Damages to Property

Whenever a living animal owned by a person causes damages, the owner is required to pay, for the damage was caused by his property. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35:] "When a person's ox will gore an ox belonging to a colleague...." These laws apply equally to an ox and to any other animal, beast or fowl. The verse mentions an ox only because that is a common instance.

How much must [the owner] pay? If [the animal] caused damage through the performance of an act that it performs frequently and that is its natural habit - e.g., an animal ate straw or fodder, or it caused damage by [treading on an object] with its feet while walking - [the owner] is obligated to pay the full amount of the damage, [giving up, if necessary,] his most choice property, as stated in [Exodus 22:4]: "Payment should be exacted from his choice field and his choice vineyard." If [the animal] deviated from its ordinary habit and performed acts that it does not usually perform and caused damage in this manner - e.g., a ox gored or bit [another animal] - the owner is obligated to pay half the damages caused. [The payment must be exacted] from the animal that caused the damage, as [Exodus 21:35] states: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive and divide the money."

What is implied? When an ox that is worth a manehgores an ox that is worth 20 zuz and kills it, [leaving] a corpse that is worth four zuz, the owner of the ox [that caused the damage] is liable to pay eight zuz, half of the loss [suffered by the owner of the ox that was killed]. The payment must be exacted from the body of the animal that caused the damage, as it is written: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive." Therefore, if an ox that was worth 20 zuz killed an ox that was worth 200 zuz and its carcass was worth [only] a maneh, the owner of the dead ox cannot compel the owner of the living ox to give him 50 [zuz]. Instead, he should tell him: "Here is the ox that caused the damage. Take it and depart."[This applies] even if the [ox that gored] is worth only a dinar. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

[An animal] that performs a deed it is accustomed to performing by nature is called a mu'ad. [When an animal] deviates from its ordinary pattern and performs an act that its species does not usually perform - e.g., an ox gores or bites - it is called a tam. If the animal continues to follow the deviant pattern on several occasions, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to the deviation to which it has become habituated, as [implied by Exodus 21:36]: "Or it is known that it is a goring ox."

Five types of activities are considered to be abnormal for an animal. If it repeatedly performs any of them, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to that activity. An animal is not considered to be prone to gore, to butt, to bite, to lie down on large utensils or to kick. If it becomes accustomed to such an activity, its owner should be forewarned. At the outset, [an animal] is, however, considered prone to eat foods that are appropriate for it and to break utensils [on which it treads] as it walks. Similarly, an animal is considered prone to lie down on small utensils and crush them.

Five kinds of animals are an attested danger from the outset even when they are tamed. Hence, if any of them did damage or killed by goring, biting, clawing, or the like, the owner must restore in full. They are: the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the panther. So too the snake that bit is an attested danger, even if tamed

Whenever [an animal] is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damage, [even if this requires expropriating] his most choice property. Whenever, by contrast, an animal is considered a tam, [the owner] is required to pay [only] half the amount of the damages. [Moreover,] that half is taken only from the animal itself. When does the above apply? When the animal entered into the domain belonging to the person to whom damage was caused, and caused damage. When, however, the person to whom damage was caused entered into the domain of the person [whose animal] caused the damage, [the owner] is not liable for anything. For he can tell [the party who suffered the damages]: "If you had not entered my domain, you would not have suffered any damages." Indeed, this is explicitly stated in the Torah, as [Exodus 22:4] states: "And if he shall send forth his animals, and they pasture in another's field."

[The following rules apply when a person's] animal causes damage in the public domain or in a courtyard that belongs neither to the owner of [the animal that] caused the damage nor to the party who suffered the damages, or in a courtyard owned jointly by both parties that is set aside to leave produce there and/or to harbor an animal - e.g., a valley. If [the animal] caused damage by eating or treading in its ordinary manner, the owner is not liable. For [the animal] has permission to go from here to there, and it is the habit of an animal to go and eat as it proceeds and to break [anything lying in its way] as it proceeds.[Different rules apply if] it [caused damage by] goring, butting, kicking or biting. If its status is tam, [the owner] must pay for half the damages. If its status is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages.

When a courtyard owned jointly by both parties is designated for produce and not for harboring an animal, and one of the parties lets his animal in and it causes damage, [the owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading. Similarly, if both of them had the right to harbor an animal there, but only one had the right to keep produce there, if [an animal belonging to the other] damaged [that person's] produce, [its owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading.

There are three categories of damages [caused by] an ox: a) goring, b) eating and c) treading. The derivatives of goring are butting, biting, lying upon and kicking.The derivatives of eating are causing damage when scratching itself on a wall for its benefit, and soiling produce for its benefit. The derivatives of treading are causing damage with its body while walking; causing damage with its hair while walking or by swishing its tail, or with its saddle, the bit in its mouth or the bell around its neck. Similarly, a donkey that causes damage with its burden while walking or a calf that is pulling a cart that causes damage while pulling it. All of these are derivatives of treading. In a public domain [the owner] is not liable, and in a domain belonging to the party who suffered the damages, he must pay for the entire amount of the damages.

When [an animal] swishes its tail repeatedly in an abnormal manner and causes damage in the public domain, or when it swishes its sexual organ and causes damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not held liable. If the person whose property was damaged seizes possession [of property belonging to the owner], he may take payment for half of the damages. [The rationale for that ruling is that] there is an unresolved question whether these acts are derivatives of goring, in which case [the owner] is liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, or whether they are derivatives of treading, in which case [the owner] is not liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, as has been explained.

[The following laws apply with regard to] the major categories of damages and their derivatives. [If a person's property is considered] mu'ad with regard to the major category, it is considered mu'ad with regard to its derivatives. [If it is considered] tam with regard to the major category, the same law applies with regard to its derivatives. From the outset, [a person's property is considered] to be mu'ad with regard to all the major categories of damage and their derivatives, with the exception of goring and its derivatives. In that instance, [an animal is considered] tam until it has been deemed prone [to goring], as explained.

All the derivatives of a category of damages are governed by the same laws as the major category, with the exception of stones that are propelled by an animal while walking. This activity is considered a derivative of the category of treading, and one is therefore not liable for damage caused in the public domain. Nevertheless, if such stones cause damage in a person's private domain, [the owner of the animal] must pay [for the damages] from his most choice property, as he must pay for damages caused by treading, the major category. And yet, he is required to pay only half the amount of the damages.

What is implied? When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and proceeds to walk, and in doing so propels stones from under its feet that break utensils, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the amount of the damage from his most choice property. This matter is a law communicated by the Oral Tradition.

Similarly, if [an animal] was proceeding in the public domain and stones were propelled from under its feet into a domain belonging to someone else, and they broke utensils there, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the damages. If [an animal] treads on a utensil in a domain belonging to someone else and breaks it, and shards from the broken utensil fall on another utensil and break it, [the owner of the animal] must pay the entire [damages for the destruction of] the first utensil, and half [the damages for the destruction of] the second utensil.

If an animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked [the ground] and propelled stones that caused damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable. If the person whose property was damaged seized a fourth [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him. [The rationale is that] there is a doubt regarding the matter: perhaps this is considered a deviation from the ordinary pattern and it is not a derivative of treading, for [the animal] kicked.

If the animal kicked the earth in the domain belonging to another person and stones were propelled because of its kick and caused damages, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages, for this is a deviation from the ordinary manner of propelling stones. If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him. Even if an animal was walking in a place where it would be impossible for it not to propel stones, and it kicked [the earth] and propelled stones, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages. If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.

Whenever a person must pay full damages, the payment is considered to be a monetary obligation that he is liable to pay, as if he had borrowed [money] from his colleague. When, by contrast, a person must pay half the damages, the monetary obligation is considered a fine, with the exception of the half damages liable from stones, which is a halachah [transmitted by the Oral Tradition], as we have explained.

This is the operating principle: Whenever a person pays for the damage that he caused, it is considered a monetary obligation. Whenever he pays more or less - e.g., the double payment (for theft) or half the amount of damages - the amount that is greater or less than the principal is considered to be a fine. A fine is required only when one is obligated through the testimony of witnesses. When a person admits that he is liable for a fine, he is absolved of the obligation.

[The following rules apply when] a rooster sticks its head inside a glass container, crows while doing so and breaks it [as a result of the sound]. If there were spices or the like inside [the container, and the rooster] stuck its head in to eat them, [the owner] must pay full damages for the spices and half the damages for the container, as one pays half damages for stones [that are propelled]. [The rationale is that this is the animal's] ordinary pattern. If, however, the container is empty, this is a deviation from the norm, and [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages, as in the case with other fines.

Similarly, if a horse yelped or a donkey bellowed and utensils were broken as a result, the owner is obligated to pay only half the damages. Roosters are considered prone to break utensils as they proceed in their ordinary pattern. If there was a string or a strap tied to [a rooster's] legs and a utensil became entangled with the string and rolled and broke, [the owner] is required to pay half the damages.When does the above apply? When the string was tied to the rooster by a person. If, however, the string became ensnarled around the rooster's foot, its owner is not liable. If that string was owned by a given person, rather than being ownerless, the owner of the string is liable to pay half the damages, because the string is like a moving pit.

If the owner of the string hid the string, and the roosters trod on it and took it out, and then it became ensnarled around their feet, and as a result utensils were broken, the owner of the string is also freed of liability, for [the damage] was beyond his control.

[The following rules apply when] roosters flew from place to place and broke utensils. If they broke the utensils with their wings, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. If the utensils were broken by the wind generated by [the roosters'] wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.

[If roosters] were digging at dough or at produce and soiled it or pecked at it, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. If they caused damages with the dust or stones that they raised with their feet or with their wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.

If [roosters] were pecking at a rope [that held a bucket], the rope tore, and the bucket broke, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. [This applies when] the bucket rolled until it fell and broke because of them. If there was food on the rope, and the rope tore while they were eating, they are liable to pay the entire amount of the damage to the rope as well.

When a dog or a goat jumps from a roof downward and breaks utensils, [the owner] is liable for the entire damages, because they are prone to this. Similarly, if they fell and caused damages, [their owner is liable], because the fact that they climbed to the roof is considered negligence. [Therefore,] even if they fell because of forces beyond [the owner's] control, [he is liable], because whenever a person is negligent at the outset, and damage subsequently occurs because of forces beyond his control, he is liable.

If [the animals] jump upward [and cause damage], [the owner] is liable for half. This applies when a goat climbs upward or a dog jumps. If, however, a dog climbed upward and a goat leaps, whether upward or downward, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. Similarly, if a rooster jumps either upward or downward, [the owner] is liable to pay for the entire amount of the damage.

[The following laws apply when] a dog takes a cake [from a fire where it is cooking, a coal is stuck to the cake], and [the dog] takes [the cake] to a grain heap. If it places [the cake] down on the grain heap, eats the cake and kindles the grain heap, [the owner] is liable to pay the full damages for the cake and the place where it placed the cake [in the grain heap]. For the remainder of the grain heap, he is required to pay only half the damages. If [the dog] dragged the cake all over the grain heap, burning it as it proceeded, [the owner] is liable to pay the entire damages for the cake. For the place of the coals, [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages, and for the remainder of the grain heap he is not liable at all.

When does the above apply? When the owner of the coal guarded his fire and closed the door, and yet the dog dug underneath [until it could enter and] take the cake from the fire. If, however, he did not guard his fire, the owner of the fire is liable for the burning of the grain heap, and the owner of the dog is liable for the cake and the place where it was placed.

