meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/merged.txt"}
text: Mishnah Bava Kamma
  משנה בבא קמא
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  Mishnah Bava Kamma
  
  
  
  
  
  There are four primary causes of injury:  the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and fire. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, which are alive, like [that of] fire, which is not alive; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. What they have in common is that it is their way to do injury and that you are responsible for caring over them; and if one of them did injury whoever [is responsible] for the injury must make restitution [to the damaged party] with the best of his land.
  Anything that I am responsible to guard, I have rendered it possible to do injury [for which I will become obligated]. If I have partially rendered it possible to do injury, I must make restitution for that injury as if I totally rendered it possible to do injury. When one damages [property that fits all of the following categories]: property that does not have “sacrilege” [i.e. sacrificial animals or property that belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem], property that belongs to other members of the covenant [Jews], property that is owned, and the injury is done in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and injurer, in these cases the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land.
  Assessment [of injury] in money or things worth money must be made before a court of law and by witnesses that are free and Children of the Covenant (Jews). Women may be parties in [suits concerning] injury. The injured and the injurer [in certain cases may share] in the compensation.
  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).
  
  
  
  How is the leg [of a beast] an attested danger to break [what it tramples upon] as it walks along? A beast is an attested danger [only] in so far as it goes along in its usual way and breaks [an object]. If it kicked, or if small stones were tossed out from beneath its feet and it thus broke other vessels, one pays half damages. If it trampled upon a vessel and broke it, and this [broken vessel] fell upon another vessel and broke it, for the first one pays full damages and for the other half damages. Fowls (chickens and roosters) are an attested danger in so far as they go along in their usual way and break [objects]. But if the fowl had its feet entangled, or if it was jumping and it thereby broke any vessel one pays half damages.
  How is the tooth [of a beast] an attested danger to eat that which it is fit to consume? A beast is an attested danger to eat fruit and vegetables. [If however] it ate clothing or utensils [the owner] pays only half damages. When does this apply? [This applies] in the domain of the damaged party But if it was within the public domain, the owner is not liable. If [the beast] benefited, [the owner] pays what it benefited. How does [the owner] pay what [the animal] benefited? [If it ate] from the middle of the marketplace, [the owner] pays what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from the sides of the marketplace, [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did. [If it ate] from in front of the store [the owner] pays for what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from inside the store [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did.
  If a dog or a goat jumped from a roof and broke vessels, [the owner] must pay full damages, since they are attested dangers. A dog that took a cake [while there was a cinder attached] and went to a stack of grain and ate the cake and burned the stack of grain, For the cake [the owner] pays full damages And for the stack of grain [the owner] pays half damages.
  Which kind of animal is accounted harmless and which is an attested danger (muad)? An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about [that it damaged] for three days. A harmless one is one that has refrained from damage for three days. This is according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says, An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about three times. A harmless one is one that children can touch and it will not gore.
  “An ox which causes damage in the private domain of him that is injured” how is this so? If it gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked in the public domain its owner pays only half damages. But if in the private domain of him that is injured, Rabbi Tarfon says, “He pays full damages.” The Sages says, “Half damages.” Rabbi Tarfon said to them: “Now, in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain, in which case he is exempt, and stringently in the private domain of him that is injured to pay full damages, then since they have dealt stringently with damage caused by the horn in the public domain, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain of him that was injured, so that full damages be imposed.” They (the sages) said to him:  “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred:  if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed]. He said to them:  “I shall not derive the law in one case of damage caused by the horn from the law in another case of damage caused by the horn.  Rather I will derive the law of damage caused by the horn from the law of damage caused by the foot.  Now in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot or tooth in the public domain, they have dealt strictly with damage caused by the horn, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain. They (the sages) said to him:  “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred:  if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].
  Human beings are always an attested danger, whether the damage is caused inadvertently or deliberately, whether the person who caused the damage is awake or asleep. If a man blinded his fellow’s eye or broke his utensils he must pay full damages.
  
