meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Bava Kamma
  משנה בבא קמא
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Bava Kamma
  
  
  
  
  
  [There are] four categories of damages: The ox, the pit, the grazer, and the fire.  The [characteristics] of the ox are not similar to the [characteristics] of the grazer.  And the [characteristics] of the grazer are not similar to the [characteristics] of the ox.  Nor are either of these, which have a living spirit, similar to the fire, which has no living spirit.  Nor are any of these, which move and do damage, similar to the pit, which does not move and does damage.  What is common among them is that they do damage, and the responsibility for their supervision is upon you. And when they do damage, the damager must pay from the best of the land.
  Once I have accepted the duty of care for a thing, I have prepared the way for its causation of damage.  Once I have partially prepared the way for its causation of damage, I have accepted monetary liability for damages as if I had prepared the way for the entirely of its causation of damage.  In cases of things that cause damage to properties not covered by sacrilege laws, properties which belong to members of the Covenant, owned properties, and properties located outside the private domain of the defendant or the shared private domain of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant must pay the monetary judgement for damages from the best land.
  Assessment of monetary liability and monetary equivalence takes place before a constituted court and with the agreement of witnesses who are free men and members of the covenant.  And women are equal with regard to damages.  And the plaintiff and the defendant may share in the proceeds of sale.
  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 guardian). 
  
  
  
  In which cases is a foot [considered] warned about breaking caused by normal walking? An animal is [considered] warned to walk normally and to break [things]. If it kicks or pebbles are scattered from under its feet and and it breaks vessels, [the owner] pays half the damage. If it stepped on a vessel and broke it, and [then] it fell on a vessel and broke it, for the first [vessel] he pays full damage, and for the last [vessel] he pays half the damage. Chickens are [considered] warned to walk normally and to break. If a bucket was tied to its foot, or if it hopped and broke vessels, he pays half the damage.
  In what way is the category of "tooth" presumed to be dangerous? It is expected to eat what is fit for it.  An animal is presumed to eat fruits and vegetables.  If it eats clothing or utensils [various items], the owner must pay half the damages.  In what context is this true? - in the domain of the damaged.  However, if it happened in the public domain, the owner would be exempt; except, that is, for the amount of money the owner has now saved in feed cost for the animal, which he should pay back to the damaged party.  When is this true? - If the animal ate in the middle of the street, then only that which the owner saved in food-costs need be paid back.  But if the animal ate from the side of the street, then the owner must pay full damages.  If the animal ate from the entrance of a store, then only that which the owner saved in food-costs need be paid back.  But if the animal ate from the store itself, then the owner must pay full damages.
  If a dog or a goat jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels, [the owner] pays full damages because they are Muad. If a dog took a cake (ie. with hot coals sticking to it), went to a pile of grain, and he ate the cake and the grain caught on fire, [the owner] is required to pay full damages for the cake and half the damage for the grain.
  What animal is considered "tam" (presumed - innocent), and what animal is considered "muad" (presumed - damaging)?  An animal becomes "muad" once witnesses testify that it gored for three days, and it returns to "tam" after it goes three days without goring - these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.  Rabbi Meir says, an animal becomes "muad" once witnesses testify that it gored three separate times.  It returns to its "tam" state once children have played with it and it doesn't gore them.
  How is the penalty assessed for an ox that damages while on the private domain of the damaged party? If the ox gores, pushes, bites, crouches, [or] kicks (all these are later classified as similar to "horn", i.e., damage caused through unusual behavior) -- in the public domain, he [the owner] pays half damages.   In the domain of the damaged party, Rabbi Tarfon says [the owner pays] full damages, while The Sages say, [the owner pays] half-damages.  Rabbi Tarfon said to them [using a fortiori reasoning], in a case where we are lenient with respect to "tooth" and "leg" [damages caused by normal behavior] in the public domain, where he [the owner] is completely exempt, we are strict regarding the private domain of the damaged party, [requiring the owner] to pay full damages. In a case where we are strict with "horn" damage [damage from unusual behavior, as described above] in the public domain, [requiring the owner] to pay half-damages, isn't it logical [a fortiori] that we should be strict with him in the domain of the injured party to pay full damages?  They [The Sages] said to him [Rabbi Tarfon], it is enough that a law derived from an a fortiori argument be established similar to the case from which the inference is drawn [i.e., the derived principle cannot be more strict than the base case]. Just as in the public domain [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damages, so too in the domain of the damaged party [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damage.  He [Rabbi Tarfon] said to them [The Sages], I will not derive "horn" [damage] from "horn" damage, I will derive "horn" damage from "leg" damage. In a case where we are lenient with respect to "tooth" and "leg" [damages caused by normal behavior] in the public domain [where the owner is exempt], we are strict with regard to "horn" damage [where the owner pays half-damages]. [By a fortiori reasoning] in the case where we are strict with regard to "tooth" and "leg", [namely] in the domain of the damaged party, isn't it logical that we should be strict[er] with regard to "horn" [and require payment of full damages]?  They [The Sages] said to him [R Tarfon], it is enough that a law derived from an a fortiori argument be established similar to the case from which the inference is drawn. Just as in the public domain [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damages, so too in the domain of the damaged party [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damage.
  A human being is always considered a habitual damager, whether [he or she damages] accidentally, or purposefully, while awake, or while asleep. If he blinded the eye of his friend or broke his vessels, he pays full damages.
  