When a person sets a dog belonging to a colleague on a [third] individual, he is not held liable by mortal courts; the laws of heaven, however, obligate him to pay. The owner of the dog is liable to pay half the damages. Since he knows that if his dog is set upon [a person] maliciously he will bite him, he should not have allowed [his dog to be left to do this]. If [a person] set a dog [belonging to a colleague] to bite the person himself, the owner of the dog is not liable. For when there is already a deviation from the norm, and a person brings about a further deviation, [the owner] is not liable.

When there are two cows in the public domain, one lying down and one walking, if the one walking kicks the one lying down, [the owner] is liable for half the damages. Even though it would be the ordinary practice for [the cow] to tread on the cow that is lying down, it is not its ordinary practice to kick it.

It is taken for granted that an animal is prone to eat fruit, vegetables or the like. Therefore, if [an animal] enters a domain belonging to another person and eats produce that it would normally eat, [the owner of the animal] is liable for the entire amount of the damages, as stated [in Exodus 22:4]: "And if he shall send forth his animals, and they shall pasture in another's field, payment should be exacted from his choice field." If [the animal] ate produce belonging to another person in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable. If [the animal] benefits [from eating the produce], the owner must pay for the benefit [his animal received], but not for the damages caused.

What is implied? If [an animal] entered another person's domain and ate sesame seeds, chestnuts or the like that were worth a dinar, [the owner] must pay a dinar. If [the animal ate these foods] in the public domain and derived benefit, we consider [these foods] as if they were barley or fodder, and [the owner is required to] pay the wholesale price of fodder or barley.

If the animal ate foods that are harmful to it - e.g., it ate wheat - since it did not derive any benefit, [the owner] is not liable. If it ate substances that it would not usually eat - e.g., it ate a garment or a utensil - [the owner] should pay half the damages. [This applies] both in a private domain and in a public domain. [The rationale is that] this is a deviation. [Hence, the owner is liable for only half the damages. He is liable for damage caused in the public domain, however] because it is the ordinary practice of people to leave their utensils or garments in the public domain while they rest.

There is a doubt [regarding the liability of the owner when his] animal is standing in a private domain, but takes produce [belonging to the owner of the private domain] from the public domain and eats it in that private domain. Therefore, [the owner] is liable only for the benefit [his animal] derived. If, however, the person whose property was damaged seizes possession of the full worth of the damage [caused by the animal], it should not be expropriated from him, for [the produce] was eaten in his domain.

When a dog entered a courtyard, took bread or meat, brought it into the public domain or to another courtyard and ate it there, [the owner] should pay for the benefit [the dog] received. If [the dog] ate [the food] in a field belonging to the owner of the courtyard, the [dog's owner] must pay the full extent of the damages as if it had been eaten in the courtyard, because it was eaten in a domain belonging to the person whose property was damaged. The same [laws] apply in all analogous situations.

[The following rules apply when] an animal eats foods that it would not ordinarily eat, but would eat under constraint: e.g., a cow that ate barley, a donkey that ate vetch or fish, a pig that ate a piece of meat, a dog that licked oil, a cat that ate dates and the like. If the foods were eaten in a domain belonging to the person whose property was damaged, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damage. [If the foods were eaten] in the public domain, he is not liable. If [the animal] benefited, the owner must pay for that benefit.

When a beast enters a private domain and seizes an animal or meat and eats it, [its owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, for this is its ordinary course of behavior. When, however, a dog eats small sheep, or a cat eats large cocks, this is considered to be a deviation, and [the owner] is liable for [only] half the damages.

When there is a basket of bread [in a private domain], and a donkey enters and breaks the basket and eats the bread, [the owner] is liable for the full extent of the damages, for this is [a donkey's] ordinary behavior. Similarly, if a goat sees a turnip or the like on the opening of a jug, stumbles over the jug and eats the turnip and breaks the jug, [the owner] must pay the full damages for both, for it is the ordinary pattern [for such an animal] to hang on to utensils and climb on them in order to eat. The same applies in all analogous situations. If, however, a donkey came in and ate bread and then broke a basket, [the owner] is liable for full damages for the bread, but only half damages for the basket. The same applies in all analogous situations.

When an animal eats [produce] in the marketplace, whether when walking or when standing, [its owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received. This applies even if the animal turns [its head] to the corners of the marketplace and eats. If, however, the animal left the marketplace and went and stood at the corner of the marketplace and ate [produce], [its owner] must pay for the damages. If the animal ate from [produce in] the storefront, [the owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received. If it ate from [produce] within the store, he must pay the full extent of the damages.

If an animal was walking in the public domain and stretched out its neck and ate from [produce] that was [loaded onto] another animal's back, [its owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received, for it is common for animals to eat from [a load] being carried by another. [This law applies] even when [the animal] stands. If it jumped to eat from the [produce] that was [loaded onto] another animal's back, [its owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, because the back of another animal is considered to be the private domain of the person who suffered the damage.

If an animal slips on a stone or on its urine and falls into a garden of fruit or vegetables or if it eats from the garden, [the owner] is required to pay [only] for the benefit it receives. Even if it walks from one row to another row, and even if it stays there the entire day, he is required to pay [only] for the benefit it receives. What benefit could it receive from falling? That it fell on a soft place and did not crush its limbs. If, by contrast, an animal descended [into private property] in an ordinary manner and ate produce, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages. Even if it soiled produce with its afterbirth, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, because the first stage involved negligence. Similarly, if it was pushed by another animal and fell, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, because he should have had them pass one by one so that they would not push each other.

If it slipped and fell [into another person's garden], departed and then returned to that garden, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, even if it returned without his knowledge. He was obligated to watch it, [and prevent it] from returning. For it is known that if an animal knows the way to a garden, it will return on its own initiative.

When a potter brings his wares into a person's courtyard without his permission, and an animal belonging to the owner [of the courtyard] broke the pottery, [the owner] is not liable. [Moreover,] if the animal is injured, the potter is liable. If he brought his wares in with [the owner's] permission, [the potter is not liable [for the animal's injury]. If the owner made a commitment to guard the pottery, he is liable [for the damages].

Similarly, if [a person] brought produce into a courtyard belonging to another individual without his permission and the animal belonging to the owner [of the courtyard] ate it, [the owner of the courtyard] is not liable. If the animal slipped on it and suffered injuries, the owner of the produce is liable. If he brought the produce in with [the owner's] permission, [the owner of the produce] is not liable [for the animal's injury]. If the owner [of the courtyard] made a commitment to guard the produce, he is liable [for the damages to the produce]. If the person brought produce [into a courtyard] without permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate it and suffered injury because it ate it, the owner of the produce is not liable. The animal should not have eaten it. When the owner of a courtyard allowed a person to bring his produce into [the courtyard] and left [the owner of the produce] to watch it, if an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate from the produce and suffered damages, the owner of the produce is liable. Since he saw the animal eating produce that could damage it and took no action, he is liable. For the owner of the courtyard is not present to banish his animal from them. An incident occurred when a woman entered to bake in the house of her neighbors. They left her alone, so that they would not see her while she was kneading and baking. A goat belonging to the owner came and ate from [her raw] dough and died. The Sages obligated her to reimburse [the owners] for the goat. These principles apply in all similar situations.

When a person made a grain heap in a field belonging to a colleague without the latter's permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the field ate it, [the owner of the field] is not liable. If the animal slipped on it and suffered injuries, the owner of the produce is liable. If the animal ate it and suffered injury because it ate it, [the owner of the produce] is not liable. If he had permission to make the grain heap, the owner of the field is liable, even if he did not accept the responsibility to guard [the grain pile]. Once a watchman in the granaries says: "Make your grain heap here," it is as if he told him: "Make your grain heap and I will guard it for you."

When a person gathers sheep in a corral and locks them in with a gate that can withstand an ordinary wind, and [yet the sheep were able to] leave and cause damage, the owner is not liable. If [the gate] cannot withstand an ordinary wind or if the walls of the corral are shaky, [the owner] is not considered to have enclosed [the sheep] in a proper manner. [Thus, if they are able to] leave and cause damage, he is liable. Even if [the sheep] dug beneath [the gate to] get out, [the gate] was broken at night, or thieves broke it down, the owner of the sheep is liable [for the damage his sheep cause]. If, however, the gate was strong and it was broken at night or thieves broke in, and then [the sheep] departed and caused damage, [the owner] is not liable. If the thieves took the sheep out and then they caused damage, the thieves are liable.

[The following rules apply when] a person breaks down a fence in front of an animal belonging to a colleague. If the fence was strong and sturdy, he is liable. If the wall was shaky, he cannot be held liable according to mortal law, but he has a moral obligation. Similarly, if a person places poison in front of an animal belonging to a colleague, he cannot be held liable according to mortal law, but he has a moral obligation.

When a person brings an animal belonging to a colleague to crops belonging to a third individual, the person who brought the animal there is liable. Similarly, if a colleague hit an animal with a switch until it walked to crops belonging to a third individual, the person who switched it is liable.

When a person entrusts his animal to an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower, these individuals assume the owner's responsibilities. If [the animal] causes damages, the watchman is held liable. When does the above apply? When he did not guard the animal at all. If, however, he guarded the animal in an excellent manner, as he should, and it got loose and caused damage, the watchman is not liable, and the owners are liable, even if the animal kills a human being.Should the watchman guard the animal in an inferior manner, he is not held liable if he is an unpaid watchman. If he is a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower, he is held liable.

If [a person] leaves an animal in the sun and it gets loose and causes damage, even if it must dig [under the fence to do so], the one who left it in the sun is liable. [The rationale is that because of] the discomfort [the animal] feels, it will do anything it possibly can to flee.

When [a person] gives his animal to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual or a minor to watch, the owner is liable. [This applies] even if the ox is tied, for an ox - and similarly other [animals] - will break open the knot and go out and cause damage. Even if the animal was guarded in an excellent manner, and it dug [under the fence] and escaped and caused damage, the owners are liable.

[The following rules apply when] a person entrusts his ox to five men, one of them was negligent, and the ox escaped and caused damage. If all five are required to guard the ox, the person who was negligent is liable. If the ox can still be watched by the others, they share in the liability.

[The following rules apply if a person] borrowed an ox under the presumption that it was an ordinary ox, and it was discovered that it had already been classified as one that gores. If the borrower knew that it had a tendency to gore, the owners are required to pay half the damages, for wherever the ox goes, it remains the owner's property. The borrower is also required to pay half the damages, because even if it had been an ordinary ox, as he had thought, he would have been required to pay half the damages, for he knew that the ox had a tendency to gore. If, however, the borrower did not know of this tendency, he is not liable at all, and the owners must pay the entire amount of the damages.

When a borrower borrows an ox that is classified as an ordinary ox, and it becomes classified as a goring ox when in the possession of the borrower, it is removed from that category when it is returned to its owner. Since the domain [under which the animal is] changes, its classification also changes. [If the ox gores,] the owners must pay half the damages, and the borrower is not held liable at all, for he returned it to its owners.

When a watchman accepts responsibility only for watching the body of an animal [entrusted to him], but [does not accept responsibility] for the damage it causes, if [the animal] causes damage the watchman is not held liable, and its owners are. If [the watchman] accepted responsibility [only] for the damages [the animal] causes, he is liable if it causes damage. If it is injured, the watchman is not liable, and the owners should sue the person who caused the injury.