  
  
  If a man left a jug in the public domain and another came and stumbled over it and broke it, he is exempt. And if he was injured by it, the owner of the jug is liable for his injury. If a man’s jug broke in the public domain, and another slipped on the water, or was hurt by the potsherds, he is liable. Rabbi Judah says:  “If he [broke the jug] with intention, he is liable, But if he broke it without intention he is not liable.”
  1. If a man poured out water in the public domain, and another was injured thereby, he is liable for his injury. 2. If a man hid thorns or glass [in the public domain] or made his fence out of thorns, or if his fence fell into the public domain and others were thereby injured, he is obligated for their injury.
  If a man put out his chopped straw and stubble into the public domain to make them into fertilizer, and another was injured thereby, he is liable for his injury, and whoever comes first may take possession of them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “Whoever leaves things that are disruptive in the public domain, and these cause damage, must make restitution, and whoever comes first may take possession of them. If a man turned over a piece of cattle dung in the public domain and another was injured thereby, he is liable for injury.
  Two pot-sellers were walking one behind the other and the first stumbled and fell, and the second fell on the first, the first one is liable for the injury caused to the second.
  This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along. If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam,  the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said} “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable.
  [If] two were walking along in the public domain, the one running and the other walking, or both running and they injured one another, neither is liable.
  [If] a man was splitting wood in the private domain and injured anyone in the public domain, or if he was in the public domain and injured anyone in the private domain, or if he was in a private domain and injured anyone in another private domain, he is liable.
  If two oxen which were accounted harmless hurt one another, the owner pays half-damages for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If both were attested dangers full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If one was accounted harmless and the other was an attested danger, that which was an attested danger as against that which was accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while that which was accounted harmless, as against that which was an attested danger, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered. So, too, if two men hurt one another, full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If a man and an ox which was accounted harmless hurt one another, the man as against the ox accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while the ox accounted harmless, as against the man, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other suffered. Rabbi Akiva says:  “Even if an ox accounted harmless hurt a man, full damages must be paid for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
  If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Rabbi Judah said to him:  “Such indeed is the halachah, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this?  If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox.
  There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.
  If an ox was pursuing another ox and [the latter ox] was injured: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury, and this one claims “No, it was injured by a rock.” on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were pursuing a third ox: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, and this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, they are both exempt. However, if they were both owned by one man, they are both obligated. If one was big and was small: the [owner] of injured [ox] says that “The large one caused the injury”, and the [owner] of the injuring [ox] says, “The small one caused the injury”, [or] if one was a harmless ox and one was an attested danger (muad) the [owner] of the injured ox says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger caused the injury, and the owner of the injuring ox says, “The [ox which is] harmless caused the injury”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were injured, one big and one small, and two oxen caused the injury, one big and one small: [the owner] of the injured oxen says, “The big ox injured the big ox and small ox injured the small ox,” and the [owner] of the injuring oxen says, “The small ox injured the big ox and the big ox injured the small ox”; [or] if one was harmless and one was an attested danger: the [owner] of the injured oxen says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger injured the big ox, and the harmless [ox] injured the small ox”, the owner of injuring oxen says, “No rather the harmless [ox] injured the large ox and the [ox which is an] attested danger injured the small ox”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
  
  
  
  [If] an ox has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: the owner shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If money remains, it will go to the [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If money still remains, it will go to the [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says, “[If] an ox worth 200 gores an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets 100 and this one gets 100. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives 50. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives 50, and the first two receive 25.
  An ox which is an attested danger for [injuring] its own kind, and is not an attested danger for [injuring] that which is not its own kind; or an attested danger for [injuring] human beings and not an attested danger for [injuring] beasts; or an attested danger for [injuring] children and not an attested danger for [injuring] adults that for which it is an attested danger [its owner] pays full damages, and that for which it is not an attested danger [its owner] pays half damages. They said in front of Rabbi Judah: “What if it is an attested danger on the Sabbath, and it is not an attested danger during the week?” He said to them:  “For [injuries done on] Sabbaths [its owner] pays full damages and for [injuries done] during the week [its owner] pays half damages.” When will this ox be considered harmless? After it refrains from doing injury 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, the owner 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 gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile 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, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.” 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.”
  If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted 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 its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.
  If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person; or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man; or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite; or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant, it is exempt [from death by stoning].
  The 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 proselyte who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says, “A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners.”
  If an ox goes 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. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted.
  If one 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; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he 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, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says:  “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says:  “Its only guarding is the knife.”
  
  
  