  
  
  [If] one places a jar in a public domain and another comes and trips on it and breaks it, he is exempt [from damage to the jar]. And if he was injured by it, the barrel's owner is liable for his damages.  [If] one's jar broke in a public domain and another slipped in the [spilled] water, or was injured by its shards, [the jar's owner is] liable.  Rabbi Judah says, if intentional, he is liable. If unintentional, he is exempt.
  [If] one pours water in a public domain, and another is damaged by it, he is liable to pay damages. One who hides thorns or glass [in the public domain], or one who builds his fence [bordering the public domain] with thorns, or a fence that falls into the public domain -- if others were injured, he is liable to pay their damages.
  [If] one brings his straw [or thatch] into the public domain for fertilizer and another was damaged by them, he is responsible for the damage. And [furthermore], anyone who first [takes possession] of them is entitled [to the straw].  Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says, anyone who destroys [objects] in the public domain, thereby causing damage is responsible to pay, and anyone who first [takes possession] of them is entitled.  [If] one turns over dung in the public domain and another is damaged by it, he is responsible for the damage.
  [In the case of] two potters who were walking one behind the other, and the first tripped and fell, and the second tripped on the first, the first [potter] is liable for the damage to the second [potter].
  One came with his barrel and one came with his beam. [If] this one's jug were broken on this one's beam, [the beam's owner] is exempt, because this one has permission to walk and this one [also] has permission to walk. If the beam's owner was in front, and the barrel's owner was behind, [then] if the barrel broke on the beam, the beam's owner is exempt. [But] if the beam's owner stopped, he is liable. [But] if he said to the barrel's owner, "Stop," he is exempt. If the barrel's owner was in front, and the beam's owner was behind, [then] if the barrel broke on the beam, then he is liable. [But] if the barrel's owner stopped, he is exempt. [But] if he said to the beam's owner, "Stop," he is liable.  So too [the case of] one who comes with his candle and one with his flax.
  [In the case where] two people were traveling in the public domain, one running and the other walking, or if both were running, and they damaged each other, both are exempt.
  [If] one was splitting [wood] in a private domain and [thereby] caused damage in the public domain, or [split wood] in the public domain and caused damage in a private domain, or [split wood] in a private domain and caused damaged in a different private domain, he is liable.
  [If] two oxen that are categorized as "tam" (meaning that they  have not proven themselves "muad", or prone to causing injury) injured each other, they pay half-damages of the excess (i.e., the damages to one are subtracted from the damages to the other, the difference is calculated, and the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays half the difference).  [If] both [oxen] are categorized as "muad" (prone to causing damage), they pay full damages of the excess.  [In the case where] one [ox] is a "tam" and one is a "muad": [If] the "muad" injures the "tam", its owner pays full damages of the excess. [If] the "tam" injures the "muad", its owner pays half-damages of the excess.  And similarly, [in the case of] two men who injured each other, they pay full damages of the excess.  [If] a man injured a "muad" [ox] and the "muad" injured the man, they pay full damages of the excess.  [If] a man injured a "tam" [ox] and the "tam" injured the man: [If the injury caused by the] man to the "tam" [is greater] then he pays full damages of the excess. [If the injury caused by the]  "tam" to the man [is greater] then he [the owner of the ox] pays half-damages of the excess.  Rabbi Akiva says, even [in the case where the injury caused by the] "tam" to the man [is greater], he [the owner of the ox] pays full damages of the excess.
  [Regarding the case of ] an ox worth a maneh (100 zuz) that gored an ox worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is worthless, he [the owner of the dead ox] takes the [live] ox.  [Regarding the case of ] an ox worth a 200 [zuz] that gored an ox worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is worthless: Rabbi Meir says, this is the case referred to by the verse (Exodus 21:35), "And they shall sell the live ox and divide its worth."  Rabbi Judah said to him, "And is this truly the law?" You have fulfilled [the verse], "And they shall sell the live ox and divide its worth," but you have not fulfilled [the continuation of the verse] "And they shall also divide the dead [ox]." How is this? This refers to [the case of] an ox worth a 200 [zuz] that gored an ox worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is worth 50 zuz, that this one takes half the value of the live [ox] and half the value of the dead [ox], and this one takes half the value of the live [ox] and half the value of the dead [ox].
  There is [a case] where one is liable for the action of his ox, but exempt from his own action, [and a case] where he is exempt for the action of his ox, but liable for his own action.  [If] his ox embarrassed [another person], he is exempt. [But if] he embarrassed [another person], he is liable.  [If] his ox blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is exempt. [But if] he blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is liable.  [If] his ox injured his father or mother, he is liable. [But if] he injured his father or mother, he is exempt (from monetary damages).  [If] his ox lit a pile of grain on the Sabbath, he is liable. [But if] he lit a pile of grain on the Sabbath, he is exempt (from monetary damages).  [In the last 2 cases, he is exempt from monetary damages] because he is liable for capital punishment.
  [If] an ox was chasing after another ox, and caused damage. This one says "Your ox damaged," and this one says, "No, your ox was injured on a rock," the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to be compensated.  If two [oxen] were chasing after one [ox], this one says, "Your ox damaged," and this one says, "Your ox damaged," both are exempt.  If both [oxen] belonged to a single owner, both are liable. If one was large and one was small, and the injured [owner] says, "The large one damaged," and the one who damaged says, "No, the small one damaged" ...  [Or If] one was a "tam" (not observed to habitually inflict damage) and one was a "muad" (observed to habitually inflict damage), and the injured [owner] says, "The 'muad' damaged," and the injurer says, "No, the 'tam' damaged" ...  ... [in these cases] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to be compensated.  If two [oxen] were damaged, one large and one small, and two [oxen] caused the damage, one large and one small... ... The injured [owner] says, "The large one damaged the large one and the small one damaged the small one," and the one who damaged says, "No, the small one injured the large one and the large one injured the small one" ...  [Or if] one was a "tam" and one was a "muad," and the injured [owner] says, "The 'muad' damaged the large one and the 'tam' damaged the small one," and the one who damaged says, "No, the 'tam' injured the large one and the 'muad' injured the small one" ...  ... [in these cases] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to be compensated.
  