When a watchman entrusts [an animal] to another watchman, [and it causes damage], the first watchman is liable to pay the person whose property was damaged. For whenever one watchman delegates [an entrusted object] to another watchman, he is liable. For the person whose property was damaged will tell him: "Why didn't you watch it yourself instead of delegating it to someone else? Pay me yourself, and sue the watchman to whom you delegated it." If, however, the watchman entrusted [the animal] to his son, a member of his household or one of his helpers, they assume the responsibility that was the watchman's, and they are liable.

[The following rule applies when] a watchman is liable to pay [for the damages an animal caused], but he is insolvent. If the animal that caused the damage is considered to be an ordinary animal, in which case half the damages must be paid from the body of the animal itself, the person whose property was damaged should take his due from the animal, and the sum that he collects should be considered to be a debt owed by the watchman to the owner of the animal.

Whenever an animal causes damage to crops that are growing, the damage is assessed by comparison with a field sixty times the size of the crops that were damaged. The one who is liable - either the owner or the watchman - is obligated to pay that sum. What is implied? If [an animal] ate the amount of produce that would grow when a se'ah [of seeds] were sown in that field, we calculate the worth of an area in which sixty se'ah [of seeds] could be sown in that field, [evaluating] how much it would be worth [before the animal ate from it] and how much it is worth now. [The owner or the watchman] is liable for the remainder. Similarly, if the animal ate an amount of produce that would grow when a kav or a quarter of a kav were sown - [or even if it ate] one stalk of grain - the damages are assessed by comparison with a field sixty times the size of the crops that were damaged.

When, [by contrast,] an animal ate fruit that ripened and no longer needed [the nurture of] the land, [the owner of the animal is required to] pay the full value of ripe produce. If [the animal ate] a se'ah, he must pay for a se'ah. If [it ate] two se'ah, he must pay for two se'ah. [The following laws apply if an animal] ate the fruit of one date palm, or a person gathered the fruit of a colleague's date palm and ate it. If it was a Roman date palm, whose fruit is not of very high quality, it should be measured in comparison with a orchard of date palms sixty times the size of its land. If it was a Persian date palm or the like, whose fruit is of very high quality, the date palm should be evaluated individually. An assessment should be made of its worth before the fruit was eaten and its worth after the fruit was eaten.

[The following laws apply when] an animal was pasturing and entered fields and vineyards [belonging to others]. Even though it did not cause any damage, a warning should be given to its owner on three occasions. [Afterwards,] if he does not watch his animal and prevent it from pasturing [in other people's fields], the owner of the field has the right to slaughter the animal in a ritually acceptable manner, and tell its owners: "Come and sell your meat." [The rationale is that] it is forbidden for a person to cause damages and then to pay for the damages he caused. Even being an [indirect] cause of damage is forbidden.

For this reason, our Sages forbade [our people] from raising small animals and small beasts in Eretz Yisrael, where there are fields and vineyards. One may, however, raise these animals in the forests and deserts of Eretz Yisrael.In Syria, it is permitted to raise these animals everywhere.

Joshua and his court established ten conditions at the time they divided the land [into ancestral plots]: a) One may pasture a small animal in forests that are thick with trees; one may not, however, pasture a large animal there. In a forest that is not thick with trees, one may not pasture either a large animal or a small animal without the permission of the owners. b) Any person is permitted to collect wood from a field belonging to a colleague. This refers to wood that is not valuable - comparable to thorns, brambles and prickly shrubs. Moreover, this refers to fresh twigs that are still connected to their source of nurture, and applies only when the person will not uproot them entirely. It is forbidden to take other types of wood. c) Any person may collect grass that is growing on its own accord anywhere, except for a field of fenugrec that was sown to be used as animal fodder. d) A person may cut off a branch from any tree in any place, except from the branches left in an old olive tree. One may not, however, cut off closer than the length of an egg from the place where the branches begin to spread from an olive tree. And one may cut only from the place where a shoot is joined to the trunk of a reed or a vine. With regard to other trees, one may cut from the center of the tree and not from its higher branches. [Although] permission was granted to cut off a branch, this applies only to [cutting] from a new branch that does not yet produce fruit, but not from an old branch that produces fruit. One may cut off [a branch] only from a portion of the tree that is not exposed to the sun. e) When a new spring of water emerges, the inhabitants of the city in whose territory it emerges may make use of it, even though its source is elsewhere. No others may take water from it together with them. f) Any person may catch fish in Lake Kinneret, provided he fishes with a small net. Only the tribe to which the lake was awarded as part of their ancestral portion may spread out large nets that will prevent the passage of other boats. g) Any person who needs to relieve himself may turn off the path, go behind any fence he sees and defecate there. [This applies] even with regard to a field of saffron. One may pick up a stone from there and clean oneself with it. h) Any person who loses his way in a vineyard or the like may break through the vines and ascend, or break through the vines and descend until he is able to find his way. i) When the public thoroughfare is filled with mud, or the ravines are filled with water, passersby may take side paths, even though they are private property. j) A corpse that has no one to bury it acquires its place and should be buried there by the person who finds it. This applies provided the corpse is not lying lengthwise across the path, or within the Sabbath boundaries of a city. In those instances, the corpse should be transported to a cemetery.

King Solomon ordained that passersby are permitted to walk on private paths in the fields during the summer months until the second phase of fall rains descend.

These rules apply in all places, even in the diaspora.

From the time dew descends in Babylonia, it is forbidden to walk through private pathways belonging to others.

Although it is forbidden to raise a small animal in Eretz Yisrael, one may maintain possession of one for 30 days prior to a pilgrimage festival, or prior to the wedding of one's son. A butcher may buy an animal for slaughter and may leave it for a certain time until he slaughters it, as long as it does not pasture with the flock. Instead, whoever maintains possession of a small animal must keep it within his house, so that it does not cause damage.

[Our Sages] established an equation between Babylonia and Israel, prohibiting the raising of small animals and beasts there as well. For [in Talmudic times,] the majority of the fields and vineyards there belonged to Jews.

Similarly, our Sages forbade raising pigs in all places. Also, [our Sages forbade raising] dogs unless they are tied by a chain. One may, however, raise dogs in a city near the border. During the day [the dogs] should be chained, and at night let loose. Our Sages said: "Cursed be one who raises dogs and pigs, because they frequently cause a great degree of damage."

When a shepherd repents, he should not be obligated to sell [his entire herd] immediately. Instead, he should sell a bit at a time. Similarly, if a person has inherited dogs and pigs, he is not required to sell all of them immediately, but instead may sell them bit by bit.

What is meant by the term mu'ad? [An animal regarding which] testimony was given on three [different] days. If, however, an animal gored [other animals] on one day, or it bit, lay upon, kicked or butted [other animals many] - even one hundred - times in one day, it should not be considered to be mu'ad. If three pairs of witnesses gave testimony [concerning an animal] on one day, there is an [unresolved] doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad or not.

The warning administered to an owner [for an animal] must be administered in the owner's presence, as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "And the owners shall be warned." The warning must be administered in a court.

When an ox belonging to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, a minor or a person who is overseas gores, [the owner] is not liable. The court should, however, appoint a guardian for the ox and administer the warning to the guardian.

[The following rules apply when this ox] causes damage after the warning was administered to the guardian: If the ox is still classified as a tam, an ordinary animal, half the damages must be paid from the body [of the ox]. If a warning was administered on three [different] days, and afterwards [the ox] causes damage, the guardian must pay for the damage from the choicest properties he owns. When the orphans attain majority, they must enter into litigation with the guardian and repay him.

When oxen are used for sport, and they are trained to gore each other, they are not considered to be mu'adim [to gore] each other. [Moreover,] even if they kill a human, they should not be executed, for [Exodus 21:28] states: "When an ox gores...," [implying that it does so on its own initiative,] not that it was prompted to gore.

When an ox was sold or given away as a present after its owners had been warned, its status reverts back to that of a tam. With the change in ownership, its status changes. If, however, an ox was borrowed or entrusted to a watchman, its status remains unchanged. Similarly, if a warning regarding an ox was given to a guardian, and then the owner who was a deaf mute regained his faculties, or the owner who was mentally incompetent regained competence, or the owner who was a minor attains majority, the status of the ox remains unchanged, for it remains in the domain of the [same] owner.

When an animal was classified as mu'ad, and then it changes its conduct, its status changes and it is considered to be a tam. What is implied? If an ox was classified as mu'ad with regard to goring and it ceased goring, it is considered to be a tam with regard to goring, even though it still butts. When is it considered to have ceased [goring]? When children play with it and it does not gore them. Similarly with regard to other tendencies regarding which warnings were given, [the status of the animal remains unchanged] until [children] play with it, and it does not do [what it was wont to do previously].

When an ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to [other oxen], it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to other types of animals. An ox that has been classified as mu'ad with regard to humans is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to animals. If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to young animals, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to older animals. Therefore, if it caused damage of the type regarding which the warning was given, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it caused damages of another type, regarding which a warning was not given, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages. If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to Sabbaths, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to weekdays. If it causes damage on the Sabbath, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. During the week, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages. When is the warning rescinded? When children will play with it on the day concerning which the warning was given, and it does not harm them in the way it is known to cause harm.

If [an ox] gored another ox on one day, a donkey on the following day, and a camel on the day afterwards, it is classified as mu'ad for all [these three] types [of animals]. [A warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw another ox and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw another ox and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore oxen on alternate days. Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.

[Similarly, a warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw a donkey, but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw a horse and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw a camel but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw a mule and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw a wild ass but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore all [these three] types [of animals] on alternate days. If it gores one of these types of animals that it had gored on alternate days on a day on which it is mu'ad, [the owner must pay the full damages, as is required for an ox that is] mu'ad.

[When an ox] gores [an animal] on the fifteenth of one month, on the sixteenth of the following month, and on the seventeenth of the third month, it is not classified as mu'ad until it adds a day a third time, in the fourth month. If an ox hears a shofar blast and gores on three [successive] occasions, it is considered mu'ad [to gore after hearing] shofar blasts. Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.

[There is an unresolved doubt in the following situations.] An ox gored three other oxen on three successive days. On the fourth day it gored a donkey, and on the fifth day it gored a camel. Or at first it gored a donkey and a camel, and then it gored three oxen one after another. There is a doubt if it is classified as mu'ad only for oxen or for all three types of animals. Similarly, if an ox gores on three successive Sabbaths and then on the Sunday and the Monday [following the third Sabbath], or it gored on Thursday, on Friday and then on three successive Sabbaths, there is a doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad only for Sabbaths or for a block of three days, two of which are ordinary weekdays.

With regard to these unresolved questions and the like, [the owner of the ox] that caused the damage is required to pay for only half the damages. If the person whose property was damaged seizes property belonging to the other person equivalent to the full amount of the damages, it is not expropriated from him.

[The following rules apply when] an ox breaks loose and causes damage after its owner had tied it with a rope and locked it [in a corral] in an acceptable manner. If it is a tam, he is required to pay only half the damages. If it is mu'ad, he is not liable at all, as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "[If the owners were warned,] and they did not guard him." [One can infer that] if they did guard, they are not liable. [And in the above instance, the ox] was guarded.Similarly, if an ox caused damage through an activity for which he is mu'ad at the outset - e.g., it ate a type of food that it usually eats or it broke objects by treading on them - [the owner] is not liable [in the above instance].

If the ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to its right horn, but it is not mu'ad with regard to its left horn, and it got loose after it had been guarded in an acceptable manner, [the owner is required to] pay half the damages. [This applies] regardless of whether it gored with its right horn or its left horn.

