meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Commentary/Rambam/Seder Nezikin/Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
  רמב"ם על משנה בבא קמא
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Four fathers of damages; the Ox and the Pit and the 'Maaveh' 
  These 4 principles from damages, they are the damages that are to do with one's property. 
  And the Ox implies the legs of the Ox, as it's said, it damages what it tramples and it breaks what it breaks and ruins in the way of his walking with his legs. And the 'Maaveh' implies the tooth (of the Ox), and its damage is the result of his eating what he eats from it. It's called with this name from its action since it uproots and seeks what it eats, as it says (Obadiah 1:6): How uprooted is Esau, how sought out (Maaveh) his hidden things.  
  The Ox is not like the Maaveh 
  Implying that it was necessary for the Torah to delineate each of these 4 damagers one by one because it is impossible to learn out one from the other through a 'kal ve chomer' (lesser to more severe exegesis), that since in each of them there is in it a principle which is not in the other, therefore comparison is not appropriate. The Legs whose damage is common is not comparable to the Tooth whose damage is not common. And it is not comparable, the Tooth, that there is in it benefit to the damage to compare to the Legs that there is not benefit in the damage. And it is not comparable, this and this, that there are in them spirit of life, to compare to the Fire that does not have in it spirit of life. And not, this and this, that on the road they go forth and damage to compare to the Pit that does not go forth on the road and damage. Thus in each and every one of them there is in it a principle which is not found in the others so it is necessary for scripture to explain each one from them that they are obligated in damages. And this is not to say that if God may his name be blessed wrote the law of pit and one from the remaining three, we wouldn't learn from them the remaining two in the way of tzaad ha shaveh (exegesis) as is alluded to, however scripture partitioned into 4 laws to establish all from them have a law apart from the other. Tooth and Legs are exempt in the public domain, Pit is exempt from vessels, Fire is exempt from concealed items and further this will all be explained. And it was not necessary to mention at all the 'father'- 'Horn' (of the ox) because there is in it a difference if it's 'Accustomed' and 'Simple' as is explained in scripture. 
  And we say the common principle that is in them etc... 
  Implying everything whose way is to do damage, it is upon you to guard it, if it damages, the damager is obligated to fulfill the payment of damage with the best of the land as we have already explained, the best of the field and land he shall pay. And this has already been explained to us in the fifth section of gittin. And these fathers have offspring that are subcategories, the Legs, if it damages with its body or its hair as it's walking. The offspring of the Tooth that it rubs against a wall for its benefit or spoils fruits for its benefit. The offspring of Fire; a stone, a knife, or a load are placed on the top of a roof and fall because of a typical wind and damage. The offspring of Pit- spit and phlegm which come out from someone. And further these laws will be explained with their principles and sub-categories.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  "All that I am obligated to guard, I have enabled its damage etc... "
  This (usage) of “hechsher” in the Mishnah is the name that falls upon instances prepared to receive a law from these laws like is explained at the beginning of (mesechta) eruvin. And it says ‘All that one is obligated to guard’ that it does not do damage to a person, that thing is prepared that whenever it damages, even if the owner is not aware, to obligate him to make payment since he did not guard it and this is the reason we say he enabled the damage, thus he enabled all of it. If he enables a part of the damage he is obligated in all the damage, as if he enabled all the damage, for example, a pit as is mentioned, is only obligated in what is appropriate for it. That a pit is obligated in damages once it is dug to 10 handbreadths, and there is not a difference whether he digs a pit of 10 handbreadths or he dug an (additional) handbreadth from a pit that was dug to 9 handbreadths to make it dug to 10, that since he has made it appropriate to damage that it is as if he dug it from the beginning, and this is why it says that ‘if he has enabled a part of the damage he is obligated to pay for all damages as he enabled all of the damage’. 