  
  
  An ox which has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: he shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If there remains, it will go to [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If there still remains, it will go to [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, the words of  Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says, [If] an ox worth two hundred gores an ox worth two hundredand the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets one hundred and this one gets one hundred.  [If] it goes back and injures another ox worth two hundred, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives fifty. [If] it injures another ox worth two hundred, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives fifty, and the first two receive twent five. 
  An ox which is warned for [injuring] its own species, and is not warned for [injuring] that which is not its own species; or is warned for [injuring] people and not warned for [injuring] animals; or is warned for [injuring] children and not warned for [injuring] adults—that for which it is warned [its owner] pays full damages, and that for which it is not warned [its owner] pays half damages. They said in front of Rabbi Judah: What if it is warned [for injuring] on the Sabbath, and it is not warned for during the week?”  He said to them: “For [damages on] Sabbaths [its owner] pays full damages and for [damages] during the week [its owner] pays half damages.” When is [the ox considered] harmless? After it refrains from [damaging] for three Sabbath days. 
  An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple,  or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, he is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple.  An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a non-Jew, he is exempt. And an ox of a non-Jew that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages. 
  [If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i>, or a minor, he is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, <i>shoteh</i> or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, he is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i> or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and they testified against them in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute regained his hearing, or the <i>shoteh</i> recovered his senses, or the minor came of age, [the ox] returns to being harmless, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, It remains in its presumption. An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not When others cause it to gore. 
  An ox that gored a person and he died: If it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, If it was harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty. So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter. If it gored a male slave or a female slave he pays thirty sela, whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar. 
  If an ox was rubbing against a wall and it fell on a person; or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man; or a non-Jew and it killed an Israelite; or an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant, it is exempt [from death]. 
  An ox of a woman, or the ox of orphans, or the ox of a guardian, or a wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Yehudah says, A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a convert who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners. 
  If an ox is going out to be stoned, and its owners dedicated it to the Temple, it is not considered dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden. But if before its sentence was complete its owner dedicated it, it is dedicated. And if he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted 
  If he handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners;  an attested danger pays full damages, and a harmless ox pays half damages. If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says:  A harmless ox is liable, but an attested danger is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, and this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says:  It can only be guarded by the knife. 
  