[The following rules apply when] an animal injures a human being, whether intentionally or unintentionally. If the animal is a tam, half the damages must be paid from the body of the animal. If it is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages. He is, however, not liable for compensation for unemployment, embarrassment, pain and medical expenses. For the Torah required redress for these matters only when one person injured a colleague. When, by contrast, it is an animal which caused the injury, it is as if [the animal] damaged the person's property, and [the owner] is liable for only half of the damages.For this reason, if a person's ox causes [another individual] embarrassment, he is not liable. If, however, he causes that embarrassment himself, he is liable, as will be explained.If a person's ox injures his father or mother, or it sets fire to a person's grain heap on the Sabbath, [the owner] is liable, although if the person performed these same actions himself, he would not be liable.

[The following rules apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] was gored by an ox belonging to the owner or bitten by the owner's dog, the owner is not liable. If the [uninvited ox] gored an ox belonging to the owner [of the courtyard], [the owner of the uninvited ox is liable.] If [his ox] is tam, [its owner] must pay half the damages. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire damages, as if it had gored [the other ox] in the public domain.

[In the above situation, the following rules apply if the uninvited ox] falls into a cistern in this courtyard and spoils its water. If it spoiled the water immediately upon falling within, [the owner of the ox] is liable for the loss caused by the ruining of the water. If [the water] was not spoiled until afterwards, [the owner] is not liable. [The rationale is that] the ox is considered to be an obstruction in the cistern, and the water is considered to be a utensil. And one is never liable for damage to utensils caused by an obstruction. If [the owner of the ox received] permission to bring in his ox, the owner of the ox is not liable for any damage the ox caused. If the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for the ox, he is liable for the damages it suffers from falling into the cistern.

[The following rules also apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] injures the owner of the courtyard, the owner of the courtyard suffers injury [because of the ox], or [the ox] digs pits or trenches, or burrows in the courtyard, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage to the courtyard [or to the owner]. [If another person] is injured because of these pits, the owner of the courtyard is liable, for it is his responsibility to fill them up.

[The following rules apply if] the owner of the courtyard damaged the ox: If he caused the damage unknowingly, he is not liable. For he can tell [the owner of the ox], "Why did you bring [your ox] in without permission. I was not aware of it until I [damaged it] unknowingly." If he caused the damage knowingly, he is liable for the full extent of the damage. He has the right to take the [intruding animal] out of his property; he does not have the right to damage it.

We evaluate the amount of damages caused. What is implied? If either a person or his ox broke a utensil belonging to a colleague, we do not tell the person who caused the damage, "Take the broken utensil and pay its worth to its owner." Instead, we evaluate the loss caused to the utensil. This amount is paid by the person who caused the damage. [If the damage was caused by his ox, and the ox] was mu'ad, he is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it is tam, he is liable for half the damages.[This is implied by Exodus 21:36]: "And the carcass will be his" - i.e., it belongs to the one whose property was damaged. If the carcass loses value, the person whose property was damaged suffers the loss. If its value rises, the increase is divided between the person who caused the damage and the person whose property was damaged.

What is implied? When an ox that is worth 200 [zuz] is gored and dies - its carcass was worth 100 [zuz] at the time of its death, but at the time of the trial, it decreased in value and was worth only 80. [In such an instance,] the person whose [ox] caused the damage is required to pay only 100 [zuz], if [the ox] was mu'ad. If it was a tam, the owner is required to pay only 50 [zuz] from the body of the ox.

If the value of the carcass increased, and it is worth 120 [zuz] at the time of the trial, the one who caused the damage must pay 90 if the ox was mu'ad, and 45 from the body of the ox if it was a tam. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35]: "And they shall also divide the dead [ox]" - i.e., they shall divide the profit from the dead ox.

[The amount that the person whose ox caused the damage must pay is subject to change in some, but not in all, circumstances. To illustrate:] An ox that was worth 200 [zuz] gored another ox worth 200 [zuz], causing it to depreciate 50 [zuz]. At the time of the trial, its value increased and it was worth 400 zuz. If, however, it had not been gored, it would have been worth 800 [zuz]. Whether its value increased because it was fattened or because of market fluctuations, the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time the damage took place. If the ox became weak because of the injury it received and the damages amounted to 100 zuz at the time of the trial, the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time of the trial.

[The following rules apply if] the value of the ox that caused the damage increased at the time of the trial. If its value increased because the owner fattened it, only its value at the time it caused the damage is considered to be on lien for payment. If its value increased because of market fluctuations, half of the damages may be collected from its value at the time of the trial.

It is the responsibility of the person who caused the damage to make the effort to bring the carcass of the ox that was damaged to the person [whose ox] was damaged. What is implied? An ox fell into a cistern and died. [The owner of the cistern] must raise the carcass [of the ox] from the cistern and give it to its owner. Then we evaluate the extent of the loss.[This is derived from Exodus 21:34]: "He shall give monetary recompense to the owners, and the carcass will be [the owners']." This teaches that he is obligated to return the carcass and the decrease in the value of the ox [from the time] when it was alive, to its owner. If [the ox that caused the damage was a tam], [its owner is required to pay only] half the damages, as explained above.

When an ox belonging to an Israelite gores an ox that was consecrated or an ox that was consecrated gores an ox belonging to an Israelite, [the owner of the goring ox] is not liable, [as implied by Exodus 21:35]: "[If one person's ox injures] an ox belonging to a colleague...." All consecrated entities for which one is held liable for using them for one's own purposes are not bound by the laws of damages. Animals that were consecrated and then disqualified are bound by the laws of damages. This applies regardless of whether it is they who cause the damage, or they who are damaged. For they have been redeemed and can be considered ordinary.

When [an animal consecrated for] a peace offering causes damage, the damages may be collected from its meat. [The person whose property was damaged] does not, however, collect his due from the portions burned on the altar. For the prohibition against using consecrated property for one's own purposes applies to the portions of sacrifices of lesser sanctity burned on the altar, as explained in Hilchot Me'ilah. Similarly, [if an animal consecrated for] a thanksgiving offering causes damage, the damages may be collected from its meat. They may not, however, be collected from the bread that accompanies it, for the bread is not considered to be part of the meat.

How can [the person whose property was damaged] collect [his due]? He and his company should eat, in a holy manner, a portion of the meat equivalent to half the damages he suffered. What is meant by the statement that [the person whose property was damaged] does not, however, collect his due from the portions burned on the altar? That if half the damages he suffered was equivalent to a dinar, and the meat and the portions to be offered on the altar together were worth two dinarim, but the meat without the portions to be offered was worth only a dinar and a half, [the person whose property was damaged] receives only half the meat, and not two thirds of the meat.

Similarly, an ox that is ownerless and causes damage is also not held responsible for the damage it causes. [This is also derived from the phrase,] "an ox belonging to a colleague," implying that the ox must be defined as the property of an owner. What is implied? When an ox that is ownerless gores [another ox], and before the person whose property was damaged takes possession of [the goring ox] another person does so, that other person is not liable for the damages.Moreover, even if an ox that is defined as the property of an owner causes damage, and afterwards the owner consecrates it or declares it ownerless, [payment is] not expropriated [from the body of the ox]. [For payment to be expropriated], it must be owned by one person at the time it caused the damage and at the time of the trial.

When an ox - whether a tam or a mu'ad - belonging to a Jew gores an ox belonging to a gentile, [the Jew] is not liable. [The rationale is] that the gentiles do not hold a person responsible for damage caused by his livestock. Therefore we judge this case according to their laws. When, by contrast, an ox - whether a tam or a mu'ad - belonging to a gentile gores an ox belonging to a Jew, [the gentile] must pay the entire amount of the damages. This is a penalty imposed upon the gentiles because they are not careful about [the observance of] the mitzvot, and they do not remove factors that can cause damage. If we will not hold them liable for the damage caused by their animals, they will not guard them, and [the animals] will destroy other people's property.

When an ox that is tam causes damage and then is sold by its owner before the trial takes place, the person whose property was damaged may collect his due from it despite the fact that it was sold. Afterwards, the purchaser should collect that sum from the [previous] owner who sold it to him. [The rationale for this ruling is] that once an ox has gored, the matter becomes known, and the purchaser should not have purchased the animal until the one whose property was damaged had collected his due.

If [the owner of an ox that] caused damage consecrates [the ox], it is consecrated. [This law was instituted] so that people will not say, "An animal that was consecrated can lose its status without being redeemed." [If the owner] slaughters the ox, [the person whose property was damaged] may collect his due from the meat. [If the owner] gives it away as a present, [the present] is binding, but [the person whose property was damaged] may collect his due from [the animal].

If [an ox] caused damage, there was a trial, and afterwards, [the owner] sold it, the sale is of no consequence. If he consecrated it, it is not consecrated, and if he gave it away as a present, the present is of no consequence. If the creditors of the owner [of the ox] seize it first, [to collect their due from it], they are not entitled to retain possession. Instead, the person whose property was damaged collects his due from it. This applies whether the debt was undertaken before the damage was done or afterwards. [The rationale is] that even if it belonged to the creditors at the outset and caused damage, [the person whose property was damaged] would be entitled to collect his due.

[The following rules apply when] an ox that is mu'ad causes damage: Regardless of whether the trial took place already or not, if [the owner] has consecrated it, sold it, given it as a present or slaughtered it, his deed is binding. If the creditors of the owner lead [the ox] away before [the person whose property was damaged takes possession of it], they acquire it. [This applies] whether the debt owed them was made before the damage took place or afterwards. [The rationale is that] the person whose property was damaged is entitled to collect his due from the choicest property belonging to the owner. All of [the owner's] property is on lien because of the damage caused.

When the court is required to expropriate property belonging to the person who caused the damages for the person whose property was damaged, the movable property [of the person who caused the damages] should be expropriated first. If he does not own any movable property, or the property he owns is not sufficient to pay for all the damages, the remainder should be expropriated from the choicest properties he owns. As long as movable property is found, even property of inferior quality, landed property should not be expropriated.

If the person who caused the damage dies before he pays, the court does not expropriate the movable property belonging to his heirs. Instead, [they expropriate] the landed property [in the estate], taking that of least value. [The rationale is that] the person whose property was damaged becomes one of the creditors [of the person who caused the damage], and movable property is never considered to be on lien to a creditor. If the person whose property was damaged [seized] possession of movable property [belonging to] the person who caused the damage in the latter's lifetime, payment for the damages may be collected from this [movable property] after his death.

The Geonim have already ordained that a debt owed a creditor can be expropriated from the movable property [in the estate]. This ruling has been accepted by all the [Jewish] courts of law. Therefore, damages may also be expropriated from movable property left to heirs. If [the deceased] did not leave any movable property, [the creditor] may expropriate the landed property of least value. For as explained [in the previous halachah], whenever a person seeks to expropriate property from heirs, he is given the property of the least value.

Damages should not be collected, nor is an atonement fine imposed, nor is an animal executed unless definite proof is brought [as substantiated] by acceptable witnesses. We do not say that since only shepherds, servants, and the like are found in the stables of horses, the stalls of cattle and the corrals of sheep, their testimony should be accepted if they testify that one animal damaged another. Similarly, if minors or women testify that one person injured another or caused another type of damage, [one might think] that we rely on them. This is not so. Instead, financial redress is required because of the testimony of witnesses only when the witnesses are acceptable and fit to testify with regard to other matters, and they give testimony, [on which basis] the court obligates the one who caused the damage to pay.