  After this the Tanna gives five conditions and says that a man is not obligated to pay for damages caused by his property if one of these 5 conditions is missing: The First. That it is not consecrated as holy, for example, if his ox was a sin offering or a burnt offering and it damages, he is not obligated to pay a thing, and this is the idea when we say it is not ‘meilah’, since if one benefits from consecrated property that he is obligated in a meilah sacrifice [as has been explained in mesechta meilah]. And the second. That he damages a son of the covenant, but if the ox of a Jew gores the ox of a Canaanite, the Jew does not pay anything as is explained. And the third, that those possessions which caused from them damage should be identifiable and the owner identifiable, but if one says it is your ox that damaged and the other says it was your ox that damaged and it is not known which ox of these oxen did damage or if the ox is ownerless and damages, that since it doesn’t have an identifiable owner at the time it damaged there is no owner to be obligated to pay for the damage. But if someone else acquires the ox which did damage after it damaged, it has in it as all the rules of all ownerless property (ie, the owner of the damaged ox cannot claim a lien on the damaging ox as is the case with owned property, rather anyone can acquire the damaging ox and there is no lien upon it). The fourth, that the damage was done outside the personal domain of the damager, but if the ox of Reuven entered the house of Shimon and was damaged, Shimon is not obligated in anything, as he will say to him ‘your ox was in my domain, what was it doing there?’ And if Shimon himself damaged it, eg he struck it and it was wounded or died, he is obligated to pay, as he (Reuven) will say to him- ‘you have permission to move him but you do not have permission to damage him’. The fifth, that the damage happens in an area they both are allowed to be, for example, that there was a field owned by the damagee and damager and the ox of the damager damages the field with the Tooth of the Foot, they are not obligated in anything. But if it damages with the Horn he is obligated as will be explained. And it’s explained that this is as long as it’s a place that they both own that is set aside for fruits and oxen, but if it was specifically for fruits and one of the partners went over and brought his ox in and he damaged with Tooth or Foot, he is obligated, even though they both have permission to be there. When all these conditions are complete and there is damage, the damager is obligated to complete the payment of damage with the best of the land. 
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  "Evaluations are in money and things equal to money, before a court and witnesses etc.. "
  That since we brought up these instances of damage with the conditions where a man is obligated to pay for all the damages caused by his possessions, and now (the Mishnah) begins to explain how to make payment and says that evaluation of damages should be made in money, and we don’t say take out from this thing (that damaged), for example, if an ox eats fruits we do not say to the owner of the fruits to take out from the ox the portion which he ate for yourself, rather, we assess what he ate for himself in money and we force the owner of the ox to pay. 
  And that it says ‘an equivalence of money’ implies that since the court does not say to pay for damages for one who inherits (literally 'orphans') a liability except from land, not from that which is movable, since movable things are themselves money. And says that since they don’t confiscate except what is equivalent to money, which is land, and this law applies specifically to inheritors. However if the damager himself pays his portion that he damaged from moveable objects, the hand of the court will be removed from his land. 
  And that evaluation and payment will not be made except in a court of experts and not laymen. And with witnesses that are free men and jewish but not the testimony of slaves or gentiles, that it was necessary to exclude them, because it may arise in your mind to give in and be lenient in testimony for damages, because it happens a lot, and it is rare that there happens to be upon them at the time kosher witnesses, that since collisions between people and between animals mostly happen in the presence of simple people and slaves and gentiles. Therefore it lets us know that we only accept in court kosher witnesses as we say with other testimony. 
  And there is no distinction between men and women in damages whether she damages or gets damaged. 
  And what we say that the damagee and the damager share in payment allude to matters where they are obligated in half damages as will be explained that the damager pays half the damage and the damagee will lose half, and this half also will not happen except when full damages apply, implying with witnesses and a court of experts and the possessions of jews and the rest of the conditions, apart from what we said with the best of the land because this is not fitting for half damages as will be explained. 
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  "5 Simple ones and 5 Accustomed ones, an animal is not Accustomed etc... "
  What is the difference between Simple and Accustomed? Etc... 
  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. 
  The Accustomed ox that is said about it that the owner had been warned etc..  that it gores typically. 
  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.  
  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...  
  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. 
  And the panther is the animal which is called in the Arabic language eltzva 
  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. 