  If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young 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, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.
  If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
  If a man 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, the householder is not liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner 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 no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.
  If an ox intended [to gore] another ox and struck a woman and her offspring came forth [as a miscarriage], 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 [as a miscarriage], he must pay the value of the offspring. How does he pay the value of the offspring? They assess the value 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, and he pays it to the husband, or if she has no husband to his heirs.” If she was a freed bondwoman or a proselyte no penalty is incurred.
  If a man dug a pit in a private domain and opened it into the public domain, or if he dug it in the public domain and opened it into a private domain, or if he dug it in a private domain and opened it into another private domain, he is liable [if any is injured by the pit]. If he dug a pit in the public domain and an ox or ass fell into and died, he is liable. No matter whether he digs a pit, trench, or cavern, or ditches 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 is ten handbreadths deep, so anything is deep enough to cause death if it is ten handbreadths deep. If they were less than ten handbreadths deep and an ox or an ass fell in and died, the owner is not liable; but if it was damaged he is liable.
  If a pit belonged to two partners and 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 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 an ass fell into it and died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is liable. If it fell forward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, the owner of the pit is liable. But if backward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. If an ox and all of its trappings fell into it and they broke, or if an ass fell into it with its trappings and they were torn, he is liable for the beast but exempt for the trappings. If an ox that was deaf, insane or young fell in, the owner is liable. If a boy or a girl or a slave or a bondwoman fell in, he is not liable.
  An ox and all other beasts are alike under the laws concerning falling into a pit, keeping apart from Mount Sinai, two-fold restitution, the restoring of lost property, unloading, muzzling, diverse kinds, and the Sabbath. So to wild animals and birds. If so, why is it written “an ox or an ass”? But Scripture spoke of prevailing conditions.
  
  
  
  If a man brought his flock into a pen and shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is exempt. If he had not shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is liable. If the pen was broken through at night, or bandits broke through it, and the flock came out and caused damage, he is not liable. If the bandits brought out the flock, the bandits are liable.  Section one teaches that if a person were to properly enclose his flock and nevertheless the flock were to escape, the person is exempt.  Since he fulfilled his responsibility he is not liable for damages.  However, if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he will be liable.  Section two can be explained as an exception to the rule in section one that if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he is liable.  Section two teaches that if the flock broke out at night (i.e. they broke the enclosed part of the fence) or bandits broke the fence, the owner is exempt, even though he did not properly lock the fence.  The owner is not liable since the animals broke out against his control, even though they could have gone out through the main gate, thereby making him liable.  If, on the other hand, they were to have broken the fence during the day, and he didn’t lock it properly, he is liable.  (There are other explanations to this section).  The final clause of the mishnah says that if the bandits physically let out the flock, they are liable if it causes damage.
  If he left the flock in the sun, or he delivered it to the care of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor, and it came out and caused damage, he is liable. If he delivered it to a shepherd, the shepherd takes the place of the owner. If the flock fell into a garden and derived any benefit, he pays for the benefit. If the flock went down [into the garden] in its usual way and caused damage, he must pay for the damage it caused. How does he pay for the damage it caused? They assess what a seah’s space of ground in that field was worth before and what it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon says:  “If they consumed fully grown produce he must repay with fully grown produce; if they destroyed on seah he must repay one seah, if two seah, two seahs.
  If a man stacked his sheaves in his fellow’s field without his permission, and the owner of the field’s beast ate the sheaves, he is exempt. If [the beast] was injured by them, the owner of the stack is liable. If he made the stack with his permission, the owner of the field is liable.
  If a person sends forth fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor he is not liable by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it forth in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable. If one brought the fire, and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and then another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned the flame is liable. If the wind fanned the flame, they are all exempt. If a man sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, for 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.” If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way, or over a river, he is exempt. If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [and he will still be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says:  “It is looked at as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space.” [ Rabbi Eliezer says:  “Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public highway.” Rabbi Akiva says:  “Fifty cubits.” Rabbi Shimon says:  “[It is said] ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.”
  If a man set fire to a stack and in it there were utensils and these caught fire: Rabbi Judah says:  “He must make restitution for what was therein.” But the Sages say:  “He need only pay for a stack of wheat or barley.” If a kid was fastened to it [to the stack] and a slave stood near by, and they were burnt with it, he is liable. If there was a slave fastened to it [to the stack] and a kid stood near by and they were burnt with it, he is not liable. The Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if a man set fire to a large building, he must make restitution for everything therein; for such is the custom among men to leave [their goods] in their houses.
  If a spark flew 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, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the shopkeeper left his light outside, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah says:  “If it was a Hannukah light, he is not liable.”
  
  
  