When an ox was pasturing at the edge of a river, and another ox is found dead near him, even though the dead ox was gored, and this ox was prone to gore - or the dead ox was bitten and this ox was prone to bite - we do not say: "One can be certain that this bit it, or this gored it." Even if one of a group of camels is known to bite, and another camel is found dead at its side, we do not say that it is certain that this one killed it, unless the matter was observed by acceptable witnesses.

When an animal that is pregnant causes damage, the sum of half the damages may be expropriated from the mother and its offspring, for the offspring are considered to be part of its body. When, by contrast, a chicken causes damage, the amount due may not be collected from its eggs. [The rationale is that a chicken's] eggs are not considered to be part of its body, but rather separate and distinct from it.

When a cow that is pregnant gored [another cow], and the calf [of the goring cow] is found at its side, but it is not known whether it had given birth before it gored or not, the sum of half the damages may be collected from the cow [alone]. Nothing may be collected from the calf, unless [the plaintiff can bring proof that it was pregnant when it gored. [The rationale is that] when a person desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.

[Similarly,] if a bull gores a pregnant cow and we find its calf stillborn at her side, and we do not know if it gave birth to the stillborn calf before it was gored, or it gave birth to the stillborn calf because it was gored, [the owner of the bull] is required to pay for [only] the damage to the cow and not the damage to the calf. For when a person desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.

When [an ox] gores a pregnant cow and causes it to miscarry, we do not evaluate the damage to the cow separately and the damage to the calf separately, [and obligate the owner of the ox for the total]. Instead, we evaluate the worth of the cow when it was pregnant and healthy and compare it to its present worth and that of the body of the fetus. The owner of the ox must pay the difference [if it was mu'ad] or half the difference if it was tam.

If the cow was owned by one person and the calf by another, the loss in the fat of the cow [caused by the miscarriage] is owed to the owner of the cow; the loss of the cow's bulk is divided between the owner of the cow and the owner of the calf. The carcass of the calf belongs to the owner of the calf.

[The following rules apply when] one ox was pursuing another ox, and one was damaged. [If the owner of the ox] that was damaged said: "It was your ox that caused the damage," and [the owner of the other ox] said, "I do not know, perhaps it was damaged by a rock," the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment. [This ruling applies] even though the one whose property was damaged states: "I am certain [that your ox caused the damages], and the other person says: "I do not know." If the person whose property was damaged claims: "You certainly know that your ox caused the damage," if [his ox] was mu'ad, [the other person] is required to take a Rabbinic oath that he does not know [that his ox caused the damage]. If, however, [his ox] was tam, he is not required to take a Rabbinic oath. [The rationale is that] even if he admitted [that his ox had caused the damage], he would not be liable. For the liability for half the damages is a fine, and a person who admits culpability for a fine [when there are no witnesses to obligate him] is not liable.

[A person whose ox was damaged has no legal redress in the following instance.] Two [oxen belonging to two separate owners] were pursuing a third ox. Witnesses saw that one of the oxen caused the third ox damage, but were not able to identify which ox caused the damage. [Since] one of the owners claims, "Your ox caused the damage," and the other claims, "Your ox caused the damage," neither is liable. If both oxen belong to the same person, he is liable to pay from the body of the less valuable [ox, if that ox is tam]. If both oxen are mu'adim, he must pay the full amount of the damage from his property.

When does the above apply? When both oxen are present before us. If, however, one of the oxen died or was lost, and it was tam, [their owner] is not liable even though they both belong to him. For he can tell the person whose property was damaged: "Prove to me that it was the ox that is here that caused the damage, and I will pay you."

[Similar principles apply in a case where an ox was damaged by one of two oxen belonging to the same owner.] One of the two oxen that pursued [the damaged ox] was large and one was small. If the person whose ox was damaged claims that it was the larger one that caused the damage, and the person whose oxen caused the damage claims that the smaller one caused the damage, [the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment]. [Similarly,] if one of the oxen was tam and the other mu'ad, and the person whose ox was damaged claims that it was the mu'ad that caused the damage, and the person whose oxen caused the damage claims that the tam caused the damage, the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment.

If there was no clear proof which of the oxen caused the damage, but witnesses testify that one of the two oxen [owned by this person] caused the damage, the person whose oxen caused the damage must pay the amount he admits. If the person whose property was damaged claimed, "You know that the damage was caused by the other ox in your presence," the person whose ox caused the damage must take an oath mandated by Scriptural law. He then pays the amount he admitted. [The oath is required] because he admitted a portion [of the claim levied against him].

[The following rules apply when] two oxen were damaged, one large and one small, and there were two oxen that caused the damage, one large and one small. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the large ox damaged the large ox, and the small ox damaged the small ox. The person whose oxen caused the damage, by contrast claims: "No. It was the small ox that damaged the large one, and the large ox that damaged the small one." [A similar dispute arises if] one [of the oxen that caused the damage] was mu'ad and the other tam. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the ox that was mu'ad damaged the large ox, and the ox that was tam damaged the small ox. By contrast, the person whose oxen caused the damage claims: "It was the ox that was tam that damaged the large one, and the ox that was mu'ad that damaged the small one." [In both these instances,] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment. If there is no proof, the one who caused the damage is not liable [at all]. To what can this be compared? To an instance where a person claims that a colleague owes him wheat, and the colleague admits to owing him barley. In such a case, [the defendant] is required to take a Rabbinic oath and then is not liable, even for the barley, as will be explained in Hilchot To'en.If the person whose oxen were damaged seizes possession [of property belonging to the person whose oxen caused the damage], he may take payment for the damages to the small ox from the body of the large ox and may take payment for the damages to the large ox from the body of the small ox, as the person who caused the damages admitted. If he did not seize possession [of such property], however, no money at all is expropriated from the person whose oxen caused the damage.

When one ox gores [another ox] and then gores a third ox, the owner of the first ox that was gored and the owner [of the goring ox] are considered to be partners. What is implied? When an ox that is worth 200 [zuz] gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is not worth anything, the owner of the damaged ox is entitled to 100 [zuz from the ox that gored] and its owner 100 [zuz]. If that ox gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and its carcass is of no value, the owner of the latter ox is entitled to 100 [zuz] and the owner of the first ox and the original owner of the ox are each entitled to 50 [zuz]. If that ox gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and its carcass is of no value, the owner of the latter ox is entitled to 100 [zuz], the owner of the second ox that was gored is entitled to 50 [zuz], and the owner of the first ox and the original owner of the ox are each entitled to 25 [zuz]. This pattern is followed in the future [if the ox continues to gore].

When a person whose [ox] was damaged seizes the animal that caused the damage in order to collect half the damages from its body, he is considered to be a paid watchman with regard to any damages it causes. Therefore, if it causes damages, the person whose ox was first damaged is liable, and its owner is not liable. What is implied? An ox that is worth 200 [zuz] gored [another ox], causing damages of 200 [zuz]. The person whose ox was damaged seized [the goring ox] in order to collect the 100 [zuz] that is due him, Afterwards, [the ox that caused the damage] gored [another ox], causing damages of 140 [zuz]. The person whose property was damaged last receives 70 [zuz], the person who took possession of the ox because it damaged his property receives the remainder of the damage done to his ox - 30 zuz - and the original owner, 100 zuz. The same principles apply in other similar situations.

When two oxen that are tamim gore one another, half of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox suffered the greater damage. If both oxen were mu'adim or an ox that was mu'ad and a man injured one another, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox [or the man] who suffered the greatest damage. [The following rules apply if] one of the oxen is tam and one is mu'ad. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that is mu'ad, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the tam]. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that is tam, half of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the mu'ad. What is implied? When one ox that is tam causes 100 [zuz] worth of damage to another ox that is tam, and the other ox causes 40 [zuz] worth of damage to the first ox, the owner of the first ox must pay 30 [zuz] to the owner of the second ox. If they were both mu'adim, the owner of the first ox must pay 60 [zuz] to the owner of the second ox. If the first ox was mu'ad and the second ox was tam, the owner of the first ox must pay 80. If the first ox was tam and the second ox was mu'ad, the owner of the first ox must pay 10.

Wherever an ox kills a [Jew], whether an adult or a child, whether a servant or a free man, whether the ox is tam or mu'ad, [the ox] must be stoned to death.If an ox kills a gentile, it is not executed, for this is their law.

[Not only] an ox, but any other animal, beast or fowl that kills a human should be stoned to death. What is the difference then between an ox that is tam killing a person, and that act being performed by an ox that is mu'ad? [The owner of] an ox that is tam is not liable for the atonement fine, while [the owner of] an ox that is mu'ad is liable, when his ox is mu'ad to kill.

Since every animal, beast or fowl that kills a human being should be stoned to death, how is it possible to find an animal that is mu'ad to kill, so that its owner will be liable to pay an atonement fine? It killed three gentiles, and then it killed a Jew. For an ox that is mu'ad [to kill] a gentile, is also mu'ad for a Jew. Alternatively, it killed three Jews who were classified as t'refot, and then killed a healthy person. [Other possible situations are the following:] [On three occasions,] it killed a person and then fled, and it was captured on the fourth occasion. [We must say that it was captured, because] the owners are not obligated to pay an atonement fine unless the ox is executed. It mortally wounded three individuals at the same time [and they and the fourth person the ox gored all died at the time]. It killed three animals. In all these instances, it is deemed as mu'ad to kill, and the owner is liable to pay an atonement fine. There is also another instance. On three occasions [one of the oxen belonging to a person killed a human]; on each of these occasions, the witnesses recognized the owner, but did not recognize the ox. On the fourth occasion, they saw an ox that killed a person [and were able to recognize it afterwards]. They did not, however, know if this was the same ox that had killed [people] on the three previous occasions or not.[In this instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay an atonement fine. The rationale is that] since the owner was warned that he had an ox in his herd that had killed [people] on three occasions, he should have guarded all his oxen [more carefully]. Since he did not, he must pay the atonement fine.

The Oral Tradition interprets the Torah's statement [Exodus 21:29]: "And its owner shall also be put to death," as implying death by the hand of G-d [and not execution by a mortal court]. If [the owner] pays an atonement fine for the person killed, he is pardoned. Although the obligation of the atonement fine is for [the owner's spiritual] pardon, the property of a person who is obligated to pay an atonement fine is forcefully expropriated, [even] against his will.

When an ox belonging to two partners kills [a man], each of [the partners] must pay an entire atonement fine. For each requires a full measure of atonement.

If an ox is owned by a person, the adjudication of the ox must be concluded in its owner's presence. If the ox does not have an owner - e.g., a wild ox, an ox that was consecrated, an ox belonging to a convert who died without leaving any heirs - it should be executed [if it kills a human], and its judgment is concluded despite the fact that it lacks an owner. Similarly, an ox belonging to a woman, a minor, or a guardian is stoned [if it kills a human]. The guardians are not required to pay the atonement fine, for that fine is [as implied by its name] for the purpose of atonement. Minors, deaf mutes and mental incompetents are not men of responsibility who require atonement.

When an ox that is a t'refah or an ox belonging to a person who is t'refah kills a human, the ox is not executed. [This is derived from Exodus 21:29:] "And its owner shall also be put to death." [This is interpreted to mean] that a parallel is established between the owner and the ox being put to death. Since the owner is [already] considered as if he is dead and need not be put to death [by G-d], so too, the ox is not held liable.