  And the halakah is not like R Eliezer. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  In which manner is it that the leg is accustomed to break in its way of walking... The main idea of this whole type of damage, that it is all damage that comes from an animal while it is doing what it's accustomed to do all the time or most of the time. This is the case that is said about it that it is normal and full damages are paid.  And that which is not normal, that there will be in it a thing that it did that was uncommon for it, or that it came through an intermediary of another action, and the animal, the one that did that deed, was not the primary catalyst, for this he's obligated in half damages and this is the half damage he's obligated in for pebbles that shoot out from under his feet. That he pays (is assessed for) the full amount of damage, as it's explained in the 8th perek of this tractate.  And the explanation of 'a bucket'- a thing that was tied to its foot or it was jumping and digs its feet into the ground.  And this the chicken does more than other birds.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  How is the tooth accustomed to eat what is appropriate for it...  What that it says in what matters is this said returns upon what that it said it eats fruits or vegetables, but eating garments or vessels in the public domain obligates in half damages since it is the way of people to place garments or vessels in the public domain for when they are needed.  And the explanation of what that it benefits, that he pays for items which are appropriate for its portion of eating from things it's normal for the animal to eat, for example, a donkey that ate 10 liters of dates, the master pays for the donkey the value of 10 liters of barley.  And if it was the price of barley was more he pays the value of the dates alone, and like this is the way to evaluate and judge. And when it was placed in the midst of the market and turned to the side and ate, then he pays what he damaged.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A dog or a goat jumped from a roof etc... A thin cake and sometimes that coals attach to it.  And When they are eaten in the field and they ignite the field with that coal, behold in his eating of the cake he is acting normal and he pays full damages.  And for lighting the field, it's different, and therefore he pays half damages.  (other versions translate differently- saying he pays half because it is pebbles).
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Which is unaccustomed and which is accustomed: 'Touching' implies touching it and pulling it and it does not gore. And the halacha is like Rav Yehuda in the explanation of the accustomed ox and the halacha is like Rav Meir in the explanation of a simple ox. And all the time that the ox is accustomed to gore it does not return to its unaccustomed status until that children can play with it and it does not damage by goring.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  An ox that damages in the domain of the damager, how is this? It pushes… When it's learned out one law from another with 'lesser to severe' exegesis, It should not be that what we derive (has a penalty) is greater than what we learn from, rather it should be like it.  And this is what it says 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling'. And there is not in this a disagreement because this is from the Torah, that it says with Miriam 'and if her father spits in her face, would she not be embarrassed for 7 days', all the more so for the divine presence.  That if the father gets angry with her she separates from him for seven days, all the more so he who God may his name be blessed gets angry at, that it's appropriate that he be isolated for more days, however, the verse says to isolate for 7 days, behold, there, the law of the divine presence which is learned from the father is like the law of the father. And thus the main point of disagreement of Rav Tarfon and the sages is this, that since Rav Tarfon says at the end, what that we say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling', that when we want to obligate this thing which we learned out from another law that we did not learn out previously, and thus there will not be in it a ruling greater than the ruling from which we learned it out from.  Like that we learned that when the divine presence is angry she secludes for 7 days and this thing was not known before this, however, that when there will be by us a known law of one of these things like half damages, and after that we learn this with a lesser to more severe exegesis, if it does not add to the law and obligate to pay full damages, it will be that this exegesis is in vain and does not add a thing to our knowledge, that this half damage was known without a lesser to more severe exegesis. And in a case like this, we do not say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling' because there does not come a ruling, rather half damages are known.  And the sages say even in a case like this, we say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling' since it does not come from a ruling, rather we know it was (half) damage  [other editions remove from 'Since']. And thus I explained to you this idea that it should not rise in your mind that Rabbi Tarfon does not hold by this rule ('it's enough...') in other places since he believes like this in this place alone, that he does not hold by this as we explained.  And the halakha is like the sages.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A man is accustomed always, whether by accident or intentional etc... Like that a person is sleeping and comes another and sleeps at his side, the second is accustomed with regard to the first.  And if the second damages the first, he's obligated (to pay damages).  And if the first damages, that he was asleep first the other who came to sleep at his side, he is exempt.  And if the two lay down together,  all who do damage from them to their friend are obligated, since they are both accustomed to each other.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  One who injures another is liable to pay etc.: He who cuts off hand or foot is obligated to pay five penalties. But when he will have done one or two of these, for example shaming alone he will be obligated in only shaming. And, similarly like that, if he causes suffering alone then he is obligated only for suffering, as it is said in the manner of imagery, if one burned with a skewer or with a hot nail, about this is a difficult course. For if the injured crossed into medicinal things and added ...