  More encompassing in use 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, for it is written,  “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 make fourfold or fivefold restitution.
  If a man 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 make fourfold or fivefold restitution. If a man 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 make 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 terefah, or if he slaughtered it in the Temple Court [intending to eat it] as common food, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. In these last two cases Rabbi Shimon exempts.
  If a man 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 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 others, and both pairs are found to be false witnesses, the first pay twofold restitution and the last pay threefold restitution. If the second [only] were found to be false witnesses, the thief must make twofold restitution and they 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 void, 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 makes twofold restitution, but not 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, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon says:  “If they were Holy Things which must be replaced [if damaged or lost] he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution; but if they were Holy Things which need not be replaced, he is exempt.” 1. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use 3. or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; 4. if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; 5. if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple 6. he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. 1. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, 4. or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, 5. or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, 6. he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. In the cases mentioned in mishnah two the person is liable for fourfold and fivefold restitution and in mishnah four he is not.  Using the line by line comparison we should be able to see why the law is different in each individual case. In case 1, if the person slaughtered the ox or sheep on the Sabbath he is obligated for the death penalty.  Since one can only receive one punishment per crime, he is not fined additionally for having slaughtered the animal.  If, however, he had only sold the animal, he would not be obligated for the death penalty and therefore he would owe the fine.  The same is true for case 3. Selling an animal for idolatrous use is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty, and therefore he is obligated for the fine.  On the other hand, slaughtering for idolatrous use is a capital crime and therefore he receives a death penaly and not a fine.  We learn in case 4 that if he stole his father’s animal and did not slaughter or sell it until after he dies he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution.  Since at the time of the slaughtering or selling part of the animal was his as an inheritance he is not obligated.  (We will see a similar law in the next mishnah).  If, however, he had sold or slaughtered the animal before the death of his father, he would be obligated.  Similarly in case 5 if he sold and slaughtered the animal after having dedicated it, he is selling or slaughtering an animal that is no longer really belongs to him. He is therefore not obligated for the fine. If, however, he slaughtered or sold the animal and then dedicated it, he will be obligated for the fine. Rabbi Shimon makes a clarification on this last law.  The “Holy Things” to which he refers are animals dedicated to the Temple.  There are two types of such dedications.  If the owner says that “this animal is dedicated”, then he must bring this animal. If the animal gets lost or dies the owner is not obligated to bring another animal in its place.  In such a case, if a thief should steal and slaughter or sell the animal he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution.  If, however, the owner dedicated the animal by saying “I dedicate an animal”, then he if the original animal is lost he must bring another.  In such a case if the thief should slaughter or sell the animal he will be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution.  (This last law is difficult and is explained in other ways as well).
  If he sold it all but a hundredth part, or if he had [already] a share in it, or if slaughtered it and it became unfit [to eat] by his own hand, or if he pierced the windpipe or rooted out its gullet, he makes 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 make fourfold or fivefold restitution. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain, he is exempt.
  If while he was dragging [a sheep or ox] out it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. But 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 rear small herd animals 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 rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place.
  
  
  
  He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts:  for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’:  How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing].  If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a sleeping man inflicted indignity, he is exempt. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity].
  The law is more strict in the case of a man than in the case of an ox:  for a man must pay for injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income and indignity, and make restitution for the value of the young; whereas the ox pays only for injury and is not liable for the value of the young.
  If a man struck his father or his mother and inflicted no wound, or if he wounded his fellow on Yom Kippur, he is liable for all five counts. If he wounded a Hebrew slave, he is liable on all five counts, except loss of income if it was his slave. If he wounded a Canaanite slave (non-Jewish slave) he is liable on all five counts. Rabbi Judah says:  “Slaves do not receive compensation for indignity.”
  It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.
  If a man struck his father or mother and left a wound, or if he wounded his fellow on the Sabbath, he is not liable for any of the [five] counts because he is liable for his life. If a man wounded his Canaanite (non-Jewish) slave he is not liable on any of the five counts.
  If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean:  “A maneh (one hundred.” If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz. If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz. If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule:  all is in accordance with the person’s honor. Rabbi Akiva said:  “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”.  And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.” If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable. If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.
  Even though a man pays [him that suffers the indignity],  he is not forgiven until he seeks [forgiveness] from him, for it says:  “Therefore restore the man’s wife… [and he shall pray for you]” (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we learn that he who must forgive should not be cruel?  As it says:  “And Abraham prayed unto God and God healed Avimelech” (Genesis 20:17). If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property.
  
  
  