  
  
  If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born offspring was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, he [ox's owner] pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And if a cow gored an ox and its [cow] newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if it gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored she gave birth, he [cow's owner] pays half damages from the [value of the]  cow and one quarter damages [from the value] of the newborn. 
  A potter who brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, he [the homeowner] is exempt. And if they [cattle] were injured by them the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.   If one brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, he is exempt. And if the cattle were injured by it the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in with permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.   
  If he brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, he is exempt. If it gored the ox of the household, he is liable. If it fell into his cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If his [the homeowner's] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] then he must pay the ransom price.   But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says:  In all of these cases he is not liable until he agrees to watch over it [the ox].   
  If an ox intended [to gore] another ox and struck a woman and her offspring came forth, its owner is not liable for the value of the offspring. But if a man intended to strike his fellow and struck a woman and her offspring came forth, he must pay the value of the offspring. How does he pay the value of the offspring? They assess the value [on the slave market] of the woman before she gave birth and the value after she gave birth. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said:  If so, once a woman gives birth she is more valuable. Rather, they assess how much the offspring would be worth [were they to be sold as slaves], and he pays it to the husband, or if she has no husband, to his heirs. If she was a freed slave or a convert he is exempt. 
  One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it into the public domain, or  in the public domain and opens it into a private domain, or in a private domain and opens it into another private domain, he is liable. One who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or donkey fell into and died, he is liable. Whether one digs a pit, trench, or cavern, or trenches or channels he is liable. If so, why does it say “a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? Just as a pit which is deep enough to cause death [to the depth of] ten handbreadths, so anything that is deep enough to cause death, [to the depth of] ten handbreadths . If they were less than ten handbreadths deep and an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is exempt; But if it was damaged he is liable. 
  A pit belonging to two partners: one went over it and did not cover it, and the other also went over it and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If the first one covered it and the second came and found it uncovered and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If he covered it properly and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. If he did not cover it properly and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable. If it [the animal] fell forward because of the sound of the digging, he is liable. But if [it fell] backward because of the sound of the digging, he is exempt. If an ox and its vessels fell into it and they broke, or if a donkey fell into it with its vessels and they were torn, he is liable for the beast but exempt for the vessels.   If an ox that was deaf, mentally disabled or young fell in, the owner is liable. If a young boy, a young girl or a male slave or a female slave fell in, he is exempt. 
  Both an ox and any other beast are alike under the laws concerning falling into a pit, separating from Mount Sinai, two-fold restitution, the restoring of lost property, unloading, muzzling, kilayim [prohibition against mixed coupling or plowing with two animals together], and the Sabbath.   So too wild animals and birds. If so, why is was it said, “an ox or a donkey”? Rather that Scripture spoke in the present [of the more common animal]. 
  
  
  