When a person sets a dog upon a colleague, and [the dog] kills him, the dog is not stoned to death. The same law applies if he sets another animal or beast upon him. If, however, he sets a snake upon him, even if he actually places the snake's mouth on the other person, the snake is stoned to death. [The rationale is that] the snake releases the lethal venom on its own volition. For this reason, the person who sets the snake upon a colleague is not liable to be executed by [an earthly] court.

An animal that kills [a person] is not stoned to death unless it had the intent to kill a person for whom it would be executed. If, however, an ox intended to kill an animal and instead killed a human being, it intended to kill a gentile and instead killed a Jew, or it intended to gore a stillborn child and instead killed an ordinary child, [the ox] is not executed. If [the ox] was mu'ad, the owners are liable to pay the atonement fine or the fine paid for killing a servant. [This applies] even [if the ox] killed unintentionally. [The owners are held responsible] because [the ox] is mu'ad [to kill].

[The owner of an ox is liable to pay an atonement fine in the following instances. An ox] was mu'ad to leap on people in pits. It saw a vegetable in a pit, leapt into the pit, [and fell] on a person there and killed him. It was mu'ad to rub itself against walls and knock them over onto people, and it rubbed itself against a wall for its own benefit, and caused the wall to fall on a person and kill him. [In both these instances,] the ox is not liable to be executed, because it did not intend to kill. The owners are, nevertheless, liable for the atonement fine, because the ox is mu'ad to leap into pits on people or to knock walls over onto them. How can we know whether any animal is rubbing itself against a wall for its own benefit? If it continues rubbing itself after it knocks the wall down and kills.

The owners are not liable to pay the atonement fine unless their animal kills [the person] outside their property. If, however, [their animal] kills [a person] in a domain belonging to [the owner of the animal], the owner is not liable for the atonement fine, although the animal is stoned to death. What is implied? If a person enters a courtyard belonging to a person without his permission - even if he enters to demand payment for wages or a debt [owed to him] - and an ox belonging to the owner of the courtyard gores him and kills him, the ox should be stoned to death. The owner is, however, free from the atonement fine, because [the deceased] did not have permission to enter his property without his consent.

[The owner is not required to pay an atonement fine in the following situation. A person] stood at the entrance and called to the owner, and the latter said: "Yes." [The guest] entered and he was gored by an ox belonging to the owner. The owner is not liable. For "yes" does [not necessarily] mean [more than] "Stand where you are, until I [come] to speak to you."

When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and kills a child by treading on it as it proceeds, the owner [of the animal] must pay an atonement fine. [The rationale is that an animal is considered to be] mu'ad to tread on things as it proceeds, and in the domain of another person [the owner of animal] is liable for the damages it causes by eating or treading, as explained. Thus, one can conclude: When an animal that is mu'ad kills intentionally, it should be stoned to death, and the owners must pay the atonement fine. If it killed unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, but the owners must pay the atonement fine. When [an animal that is] tam kills unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, nor must the owners pay the atonement fine. If it intended to kill, it should be stoned to death. The owners, however, are not liable for the atonement fine or for the fine paid for killing a servant.

It appears to me that even though [the owner of an ox that is] tam that killed a servant or a maid-servant intentionally is not liable for the fine of 30 selaim mentioned in the Torah, if it killed [a servant or maid-servant] unintentionally, [the owner] must pay half the value of the servant or the maid-servant from the body of the ox, as if [the ox] had killed another ox or donkey belonging to his colleague.

How much is the atonement fine? The amount the judges evaluate as being the worth of the person who was killed; everything depends on his worth, as [implied by Exodus 21:30]: "And he shall give the ransom of his soul according to all that will be imposed upon him." The atonement fine for a servant, whether an adult or a minor, whether a male or a female, is the amount determined by the Torah: 30 selaim of fine silver. [This applies] whether the servant was worth 100 maneh or only one dinar.If a servant is lacking only a bill of release, a fine is not imposed, for he does not have a master, for he has already attained his freedom.

To whom is the atonement fine paid? To the heirs of the deceased. If a woman is killed, the atonement fine is paid to her heirs [as though she had not married], and not to her husband. If a person who is half a servant, and half a freed man is killed, half of the fine should be given to the owner, and the other half is fit to be given, but there is no one to take it.

When an ox gores a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, its owners are not liable for the value of the fetus. [This law applies] even when the ox is mu'ad to gore. For the obligation [stated in] the Torah to pay for the value of the fetus applies only when it is a human who causes the damages.

If, however, an ox [that is mu'ad] gores a maid-servant and causes her to miscarry, [the owner] is required to pay for the value of the fetus. For this is equivalent to having gored a pregnant donkey. If the ox is tam, [the owner] must pay half the value of the fetus from the body of the ox.

How is this sum evaluated? We assess the value of this maid-servant when she was pregnant, and how much she is worth now. [The owner of the ox] must pay [the owner of the maid-servant] the difference or half the difference. If [the ox] kills the maid-servant, [despite the fact that she is pregnant, its owner] need pay only the fine determined by the Torah, as we have explained.

When an ox intended to gore an animal and instead gored a man, [the owner is not liable], even if the man dies, as explained. Nevertheless, if [the ox] injures him, [the owner of the ox] is liable for the damages. If the ox is tam, he should pay half the damages from the body of the ox. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire amount of the damages.

When an ox that is tam kills [a man] and then causes damage, it is sentenced to execution, but there is no financial claim on its owners. If an ox that is mu'ad kills and then causes damage, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined, and then it is sentenced to execution. If it is sentenced to execution first, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined afterwards.

How is this money collected? From the profit that will accrue from the labor of the ox after it has been sentenced. [This step is taken] because once it is sentenced to be stoned to death, it no longer has owners who are considered liable for the damages it caused. If [in the above situation] it was sentenced to death and then it fled, no liability [resulting from the damages] is assigned.

When an ox killed a human, and afterwards its owner consecrates it, it is not consecrated. Similarly, if he declares it ownerless, it is not ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is not effective. If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is not considered to have been returned. If it is slaughtered, one is forbidden to benefit from its meat. When does the above apply? After it has already been sentenced to death. If, however, it had not been sentenced to death [different rules apply]. If its owner consecrates it, it is consecrated. If he declares it ownerless, it is ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is effective. If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is considered to have been returned. If it is slaughtered first, one is not forbidden to benefit from its meat.

When an ox [that killed a human] becomes intermingled with other oxen before it was sentenced to death, they are all not held liable. [The rationale is that] just as the judgment of a human being [must be concluded in the presence of that person], so too, the judgment of the ox must be concluded in the presence of the ox. If an ox becomes intermingled with other oxen - even 1000 - after it was sentenced to death, they all must be stoned to death. It is forbidden to benefit from them, and their carcasses must be buried, as is required whenever an animal is stoned to death.

When a pregnant cow kills a person - and similarly, all animals that were used for a sinful purpose [that requires their execution] - the laws that apply to it apply to its calf. For it and its calf gored; it and its calf were sodomized.

[The following rules apply if a cow] gored a person to death and then became pregnant: If it became pregnant and bore a calf before it was sentenced to death, the calf is permitted. If it bore a calf after the sentence was delivered, the calf is forbidden, for a fetus is considered an extension of its mother. If [the calf] became intermingled with other calves, they must all be enclosed in a closed room until they die.

When the witnesses whose testimony caused an ox to be sentenced for execution are disqualified because they lied, whoever first takes possession of the ox acquires it as his own. [The rationale is that] once it was sentenced to death, the owners gave up their ownership of it. If witnesses testify that the owner [of an ox sodomized his animal] and they were disqualified because they lied, the ox remains the property of its [original] owner. Although another person drew it after him, he does not acquire it. [The rationale is that] since the owner knows that he did not sin, and that these are false witnesses, he was planning to have them disqualified. Therefore, he did not give up ownership [of his animal].

When a person digs a cistern in the public domain, and an ox or a donkey falls into it and dies, the owner of the cistern is liable and is required to pay the full amount of the damages, as [Exodus 21:34] states: "The owner of the cistern must pay." [This applies] even if the cistern was filled with wads of wool or the like. [The intent] is not only an ox or a donkey, but any animal, beast or fowl. An ox and a donkey are mentioned only because these are the commonplace [examples].

[The above applies] regardless of whether the person digs a cistern in the public domain, he digs it in his own property - but it is open to the public domain or to a domain belonging to a colleague - or he digs it in his own property with the opening to his own property, but afterwards, he declares the property - but not the cistern - ownerless. In all these instances, [the person who digs the cistern] is liable for the damages suffered. If, however, he declared his domain and the cistern ownerless, or he declared the cistern ownerless [while retaining possession of] his domain, or he consecrated it, he is not liable. [This is derived from the phrase:] "The owner of the cistern will pay." [Implied is that the cistern] must have an owner, while this cistern is ownerless. [Moreover, it cannot be compared to a cistern dug in the public domain,] since at the outset he was permitted to dig [the cistern], because it was on his property.

[The above applies whether the person] dug the cistern himself, it came into being [on his property] through natural means, or it was dug by an animal or a beast. Since he is required to fill it up or cover it, and he did not, he is liable for the damages. [Similarly, the above applies] whether the person digs [the cistern himself] or purchases or receives as a present [a domain with a cistern]. This is derived from the phrase:] "The owner of the cistern will pay." [Implied is that if the cistern] has an owner [he is liable].

Just as a person who digs [a cistern is liable], so too, is one who opens a cistern that was covered, as [Exodus 21:33] states: "If a person opens a cistern, or if a person digs a cistern." If [an owner] covered up a cistern in an appropriate manner and the cover decayed from within, and [because of this], an ox fell into the cistern and died, the owner is not liable. For the above verse continues: "And he did not cover it." And in this case, he covered it. [The following laws apply if the owner] covered [the cistern] with a covering that was strong enough to have oxen tread on it, but was not strong enough to have camels tread on it, camels trod on it and it became weakened, and then oxen trod on it and fell in. If camels are not [usually] found in such a place, [the owner] is not liable, for this is considered a factor beyond his control. If camels pass through this place, even infrequently, he is liable.

If [the cover] decayed from within and oxen fell into [the cistern], [the owner] is not liable. [This applies even when] camels frequent this area, and [the owner] is consider negligent with regard to the camels. Nevertheless, since the oxen fell into [the cistern], because [the cover] decayed [it is considered to be a loss beyond the owner's control]. The same applies in all similar situations.

When a person discovers a cistern and covers it, and afterwards uncovers it, the owner of the cistern is liable, and the person who [covered and uncovered it] is not liable. If, however, he filled [the cistern] with earth and then removed the earth, he [and not the original owner of the cistern] is liable. Since he filled the cistern with earth, the actions of the person who originally [dug the cistern] are considered to have been nullified.

[The following rules apply when] a cistern is owned by two partners. If the first passed by and did not cover it, and then the second passed by and did not cover it, the first is liable until he gives his buckets to the second [partner]. Once he gives his buckets to the second partner to draw water from it, the first is freed of liability, and the second becomes liable. If the first [partner] covered it, and the second partner passed by and saw it uncovered and left it so, he is liable. Until when does the second [partner] bear the sole responsibility of covering it? Until the first [partner] becomes aware that it is open and has the opportunity to hire workers to cut down trees and cover it. If any animal dies during this time, the second partner alone is liable. If an animal dies afterwards, both [partners] are liable, for they both were negligent.

When a person transfers [the responsibility for] his cistern to a watchman, [the watchman] is liable for the damages. If, however, the owner gave it to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual or a minor to watch, the owner is liable. [This applies] even if he left it covered, because it is likely that a cistern will be uncovered, and these individuals are not mentally competent [to know that it must be covered at all times].