  If a man stole wood and made it into utensils, or wood and made it into garments, he makes restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft. If he stole a pregnant cow and it gave birth, or a sheep ready to be sheared, and he then sheared it, he repays the value of a cow about to bear young, or 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 value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft. This is the general rule: all robbers make restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.
  If he stole a beast and it grew old, or slaves and they grew old, he makes restitution according to [their value at] the moment of the theft. Rabbi Meir says:  “As for slaves the thief may say to the owner, ‘Here is what is yours before you.’” If he stole a coin and it cracked, fruit and it rotted, wine and it turned into vinegar, he must make restitution according to [the value] at the moment of the theft. But if he stole a coin and it went out of use, or “Heave offering” (terumah) and it became ritually unclean, or leaven and the time of Passover arrived, or a beast and it was used for a transgression, or became unfit to be offered or it was condemned to be stoned, he may say to the other, “Here is what is yours before you.”
  If he gave [something] to craftsmen to repair, and they ruined it, they must make restitution. If he gave a carpenter a box, chest or cupboard to repair, and he ruined it, he must make restitution. If a builder undertook to pull down a wall, and he broke the stones or caused damage, he must make restitution. If he was pulling down at the one end and it fell down on the other, he is exempt; However, if it fell due to the blow, he is liable.
  If a man gave wool to a dyer and the cauldron burned it, he must repay him the value of the wool. If he dyed it badly: if the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement. If he told him to dye it red and he dyed it black; black and he dyed it red: Rabbi Meir says:  “[The dyer] must pay the cost of the wool.” Rabbi Judah says:  “If the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement.
  If a man robbed his fellow of the value of a perutah and swore [falsely] to him, he must take it to him even as far as Medea. He may not give it to his son or to his agent, but he may give it to the agent of the court. If his fellow had died he must return it to his heirs.
  1. If he had repaid the value but had not paid the [added] fifth, or if he had forgiven him the value but not the [added] fifth, or if had forgiven him both except for less than a perutah’s worth of the value, he need not go after him. 2. If he had repaid him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven both except for a perutah’s worth of the value, he must go after him.
  If he had paid him the value and had sworn [falsely] to him concerning the [added] fifth, he must pay a fifth on the fifth [and so on] until the value [of the added fifth] 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 5:21-2, such a one must pay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. [If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is lost,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he consumed it, he need pay [only] the value. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering.
  [If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is stolen,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he must make twofold restitution. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering.
  If a man stole from his father and swore [falsely] to him, and the father died, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth to the father’s sons or brothers. If he will not repay or if has does not have [with which to repay] he must borrow and the creditors come and are repaid.
  If a man said to his son, “Qonam, you will not derive any benefit from that which is mine”, and he died, the son may inherit him. [But if he moreover said], “Both during my life and at my death”, when 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 exact payment.
  If a man stole from a convert and swore [falsely] to him, and the convert died, he must repay the value and the added 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 brought 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 to the Temple treasury.
  If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, 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, 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; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].
  
  
  
  If a man stole [something] and fed it to his children, or if he left it in front of them, they are exempt from making restitution. But if it was something which is subject to mortgage (that is, real estate), they are liable to make restitution. One may not make change from the chest of an excise collector or from the wallet of tax collectors, or take any charity from them. But it may be taken 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 a man of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners gave up hope of recovering them. If a man saved something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits:  if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the item], it belongs to him. So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the swarm], it belongs to him. Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka said:  “A woman or child may be believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees went away from here.’” A man may go into his fellow’s field to save his swarm and if he causes damage he must pay for the damage that he has caused; but he may not cut off a branch of the tree [to save his swarm] even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, says:  “He may even cut off [the branch] and repay the value.”
  If a man recognized his utensils or books in another’s hands and a report of theft had gone out in the town, the purchaser swears how much he paid and takes this price [from the owner and restores the goods]. But if [such a report had] not [gone out], he [the original owner] does not have the power, for I might say that he had first sold them to another and this one bought it from him.
  If one came with his jar of wine and the other came with his jug of honey and the jug of honey cracked, and the other poured out his wine and saved the honey [by receiving it] into his jar, he can claim no more than his wages. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” [the owner of the honey] is liable to pay him back. If a flood swept away a man’s donkey and his fellow’s donkey, and his own was worth 100 [zuz] and his fellow’s was worth 200 [zuz], and he left his own and saved that of his fellow, he can claim no more than his wages. 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.
  If a man stole a field from his fellow and tyrants came and took it from him, if the whole district suffered, he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.” But if it was on account of the robber [that the tyrants took the field], he must provide him with another field. If a flood swept away [the field], he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.”
  If a man stole something from his friend in an inhabited region or borrowed it or received it as a deposit, he may not return it to him in the wilderness. But if he [had borrowed it or received it] with the understanding that he was going out to the wilderness, he may return it to him in the wilderness.
  If a man 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], “whether you lent me [something]”, or “whether you deposited [something] with me”, he is exempt from repaying.
  If a man stole a lamb from the flock and restored it, but it died or was stolen again, he is responsible for it. If the owner knew neither of its theft nor of its return and counted the flock and found it complete, the thief is exempt.
  One is not to buy wool or milk or kids from herdsmen, not fruit from those that watch over fruit-trees. However, one may buy garments of wool from women in Judea and garments of flax from women in the Galilee or calves in the Sharon. And in all cases in which [the seller] says to hide them away, it is forbidden [to purchase the item]. One may buy eggs and fowls in any case.
  Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take 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 takes 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.