  A man who brings sheep into a corral and locks the door in front of them properly, but the sheep escapes and causes damage, he is exempt.  If he did not lock the door in front of them properly, and it went out and caused damage, he is liable. If the wall broke down at night, or if thieves broke it and the sheep escaped and caused damage, he is exempt. If thieves took them out, then the thieves are liable. 
  If the owner left it in the sun, or he left it in the care of a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i>, or a minor, and it escaped and caused damage, he is liable. If he handed them over to the care of a shepherd, the shepherd enters in his place [he assumes responsibility] . If a sheep fell into a garden and derived benefit, he pays from what which it benefited. However, if it had gone down in its usual manner and caused damage, he would pay the damage that it caused.  How is recompense payed for the amount of damage? We compare the value of a seah's measurement in the field as it was [before the damage], with what its value is now [after damage].  Rabbi Shimon says: If it consumed ripe fruits, he pays [value of] ripe fruits. If it consumed one se'ah's worth, he pays one se'ah. If two se'ah's worth, two se'ah. 
  One who made a stack of sheaves in his fellow’s field without his permission, and the owner of the field’s cattle ate the sheaves, he [the field owner] is exempt. If [the cattle] were injured by them, he is liable. If he made the stack with his permission, the owner of the field is liable. 
  One who sends a fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i>, or a minor is exempt by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable.  If one brought the fire and another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and lit the fire, the one who lit the fire is liable. If the wind fanned the flames, they are all exempt. One who sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, as it says:  “When a fire breaks out and spreads to thorns so that the stacked corn is consumed, or the standing corn, or the field, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution” (Exodus 22:5) If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public path, or over a river, he is exempt. One who kindled fire within his own domain, how far does it need to spread [for him to be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says:  We look at it as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space[75,000 square cubits].    Rabbi Eliezer says:  Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public road. Rabbi Akiva says:  Fifty cubits. Rabbi Shimon says:  ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.” 
  One who set fire to a stack of sheaves and in it there were utensils and these caught fire: Rabbi Yehudah says:  He must pay back for what was in it. But the Sages say:  He pays only for a stack of wheat or barley. If a kid was fastened to it and a slave stood near by, and they were burnt together, he is liable. If there was a slave fastened to it and a kid stood near by and they were burnt together, he is not liable. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehudah that if one set fire to a large building, he must pay back for everything in it; for such is the customary for people to leave [their items] in their houses. 
  If a spark went out from under the hammer and caused damage, he is liable. If a camel laden with flax passed by in the public domain and its load of flax entered into a shop and caught fire from the storeowner's candle and lit a large house on fire, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the shopkeeper left his candle outside, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah says:  If it was a Hannukah light, he is exempt. 
  
  
  
  Greater is the rule of twofold restitution than the rule of fourfold or fivefold restitution, for the rule of twofold restitution applies both to what has life and what does not have life, while the rule of fourfold and fivefold restitution applies only to an ox or a sheep, as it says,  “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex. 21:37).  One who steals from a thief does not pay twofold restitution; And the one who slaughters or sells what is [already] stolen does not pay fourfold or fivefold restitution.
  If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, he must pay fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; If he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; If he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple—he must pay fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole it and then killed it for use in healing, or for food for dogs; or if he slaughtered it and it was found to be a tereifah [a torn apart animal],  or if he slaughtered it in the Temple Court as common food, he must pay fourfold or fivefold restitution, Rabbi Shimon exempts in these last two cases . 
  If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed or sold it according to their evidence, and they are found to be zommemin [false witnesses], they must pay the whole penalty. If he stole it according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two other witnesses, and both pairs are found to be false witnesses, the first ones pay twofold restitution and the last ones pay threefold restitution. If the second set [only] were found to be false witnesses, the thief must make twofold restitution and they make threefold restitution. If one of the second set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the evidence of the other is void. If one of the first set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the entire evidence is annulled, since if there is no [evidence for] stealing there is no [evidence for] slaughtering or selling. 
  If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and slaughtered it or sold it according to the evidence of one witness or according to his own evidence, he pays twofold restitution, but not pay fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it,  or if he stole it and then dedicated it to the Temple, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, he pays twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution.    Rabbi Shimon says:  Holy Things for which he is responsible [if damaged or lost] he must pay fourfold or fivefold restitution; but if he is not responsible for them, he is exempt. 
  If he sold it all but a hundredth part, or if he had partnership in it, or if he slaughtered it and it became unfit [to be used ritually] by his own hand, or if he pierced the windpipe or rooted out its gullet, he pays twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole it in the owner’s domain, but slaughtered it or sold it outside the owner’s domain, or if he stole it outside the owner’s domain and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain; or if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain; or if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it outside the owner’s domain,  he must pay fourfold or fivefold restitution. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it in their domain, he is exempt. 
  If he were dragging and leading it out and it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. If he had lifted it or taken it out of the owner’s domain and it died, he is liable. If he brought it as the firstborn offering for his son, or gave it to his creditor, or to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, and one of them was dragging it away and it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. If [one of them] had lifted it up or taken it outside the owner’s domain, he is liable. 
  It is forbidden to raise small herd animals [sheep, goats, etc] in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. It is forbidden to raise fowl in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, [fowl may bring impurity in to sacrificial items] nor may priests raise them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] pure foods.   It is forbidden to raise pigs anywhere. One should not raise a dog unless it is tied with a chain.  It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty <i>ris</i> [a measurement of distance] from an inhabited place. 
  