When a person covers his cistern with buckets belonging to a colleague, and then the owner of the buckets comes and takes them, the owner [of the cistern] is liable.

[The above laws apply whether] one digs a cistern, a ditch, a cave or a trench. Why does the Torah mention a cistern? [To teach that its depth] must be sufficient to kill. How much is considered sufficient to kill? A depth of ten handbreadths. If a cistern was less than ten handbreadths deep and an ox or another animal, beast or fowl falls in and dies, [the one responsible for the obstruction] is not liable. If the animal is damaged, the one responsible for the obstruction must pay the full extent of the damages.

If a cistern was nine handbreadths deep, and one of those handbreadths was filled with water, [the owner] is liable [if an animal falls in and dies]. [The rationale is] that one handbreadth with water is considered equivalent to two handbreadths without water. If [the cistern] was eight [handbreadths] deep and two handbreadths [were filled with] water, or it was seven [handbreadths] deep and three handbreadths [were filled with] water, and an ox or the like fell in and died, [the owner of the cistern] is not held liable to pay [for the death of the animal]. If [the owner of the animal seized [compensation for his loss from the owner of the cistern's property], [the property he seized] is not expropriated from him. [The rationale is] that there is a doubt regarding this issue.

When one person digs a cistern ten handbreadths deep, a second person comes and [digs deeper], making it twenty handbreadths deep, and a third person comes and [digs deeper], making it thirty handbreadths deep, they all share in the liability. When the first digs even one handbreadth less than ten handbreadths, and another makes it ten handbreadths deep - either by digging another handbreadth deeper or building a rim of a handbreadth at its edge - the latter person [alone] is liable. If afterwards he filled up the handbreadth he added or destroyed the rim he built, it is unresolved whether the first person's deed is no longer considered of consequence [and therefore, he is not liable,] or whether his actions are still considered significant.

[The following rules apply when a person] dug a deep cistern, another person came and made it wider, and an ox fell into it and died. If [it is obvious that the ox] died because of the air within the cistern, the second person is not liable, for [his act] improved [the quality of] the air. If [it is obvious that the ox] died because of the blow [it received], the second person is liable, for [his act] brought closer [the possibility] that this cistern would cause damage. Similarly, if the ox fell from the side that the person widened, [and died because of the air of the cistern], the second person is held liable despite the fact that [the ox] died from [the cistern's foul] air. If [the ox] fell from the side that was dug by the first person, the first person is liable, for the second person improved [the quality of] the air.

The liability that the Torah imposed for [damages caused by falling into] a cistern applies even when the animal died merely because of the [foul] air within the cistern. Needless to say, it applies when the animal dies because of the blow it received. If the width of the cistern was the same as its depth, it will not have [foul] air. Thus, if the animal did not receive a blow [when it fell] and yet it died, [the owner of the cistern] is not liable. If the depth exceeds its width, it has [foul] air. If an animal dies [after falling in], [the owner] is liable, even though it did not receive a blow from the bottom [of the cistern].

[The following rules apply when] a person erects a high mound in the public domain, and an animal receives a blow from it and dies.If [the mound] was ten handbreadths high, he is liable to pay [for the damages]. If it was less than ten handbreadths high, he is not liable if the animal dies. If, however, an animal is merely injured, he is liable for the full extent of the damages. Even if a mound is of minimal height, or one digs [a pit of] minimal depth, [and an animal is injured, one is liable]. For it is a frequent occurrence for injuries to be caused by a mound or a pit of minimal height or depth. For [an animal] to die because of such a mound or pit is not a frequent occurrence; it is considered to be an event beyond one's control.

Similarly, a person is not liable for the death of an animal that [fell] into a cistern or that received a blow from a mound unless the animal was small, a deaf mute or mentally incompetent,or it was blind, or it fell at night. If, however, the animal was mentally competent, and it fell into [the cistern] during the day, [the owner of the cistern] is not liable. This is considered like an event beyond a person's control. For it is the ordinary practice for an animal to see where it is going and to avoid obstacles. Similarly, if a human fell into the pit and died, the owner is not liable. This applies even if he was blind or fell at night, and regardless of whether he was a free man or a servant. If a mentally competent human or animal suffered injury because of [the cistern], [the owner] is liable for the full extent of the damages, as explained [in the previous halachah].

If an ox that had been consecrated as a sacrificial offering and then disqualified fell into [the cistern] and died, the owner is not liable. [This law is derived as follows. Exodus 21:34] states: "The dead body will belong to [its owner]." [The liability for the animal's death stated in the verse applies only] when the dead body belongs to [the owner]. This excludes the case at hand, for it is forbidden to benefit from [the body of this animal], and it must be buried.

[The following laws apply when] a person was digging a cistern and the noise of the digging caused an animal to fall into the pit and die. If [the animal] fell forwards, [the owner of the cistern] is liable. If it fell backwards - i.e., it was startled [by the sound] and retreated and then fell - [the owner] is not liable. [The latter law is derived as follows. Exodus 21:33 states: "When an ox...] falls," [implied is that for the person to be liable], the ox must fall in an ordinary manner.54 If [the animal] fell forward outside the cistern because of the sound of the digging and died, the court does not hold the owner of the cistern liable.55 If the person [whose ox died] seizes property [belonging to the owner of the cistern], it is not expropriated from him. If [the animal] fell backward outside the cistern and died or was injured, the owner of the cistern is not liable.

[The following rules apply when] an ox pushes another animal into a cistern and it dies. If [the ox] is mu'ad, the owner of the cistern is required to pay half [the damages], and the owner of the ox the [other] half. If [the ox] is tam, the owner of the ox must pay one-fourth [of the damages] from the body of the ox, while the owner of the cistern must pay three-fourths of the damage from his most choice property. For the owner of the dead animal may say to the owner of the cistern: "You owe me for the depreciation in value of this dead animal. Although it was a mature animal and mentally competent, it is as if it fell at night. I will collect whatever I can from the owner of the ox. You are liable to pay me the remainder."

Similarly, if a person places a stone at the edge of a cistern, and an ox stumbles over it and falls into the cistern and dies, the person who placed the stone there must pay [half the damages], and the owner of the cistern must pay the [other] half.

Similarly, [the following laws apply when] an ordinary ox and an ox that was consecrated as a sacrifice and then disqualified gored another ox together. If the ordinary ox is a tam, [its owner] should pay half the damages. If it is mu'ad, [its owner] must pay the entire damages. [The entire burden falls on this person,] because the owner of the ox that suffered the damage will say to him: "I will collect all that I can from the other ox, and you are liable for the remainder. In this instance, since the other ox is consecrated and therefore [its owner is] not held liable, you must pay me the entire amount."

When a person was digging a cistern in the public domain, and an ox fell upon him and killed him, the owner of the ox is not liable. If the ox dies, the owner of the ox may collect the value of his ox from the heirs of the owner of the cistern.

When utensils fall into a cistern and break, the owner of the cistern is not liable. [This is derived from Exodus 21:33, which] states: "And an ox or a donkey fell there." The Oral Tradition interprets this as an exclusion: "'An ox' and not a man; 'a donkey' and not utensils." Even when an ox fell [into a cistern] when carrying utensils and died and broke the utensils, the owner is liable for the ox, but not for the utensils.

A cistern is considered one of the general categories of causes of damage. Its derivatives, like it, are considered mu'adim from the outset. Whenever a person leaves an obstacle [in the path of other living beings], it is considered to be a derivative of a cistern. If a person or an animal is injured because of it, the person who caused the obstacle to exist is liable, whether or not he renounced ownership of it. If it caused damage to utensils, [the person responsible] is not held liable.

What is implied? When a person leaves his stone, his knife, his straw, his burden or the like in the public domain, and they cause injury to another human or to an animal, [the first person] is liable for the full amount of the damages. Similarly, if he left such items on his property and declared his property - but not these items - ownerless, and a person stumbled on the ground and received a blow from such an item that caused him injury, the person who caused the obstacle to exist is liable. If the person's utensils became damaged or soiled in such a situation, [the person who caused the obstacle to exist] is not liable.

If a person brought his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without permission, the ox defecated, and the feces soiled utensils belonging to the owner, [the owner of the ox] is not liable. For the feces are considered to be a derivative of a cistern, and [the owner of] a cistern is never liable for damage to utensils.

[The following laws apply when a person] leaves his jug in the public domain, and a passerby stumbles over it and breaks it. The passerby is not liable, because it is not the practice of people to look out on the way as they walk. If [the passerby] was injured, the owner of the jug is liable for his injury. [This applies] even if he declared his jug ownerless. For whenever a person declares ownerless an obstacle that he has created in a domain in which he has no permission to place it at the outset, he is liable, as if he had never declared it ownerless.

If the person placed the jug down in a place where he had permission to place it - e.g., the marketplace before the wine vats or the like - and a passerby stumbles over it and breaks it, [the passerby] is liable. If the passerby was injured, the owner of the jug is not liable, because [the passerby] should have looked to see [if there was anything in his way]. If it was dark or [if the owner of the jugs] filled the entire path with jugs, the passerby is not liable for breaking it. If he is injured, the owner of the jugs is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

[The following rules apply when] a jug belonging to a person breaks [accidentally] in the public domain, and another person slips on the water [that spilled] or receives a blow from its shards. The owner cannot be held liable by an earthly court, because [the jug] was broken by accident. He has, however, a moral and a spiritual obligation, because he did not gather the shards. The shards and the water are like ownerless entities, [even though] he did not rescind his ownership until after the accident, he is not held liable. If he intended to take possession of the shards, and another person was damaged by them, he is liable. Similar laws apply to a person whose camel fell and he did not raise it up, or the like. In all these situations, if utensils were damaged, the owner of the obstacle is not liable, whether he declared his object ownerless or not, as we have explained.

[The following laws apply when] two potters were following each other on a path, the first tripped and fell, and the second tripped over the first. If the first could have stood up but failed to do so, he is liable for the damages suffered by the second. Although he accidentally fell, the accident did not [force him to remain] lying in the road. [Therefore,] since he could have stood up, [he is liable]. If he was unable to have risen [before the second potter tripped over him], he is not liable. [This applies] even though he did not warn [the potter] who tripped over him. [The rationale is] that he is concerned with his own [difficulties].

When do we say that he is liable for the damages to the second [potter]? When he suffers damage to his body. If, however, his utensils are damaged, [the first potter] is not liable. For [an owner of] a cistern is not liable for the damage to utensils, and any obstacle is considered to be a derivative of a cistern, as explained above.

[The following rules apply when] potters, glass blowers and the like were walking one after the other, the first one tripped and fell, the second tripped over the first one, and the third tripped over the second. Each of them had time to stand up, but failed to do so. The first is liable for the damages to the body of the second, regardless of whether he was injured by the body of the first person who is lying on the earth, or he was injured by his burden. The second is liable for the injuries suffered by the body of the third person if he was injured by the second person's body. If, however, he was injured by the second person's burden, [the second person] is not liable. For he will say: "I did not dig this cistern - i.e., my burden." For it was the first person who caused the second person and his burden to fall. In all cases, [if the person who fell] warned [the person who tripped over him or his burden], [the person who fell] is not liable.

If the first person fell and was lying lengthwise across the road and one person tripped over his head, another [tripped] over his legs and a third over his abdomen, he is liable for the injuries each suffered, for he had the potential to arise.

