was [further] taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 2b. ');">²²</span>

רגל דכתיב ושלח עד דעביד כעין ושלח

'And he shall send forth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">²³</span> denotes Foot, as in the similar expression, That send forth the foot of the ox and the ass;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XXXII, 20. ');">²⁴</span>

ותניא ושלח זה הרגל וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו לב, כ) משלחי רגל השור והחמור ובער זה השן וכן הוא אומר (מלכים א יד, י) כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו

And it shall consume denotes 'Tooth',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">²³</span> as in the similar expression, As the tooth consumeth to entirety.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XIV, 10. ');">²⁵</span>

טעמא דעביד כעין ושלח ובער הא לא עביד לא

This is so only for the reason that he acted [culpably] as by actually sending it forth or feeding it there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1. ');">²⁶</span> whereas where he did not act [in such a manner] this would not be so. Rabbah said: The text of the Mishnah also corroborates [this view]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the distinction between Tooth and Horn. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר רבה מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני צאן מכדי בשור קא עסקינן ואתי ניתני שור מאי שנא דקתני צאן לאו משום דהתורה מיעטה בשמירתן

by taking here the case of sheep. For have we not been dealing all along [so far] with an 'ox'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not with sheep. ');">²⁸</span> Why then not say [here also] 'ox'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which as a rule stands for Horn. ');">²⁹</span>

לאו משום דכאן קרן לא כתיבא בה שן ורגל הוא דכתיב ביה וקמ"ל דשן ורגל דמועדין הוא ש"מ:

What special reason was there for taking here SHEEP?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which damages by Tooth and Foot. ');">³⁰</span> Is it not because the Torah required a lesser degree of precaution in their case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. in Tooth and Foot. ');">³¹</span>

תניא אמר ר' יהושע ארבעה דברים העושה אותן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים ואלו הן הפורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו והכופף קמתו של חבירו בפני הדליקה והשוכר עדי שקר להעיד והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו:

on account of the fact that it is not Horn that is dealt with here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. reads 'sheep'. Render accordingly: Because as to sheep there is no mention (in the Torah) in connection with Horn; only Tooth and Foot are mentioned in connection therewith.] ');">³²</span> but Tooth and Foot that are dealt with here? It is thus indicated to us that [this kind of precaution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would withstand only a normal wind. ');">³³</span>

אמר מר הפורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו ה"ד אילימא בכותל בריא בדיני אדם נמי ניחייב אלא

is] only in the case of Tooth and Foot which are <i>Mu'ad</i> [ab initio]; and this may be regarded as proved. It was taught: R. Joshua said: There are four acts for which the offender is exempt from the judgments of Man but liable to the judgments of Heaven. They are these: To break down a fence in front of a neighbour's animal [so that it gets out and does damage];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion later. ');">³⁴</span> to bend over a neighbour's standing corn in front of a fire;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion later. ');">³⁴</span> to hire false witnesses to give evidence; and to know of evidence in favour of another and not to testify on his behalf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef., Shebu. III. ');">³⁵</span> The Master stated: 'To break down a fence in front of a neighbour's animal.' Under what circumstances? If we assume that the wall was sound, why should the offender not be liable even according to the judgments of Man [at least for the damage done to the wall]? — It must therefore be