Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Bava Kamma 5:1 - 5:2

The Mishnah Yomi for Friday, August 23, 2024 is Bava Kamma 5:1 - 5:2

＜ Previous DayTodayNext Day ＞

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 5 Mishnah 1

בבא קמא פרק ה׳ משנה א׳

1
In the case of an innocuous ox that gored and killed a cow, and the cow’s fetus was found dead at its side, and it is not known whether the cow gave birth before the ox gored it and the fetus’s death is unrelated to the goring or whether it gave birth after the ox gored it and the fetus died on account of the goring, the owner of the ox pays half the cost of the damage for the cow and one-quarter of the cost of the damage for the offspring. Since it is uncertain whether the ox was responsible for the death of the fetus, in which case he would pay half the damages, its owner pays only half the amount for the fetus that he would ordinarily be required to pay, i.e., one-quarter. And likewise, there is uncertainty in the case of an innocuous cow that gored an ox, and the cow’s newborn offspring was found at its side dead or alive, and it is not known whether the cow gave birth before it gored the ox or whether the cow gave birth after it gored. When damage is caused by an innocuous animal, the liability of the owner is limited to the value of the animal that gored. Therefore, half the cost of the damage is paid from the value of the cow, as in the standard case of an innocuous animal. And if that does not suffice to pay for half the cost of the damage, one-quarter of the cost of the damage is paid from the offspring. Since it is uncertain whether the offspring was part of the cow at the time the cow gored, the owner pays only half of what he would pay if it were certain that it was part of the cow.
שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה וְנִמְצָא עֻבָּרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נְגָחָהּ יָלְדָה, אִם מִשֶּׁנְּגָחָהּ יָלְדָה, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק לַפָּרָה וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק לַוָּלָד. וְכֵן פָּרָה שֶׁנָּגְחָה אֶת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִמְצָא וְלָדָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָגְחָה יָלְדָה, אִם מִשֶּׁנָּגְחָה יָלְדָה, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִן הַפָּרָה וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק מִן הַוָּלָד:
א׳

שור שנגח את הפרה – who was pregnant.

ונמצא עוברת בצדה – that died.

ואין ידוע אם עד שלא נגח ילדה – and did not die because of the goring.

אם משנגחה – and because of the goring aborted the fetus.

ורביע נזק – for an innocuous ox is liable for half damages and this offspring lies in doubt and we divide it. And our Mishnah is according to Sumachos who stated that money that is lies in doubt, we divide the money. But the Sages state that this is a great principle in law (see, for example, Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11 above): “He who seeks reparation from his fellow must produce evidence (i.e., upon him is the burden of proof).” But the Halakha is according to the Sages. And even if the [owner of the] animal who suffered damages asserts a certainty (i.e., literally, “sure”) and the [owner of the] animal who caused the damages says “perhaps” (i.e., a possibility), “he who seeks reparation form his fellow must produce evidence.”

וכן פרה שנגחה את השור וכו'- if the cow is found, it is according to the innocuous [animal whose owner] pays one-half damages from his estate, but if the cow is not found, he pays one-firth damages from the offspring, for if he had known that prior to [the cow] giving birth it had gored, he would pay all of the half-damages from the offspring, for she was pregnant and had gored and her fetus was gored, but if it was after she gave birth that she gored, he would not pay from the offspring anything, for the offspring did not gore. But the [owner of the] innocuous animal pays other than from his estate. But now that there is a doubt, they divide it and from the one-half damages that he has to pay, he pays one quarter damages from the offspring.

שור שנגח את הפרה. מעוברת:

ונמצא עוברה בצדה. מת:

ואין ידוע אם עד שלא נגחה ילדה. ולא מת מחמת הנגיחה:

אם משנגחה. ומחמת הנגיחה הפילתו:

ורביע נזק לולד. דתם חייב חצי נזק, והאי ולד מוטל בספק הוא, וחולקין. ומתניתין סומכוס היא דאמר ממון המוטל בספק חולקין. אבל חכמים אומרים זה כלל גדול בדין המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה. והלכה כחכמים. ואפילו ניזק אומר ברי ומזיק אומר שמא, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:

וכן פרה שנגחה את השור וכו׳ משלם חצי נזק מן הפרה. אם נמצאת הפרה בדין תם שמשלם חצי נזק מגופו. ואם לא נמצאת הפרה, משלם רביע נזק מן הולד. שאם היה ידוע שקודם שילדה נגחה היה משלם כל חצי נזק מן הולד, שמעוברת שנגחה היא ועוברה נגחו. ואם לאחר שילדה נגחה לא היה משלם מן הולד כלום, שהרי הולד לא נגח ואין התם משלם אלא מגופו. עכשיו שהוא בספק, חולקים, ומן החצי נזק שיש לו לשלם משלם רביע נזק מן הולד:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 5 Mishnah 2

בבא קמא פרק ה׳ משנה ב׳

2
In the case of a potter who brought his pots into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the homeowner’s animal broke the pots, the homeowner is exempt. If the owner’s animal was injured by the pots, the owner of the pots is liable. But if the potter brought them inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable if his animal caused damage to the pots. Similarly, if someone brought his produce into the homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the homeowner’s animal ate them, the homeowner is exempt. If his animal was injured by them, e.g., if it slipped on them, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought his produce inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused by his animal to them.
הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהִכְנִיס קְדֵרוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, וְשִׁבְּרָתַן בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזְּקָה בָהֶן, בַּעַל הַקְּדֵרוֹת חַיָּב. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת, בַּעַל חָצֵר חַיָּב. הִכְנִיס פֵּרוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, וַאֲכָלָתַן בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזְּקָה בָהֶן, בַּעַל הַפֵּרוֹת חַיָּב. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת, בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָּב:
ב׳

ואם הוזקה בהם בעל הפירות חייב – and these words refer to when the animal slips and stumbles/falls through them. But if she (i.e., the animal) ate from them until she died , the owner of the produce is exempt [from indemnity] because she should not have eaten them.

ואם הוזקה בהם בעל הפירות חייב. והני מילי שהוחלקה ונכשלה בהן. אבל אם אכלה מהן עד שמתה, בעל הפירות פטור, דהוה לה שלא תאכל:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us