When a person pours water into the public domain, and another person is injured by it, [the one who poured out the water] is liable for the damages. If the other person's garments were soiled, [the one who poured out the water] is not liable, as we have explained. If the water was absorbed by the earth, but the earth remained slippery, and a person slipped and fell and was injured by the ground, [the one who poured out the water] is liable.

All those who open their sewage vats and rake out their cesspools do not have permission to pour this water into the public domain during the summer months. In the rainy season, a person has permission [to release such sewage]. Nevertheless, if a person or an animal is damaged by the water, the one who released it is responsible for the entire sum of the damages.

A person should not take his straw and hay out to the public domain so that it will be trod upon and become fit to use as fertilizer. If he did take it out, our Sages penalized him and declared the straw to be ownerless. The first person to take possession of it acquires it as his own, once it has been trod upon and its value has increased. If a person took possession of it before that time - i.e., directly after it was taken out to the public domain - it should not be expropriated from him. Although the straw and the hay are ownerless, if [they cause damage to] a person or an animal, the person who brought it out [to the public domain] must compensate [for the damages].

A person may take out compost and manure to the public domain at a time when everyone does so and amass them there for 30 days so that they will be trodden upon by people and animals. Although [permission is granted], if these substances cause damage the owner is liable for the damages. [If another person takes] this manure, he is liable for theft. Since its value will not increase [appreciably] by being trodden upon, [our Sages] did not penalize him [by declaring it ownerless].

Mortar may not be left to soak in the public domain, nor may bricks be fashioned there. One may, however, mix mortar in the public domain. One may not, however, mix bricks.

When a person constructs a building in the public domain, the one who brings stones may bring stones, and the one who builds may build. If any of them causes damage, they are obligated to pay for the entire sum of the damages.

When a quarrier hews out a stone and gives it to a stonecutter, and it causes damage to a human or an animal, the stonecutter is liable. If the stonecutter gives it to a donkey-driver [and it causes damage], the donkey-driver is liable. If the donkey-driver gives it to a porter [and it causes damage], the porter is liable. If the porter gives it to a builder [and it causes damage], the builder is liable. If the builder gives it to the person who positions it on the building [and it causes damage], the latter is liable. If they were working as contractors [in a partnership], and after it was positioned in its place on the building it fell and caused damage, they all share in the liability. If they are hired laborers, the one [who positioned the stone in its place] is liable, and the others are not liable.

When a wall or a tree falls into the public domain and causes damage, the owner is not required to compensate [for the damages]. [This applies] even when he declared [the tree or the wall] ownerless. [The rationale is that these entities] do not resemble a cistern, for at the outset, [it is not likely] that they will cause damage. If they were not sturdy, the court sets a time for the person by which he must cut down the tree and tear down the wall. How much time is granted him? Thirty days. If the tree or the wall falls within this time and causes damage, he is not liable. [If it falls] afterwards, he is liable, because he delayed [beyond the limits set].

When a person places thorns or glass [within a wall], or when a person makes a fence of thorns that project into the public domain, and it causes damage to another person, he is liable for the full extent of the damages. If he makes a fence of thorns that are contained within his property, he is not held liable, for it is not ordinary for people to rub against a wall [in the public domain].

[The following laws apply when] a person hid his thorns and [fragments of] glass in a wall belonging to a colleague, the owner of the wall came and tore down his wall into the public domain, and [the thorns or glass] caused damage. If the wall was shaky, the person who hid [the thorns or glass] is liable. If the wall was strong, its owner is liable.

The pious men of the early generations would bury thorns and [fragments of] glass in their fields [at least] three handbreadths below the ground, so they would not be lifted up by a plow. Others would burn them in fire. Still others would throw them to the sea or to the river so that other people would not be injured by them.

A person should not clear stones from his private property into the public domain. One should not dig a cavity, a cistern, a trench or a cave under the public domain. [This applies] even when [the covering of the cavity is so strong] that it can support a carriage laden with stones, for there is the possibility that [at a later date] it will open from below without his knowledge. It is permitted for a person to dig a cistern for the needs of people at large.

One should not build projections and balconies that protrude into the public domain unless it is possible for a camel and its rider to pass beneath, and provided it does not cast shadows on the people in the public domain. If he desires, he can withdraw the walls [of his building into his own domain] and build [the projection]. If he did withdraw the walls [of his building], but has not built [a projection], he may do so at any time he desires. Never, however, may he return the walls to their original place. Once people at large have been granted permission to pass through a particular property, it cannot be withdrawn.

When a person purchased a courtyard with projections and balconies protruding into the public domain, we operate under the presumption [that they were built legally]. If the building falls, he is allowed to rebuild it according to its original proportions.

When [the foliage of] a tree leans into the public domain, it should be trimmed so that a camel and its rider can pass under it. An empty space should be left next to the banks on both sides of a river wide enough for the crewmen who descend and pull a boat. Any tree that is found in this space should be cut down immediately. A warning need not be given to its owner, for it blocks the crewmen from pulling ships.

[The following rules apply when] there was a path for people at large passing through a person's field, he expropriated the path and prepared a new path at the side of the field. What he granted them, they acquire possession of, but he does not acquire possession of [the land] he took. How wide is a path for people at large? Not less than sixteen cubits.

When a person kindles a fire in a field belonging to someone else and the fire spreads and causes damage, [the person who kindled it] is liable to pay the full extent of the damages, as [Exodus 22:5] states: "When a fire spreads through thorns and consumes bound or standing grain..., [the one who started the fire] must pay." Kindling a fire is considered one of the major categories of sources of damage.

When a person kindles [a fire] on his own property, he must retreat a sufficient distance from his boundary to ensure that the fire will not spread to a field belonging to a colleague. How far must he move? Everything depends on the height of the fire. If he did not retreat an adequate distance and the fire spread and caused damage, he is liable to pay the full extent of the damages. If he retreated an appropriate distance, and [the fire] nevertheless spread and caused damage, he is not liable. This is considered an act of heaven. Similarly, if [the fire] crossed a stream or a pond of rainwater that was [at least] eight cubits wide, [the person who kindled the fire] is not liable.

If the fire passed a wall, we measure the height of the wall and the height of the fire and the amount of foliage and bramble found there. If the fire was not of sufficient size to pass the wall ordinarily, he is not liable. If it is large enough, he is liable. When does the above apply? To a piercing flame]. If, however, the flame ascends upward and warps downward because of the height of the flame, and there were trees there, we do not make an estimation. Even if the fire spread for 1000 cubits, [the person who kindled it] is liable.

[The following rules apply when] a fire breaks out in a person's domain, and his wall falls from causes other than the fire. If he had had the opportunity to rebuild the wall that fell, and he neglected to do so, he is liable. To what can the matter be compared? To a person's ox that broke loose and caused damage. For [the owner] was responsible for guarding him, and he failed to do so.

A person who sends a fire in the hands of a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent person or a child is not held liable by an earthly court; he does, however, have a moral and a spiritual obligation [to make restitution for the damages]. When does the above apply? When he gave them a coal and they fanned it into a flame, for it is normal for a coal to burn out before it causes a flame. If, however, [the person] gave them a flame, he is liable, for his deeds caused the damage.

When a person sends a fire with a mentally competent individual, the agent who spread the flame is liable, and the principal is free of liability. Similarly, if he charged a watchman with guarding a fire, [and the fire nevertheless caused damage,] the watchman is liable.

When one person brings a flame, and [then] another person brings the wood, [and a fire is started, which causes damage], the person who brought the wood is liable. When one person brings the wood, and [then] another person brings a flame, [and a fire is started, which causes damage,] the person who brought the flame is liable. If another person comes and fans the fire, he is liable. If the fire is fanned by an uncommon wind, none of them is held liable. If a person fanned a fire, but it was also fanned by the wind, the person is liable, for his [actions] caused damage. And whenever a person's [actions] cause damage, he is liable to pay for the full amount of the damages from the choicest property he owns, as if the damage was inflicted directly.

When a fire spread and consumed wood, stone or earth, [the person who kindled the fire] is obligated to make restitution, as it is written: "[When a fire] spreads through thorns [and consumes...] a field." [The following rules apply when] a fire consumes a grain heap or the like and there were utensils hidden in the grain heap. If [the utensils include] a thresher, a yoke for cattle or other articles that it is likely for farmers to hide in their grain heaps, [the person who kindled the fire] is liable. If [the utensils include] clothes, glassware and the like, he is not liable for the damage to the utensils.

When does the above apply? When a person kindles a fire in a field belonging to a colleague. If, however, he kindles the fire in his own [domain] and it spreads to a colleague's field, he is not liable for utensils hidden in a grain heap. He must, however, compensate [the owner] as if the space taken by the utensils had been filled with wheat or with barley.

A person who kindles a fire in a field belonging to a colleague is also liable [in the following instance]. The fire spread and consumed a kid that was tied to the grain heap or a servant near the grain heap. For this is also the ordinary practice near a grain heap. If, however, the servant was tied [to the grain heap], or the goat was near the grain heap, [the person who kindled the fire is not liable].

When a person lends a colleague space to make a grain heap, the colleague makes that grain heap and hides utensils in it, and then the person who lent him the space burns the grain heap, [the person who kindled the fire] is liable to pay [his colleague] only for the grain heap. If he lent him space to make a heap of wheat and he made a heap of barley, or he lent him space to make a heap of barley and he made a heap of wheat, or he made a heap of wheat and covered it with barley, or he made a heap of barley and covered it with wheat, [the person who kindled the fire] is not liable to pay any more than the value of a heap of barley.

When a person sets fire to a home belonging to a colleague, he must compensate for everything it contains, for it is the ordinary practice for people to keep all their utensils and possessions in their homes. The person whose house [was burned] is entitled to collect everything he claims, provided he takes an oath while holding a [sacred] article. This oath is a Rabbinic institution, as will be explained. [The above applies] provided he claims articles that we can assume he owns or that it is customary for others to entrust to him.

[The following rules apply when] a camel that is loaded with flax passes through the public domain, the flax that enters the shop is ignited by the lamp belonging to the shopkeeper and then sets fire to the entire building. The owner of the camel is liable, because he overloaded [his beast]. [This applies regardless of] whether or not the animal stood. If the shopkeeper had placed his lamp outside, the shopkeeper is liable and must reimburse the camel driver even for the flax that burned, because he placed his lamp outside. [This applies] even with regard to a Chanukah lamp, for he should have sat [there] to guard it [from causing damage].

[The following rule applies when] a person bends standing grain belonging to a colleague toward a fire until it ignites. If the fire would not reach the grain unless it was spread by an uncommon wind, [the person who bent the grain] is not held liable by a mortal court. He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make reimbursement. When a person buries standing grain belonging to a colleague in earth or straw, and then a fire passes and consumes it, the person who buried [the grain] is not held liable by a mortal court. He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make reimbursement, because the person who kindled the fire is not liable for [the destruction of property that was] hidden.

When a fire spreads and harms a human being and injures him, the person who kindled the fire is liable for the damages, unemployment benefits, medical costs, pain and embarrassment suffered by the injured party, as if he had personally injured him. Although fire is one of a person's possessions, it is as if he caused him damage with his arrows. If, by contrast, injury to a man is caused by a person's animal or cistern, he is liable for the damages alone, as we have explained.

[The laws pertaining to] all the derivatives of fireare the same as [those pertaining to] fire itself. What is implied? If a person placed a stone, a knife or a burden on his roof, and it fell because of an ordinary wind and caused damage, he must pay the full extent of the damages. All these are derivatives of fire. If it was an uncommon wind that caused them to fall and create damage, he is not liable.