  
  
  One who injures his fellow is liable concerning him for five categories [of payment]: damages, pain, healthcare, unemployment, and shame. For damages, how [is this calculated?] One who puts out his eye, cuts off his hand, breaks his leg—we see him as if he were a slave sold in the marketplace, and we evaluate how much he was worth [the injury] and how much he is worth now. Pain? When he burned him with a spit or a nail—even on his fingernail—anything where there is no [permanent] wound, we evaluate how much a similar person would want to pay to be spared this [pain]. Healthcare? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs. If swellings arose on him, if they  were because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. If the swelling healed and then reopened and then healed and reopened, he is liable for his healthcare. If it healed entirely, he is exempt from his healing. Unemployment? We see him as if he were a guard of gourds, since he already gave him the value [for the loss] of his hand or his leg. Shame? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed. One who shames a naked person, a blind person or a sleeping person is liable. If a sleeping person embarrasses, he is exempt.  One who falls from the roof and caused damage and shamed, he is liable for damages and exempt for shame, as it is written, "[when two men fight and the wife of one comes out to save her husband,] and she puts out her hand and seizes his genitals (lit. damages his shame) [you shall cut off her hand]" (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). No one is liable for shame unless one intended to cause it. 
  This is a stringency regarding a person over an ox [causing injury]: a person pays damages, pain, healthcare, unemployment and shame, and pays the value of fetuses, while an ox [its owner] pays only damages, and is exempt from the value of fetuses.
  One who strikes his father or his mother but did not cause a wound, and one who wounds his fellow on Yom Kippur, he is liable for all [five]. One who wounds a Hebrew slave (a Jew), he is liable in all [five] except for unemployment — when the slave is his. One who wounds a Canaanite slave (a Gentile) belonging to another, he is liable in all [five]. Rabbi Yehudah says: Slaves don't have shame.
  The occurrence of [injuring] a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i>, or a minor is unfortunate. One who injures them is liable, and if they injure others they are exempt. The slave and the woman: their occurrences are unfortunate. One who injures them is liable, and when they injure others they are exempt. However, they [might] pay after some time—[if the] woman becomes divorced or the slave is freed, then they are liable to pay.
  One who strikes his father or his mother and wounds them, and one who injures his fellow on shabbat, is exempt from all [five] because he will be judged for his life. One who injures his own Canaanite slave (a Gentile), he is exempt from all [five].
  One who shouts at his fellow, he gives him a <i>sela</i> (twenty <i>zuz</i>). Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: "a <i>maneh</i> (one hundred <i>zuz</i>)". One who slaps his fellow, he gives him two hundred <i>zuz</i>; with the back of the hand, he gives him four hundred <i>zuz</i>. If he split his ear, plucked his hair, spit [at him] and his spit touched him, stripped his cloak from him, or uncovered the head of a woman in the street, he gives him four hundred <i>zuz</i>. (This is the principle:) it is all according to the person's honour. Rabbi Akiva says: "Even the poor of Israel, we see them as if they are free people who have lost their property, because they are children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (And) there was an incident of someone uncovering the head of a woman in the street. She came before Rabbi Akiva, and he required him to give her four hundred <i>zuz</i>. He said to him, "Rabbi, give me time." So he gave him time. [The man] watched her stand at the entrance of her courtyard, broke a pitcher in front of her, and in it was <i>issar</i> [eight <i>prutot</i>] of oil. She uncovered her head and scooped [the oil], and rubbed her hands on her head. He placed witnesses against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva. He said to him, "Rabbi, to her I gave four hundred <i>zuz</i>?!" He replied, "You haven't said anything." One who injures himself, even though he is not permitted, he is exempt. Others who wound him are liable. And one who cuts his own shoots, even though he is not permitted, he is exempt. Others who cut his shoots are liable.
  Even when he gives him [the payment], he will not be forgiven until he seeks it [pardon] from him, as it says, "Therefore, restore [Abraham's] wife[—he is a prophet and will intercede for you]" (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we know the forgiver should not be cruel? As it says, "Abraham prayed to God and God healed Avimelech" (Genesis 20:17). One who says, "Put out my eye," "Cut off my hand," "Break my leg," he [who did the act] is liable. [One who says, "Put out my eye] on the condition that you will be exempt," he is liable. "Tear my clothes," "Break my vessel", he is liable. [If it was said] on the condition that you will be exempt, he is exempt. "Do this to so-and-so on the condition that you will be exempt," he is liable whether it is his body or his property. 
  
  
  
  One who stole wood and made them into utensils, or [stole] wool and made it into garments, he makes restitution according to the moment of theft. If he stole a pregnant cow and it gave birth, or [stole] a fleeced ewe, and he sheared it, he repays the value of a cow about to bear young, or [the value of] a sheep ready to be sheared. If he stole a cow, and while it was with him it was impregnated and bore young, or [if he stole a sheep] and while it was with him it grew wool and he sheared it, he makes restitution according to the moment of theft. This is the general rule: all robbers make restitution according to the moment of theft. 
  If he stole a beast and it grew old, or [he stole] slaves and they grew old, he makes restitution according to the moment of the theft. Rabbi Meir says:  As for slaves he [the thief] may say to him, "Behold, what is yours is before you.’” If he stole a coin and it cracked, [if he stole] produce and it rotted, wine and it soured, he must make restitution according to the moment of the theft. But if he stole a coin and it went out of use [as currency], or it became terumah [portion given to the Kohen] and it became ritually unclean, or if it was leaven and the time of Passover passed [while it was in his possession], or a beast and it was used for a transgression, or became unfit to be offered on the altar or it was going out to be stoned, he may say to him, “behold, what is yours is before you.” 
  If he gave to craftsmen to repair, and they ruined it, they must make restitution.   If he gave a carpenter a litter, chest or cupboard to repair, and he ruined it, he must make restitution. If a builder undertook to tear down a wall, and he broke the stones or caused damage, he must make restitution. If he was tearing down on one side and it fell down on the other side, he is exempt;  However, if it fell due to the blow, he is liable. 
  One who gave wool to a dyer and the cauldron burned it, he [the dyer] must give him the value of the wool. If he dyed it poorly: if the improvement was more than the cost of the dyeing, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dyeing was more than the improvement, he must give only the improvement. To dye it red and he dyed it black; black and he dyed it red: Rabbi Meir says:  He must give him the cost of the wool. Rabbi Yehudah says:  If the improvement was more than the dyeing, he must give him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dyeing was more than the improvement, he gives only the improvement. 
  If one robbed his friend the value of a <i>perutah</i> and swore to him [that he had not stolen it but then later confessed], he must carry it after him even as far as Media [the restitution]. He can not give it to his son and not to his messenger, but he can give it to a messenger of the Beit Din and if he died [the robbed person], he returns it to his heirs.
  If he [the robber] gave him the principal but had not given him the fifth, or if he had forgiven him the principal but not the  fifth, or if had forgiven him both except for less than a perutah’s worth of the principal, he need not go after him [to restitute in full]. If he had repaid him the  fifth but not the principle, or if he had forgiven him the fifth but not the principal, or if he had forgiven both except for a <i>perutah’s</i> worth of the principal, he must go after him.  
  If he gave him the principal and swore [falsely] to him concerning the fifth, he must pay a fifth on the fifth [and so on] until the principal becomes less than a perutah's worth. So too with a deposit, as it says:  “In a matter of deposit or a pledge or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow, or by finding something lost and lying about it” (Leviticus 5:21-22), one must pay the value and the  fifth and bring a guilt-offering. [if one said] “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is lost,” [the depositor says] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he consumed it, he need pay [only] the principal.   But if he confessed it on his own accord, he must repay the principal and the [added] fifth and bring a guilt-offering. 
  [If depositor said] “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is stolen,” [depositor responds] “I adjure you”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he must make twofold restitution.   But if he confessed it on his own accord he must repay the principal and the [added] fifth and bring a guilt-offering. 
  One who stole from his father and swore [falsely] to him, and then he [father] died, he must repay the principal and the fifth to the father’s sons or brothers. If he does not want to or if has does not have [from which to pay],  he must borrow and the creditors come and are repaid. 
  One who said to his son, “I vow that you will not derive any benefit from that which is mine”, if he died, the son may inherit from him. [if the father said] both during his life and at his death, if he dies the son may not inherit from him and he must restore [what he received from his father’s inheritance] to the [father’s] sons or brothers. If he has nothing, he takes out a loan, and the creditors come and are repaid.   
  One who stole from a convert and swore [falsely] to him, and the convert died, he must repay the principal and the fifth to the priests, and the guilt-offering to the altar, as it says:  “If the man has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, the amount which is repaid shall go to the priest—in addition to the ram of atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him” (Numbers 5:8). If he was bringing the money and the guilt-offering and then died, the money shall be given to his sons, and the guilt-offering shall be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold, and its value falls as a donation [to the Temple treasury]. 
  If he gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot take it out of their, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the guilt-offering to Yedayah [the first and second two weekly divisions of the 24 Temple divisions], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah:  if the guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; and if not, he must bring another guilt-offering. For one who brings what he had stolen before he brings his guilt-offering, has fulfilled his obligation. If he brought his guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the principal but not the fifth, the fifth does not prevent [him from offering the guilt-offering]. 
  
  
  
  [If] one who stole [something] and fed it to his children, or left it in front of them, [the children] are exempt from making restitution. But if it was something which is subject to mortgage, they are liable to make restitution. One may not make change from the chest of an excise collector or from the wallet of a tax collector, or accept any charity [taken] from those places. But he may accept [charity] from them at their own house or in the market.
  If excise collectors took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or if bandits robbed him of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners have despaired of [recovering] them. One who salvages something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits: if the owner despaired [of recovering such items], they belong to him. So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner despaired [of recovering the swarm], it belongs to him. Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka said: "A woman or child is believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees emerged from this place.’” And one may walk within his neighbor's field to salvage his swarm - and if [in doing so] he causes damage, he must pay for the damage that he has caused - but he may not cut off a branch of [his neighbor's] tree [to save his swarm], even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, says: He may even cut off [the branch] and give [its value in] money.
  One who recognizes his household items or books in another’s possession, and a report of theft [of this man's possessions] had been spread in the city, the purchaser swears as to how much he paid and claims this amount. But if there was no [report of theft], the [disposition of the] matter does not issue [entirely] from his [words], for I might say that he had sold them to someone else and this one bought it from him.
  Someone was walking with his jug of wine and another person was walking with his jug of honey. If the jug of honey became cracked and the one poured out his wine and salvaged the honey into his jug, he can claim no more than wages for his effort. But if he had said, “I will salvage what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” [the owner of the honey] is liable to reimburse him. A flood swept away his donkey and his fellow’s donkey. His own was worth one hundred and his fellow’s was worth two hundred. If he abandoned his own and saved that of his fellow, he can claim no more than wages for his effort. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” he is liable to pay him back.
  One who stole a field from his fellow and then people claiming levies on behalf of the government seized it: if the entire district was subject to these seizures, [the thief] may say to [the original owner], “Behold, what is yours is before you.” But if it was because of the robber, he must provide him with another field. If a flood swept it away, he may say to him, “Behold, what is yours is before you.” 
  One who stole something from his fellow, or borrowed something, or received something as a deposit in a settled area, he may not return it to him in the wilderness. But if [he borrowed it or took the deposit] on condition that he was going out to the wilderness, he may return it to him in the wilderness.
  One who said to his fellow, “I robbed you,” [or] “You lent me [something],” [or] “You deposited [something] with me, but I do not know whether I returned it or not,” he is obligated to repay. But if he said, “I do not know whether I robbed you,” [or] “[I do not know] whether you lent me [something],” or “[I do not know] whether you deposited [something] with me,” he is exempt from repaying.
  One who stole a lamb from the flock and returned it, and it [subsequently] died or was stolen, he is liable for it. If the owner knew neither of its theft nor of its return, and counted the flock and found it complete, he is exempt.
  One may not purchase wool, milk, or kids from herdsmen, or wood or produce from one who [is paid to] guard produce. However, one may buy garments of wool from women in Judea, and garments of linen from women in the Galilee, and calves from women in the Sharon. And in all cases in which [the seller] says to hide them away, it is forbidden. And one may buy eggs and fowl from any source.
  Wool fibers that the laundryman pulls out belong to him. But those removed by the wool-comb belong to the householder. If the laundryman removes three threads, they belong to him, but if he removes more than this, they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may remove them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths], these belong to the householder. What a carpenter shaves off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.