Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Bava Kamma 2:1 - 2:2

The Mishnah Yomi for Saturday, August 10, 2024 is Bava Kamma 2:1 - 2:2

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 2 Mishnah 1

בבא קמא פרק ב׳ משנה א׳

1
The mishna in the previous chapter (15b) teaches that the owner of an animal is always forewarned with regard to the category of Trampling. The mishna elaborates: For what damage caused with the hoof is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking. An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, by doing so, breaking objects as it proceeds. By contrast, if the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it transpired that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, cases of that kind do not fit precisely into the primary category of Trampling. In both of these cases the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel, as the damage caused by the shard is tantamount to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal. Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects, and therefore, the owner of a chicken pays the full restitution for the damage done to any objects broken by his chicken. If there was a string [delil] tied to a chicken’s leg as an indication of ownership and it wrapped around a vessel and broke it, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage.
כֵּיצַד הָרֶגֶל מוּעֶדֶת. לְשַׁבֵּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ וְשִׁבְּרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וְשִׁבְּרַתּוֹ, וְנָפַל עַל כְּלִי וּשְׁבָרוֹ, עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים מוּעָדִין לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּן וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיָה דְלִיל קָשׁוּר בְּרַגְלָיו, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְהַדֵּס וּמְשַׁבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק:
א׳

כיצד הרגל מועדת – meaning to say, in which manner does the foot become forewarned? And it answers to break something while it is walking. As such it is forewarned when it smashes utensils while it is walking.

הבהמה מועדת – the first part [of the Mishnah] teaches chief actionable damages of the “foot” that she treaded on with her feet, and the concluding part [of the Mishnah] teaches derivates that the animal is forewarned to walk in her manner and to bread with her body and with her hair and the sliding pouch that is upon her while she is walking.

או שהיו צרורות מנתזין – even though it is not a change, but rather, the way things happen, nevertheless, half-damages and not more, for this is the normative Halakha for this and we are speaking about the domain of the person who suffered the damages, but in the public domain, he is exempt [from damages] for pebbles are a derivative of the “foot” to make them exempt in the public domain.

ונפל על כלי אחר – these are the first damages of the “foot” and she (i.e., its owner) pays full damages and the latter are through broken pebbles, therefore, half-damage.

דליל קשור ברגלו – everything that is attacked onto the foot of the chicken is called is דליל/anything irregularly wound/entangled, and there are those who have the reading דלי/bucket.

מהדס – (scratch) to dance, and there are those who interpret it as digging with its feet in the earth in the manner of chickens.

משלם חצי נזק – that is entangled/irregularly wound that is pebbles are judged as pebbles on the utensils, and incisions/scratches also, such as that pebbles that were tossed and they broke the utensils.

כיצד הרגל מועדת. כלומר, באיזה דבר הרגל מועדת. ומשני, לשבר בדרך הילוכה. בכך היא מועדת שמשברת כלים דרך הלוכה:

הבהמה מועדת. רישא תנא אבות, רגל ממש, שדרסה ברגליה. וסיפא תנא תולדות, שבהמה מועדת להלך כדרכה ולשבר בגופה ובשערה ובשליף שעליה דרך הלוכה:

היתה מבעטת. שינוי הוא זה, ותולדה דקרן, הלכך חצי נזק ותו לא:

או שהיו צרורות מנתזין. אע״ג דלאו שינוי הוא אלא אורחיה הוא, אע״פ כן חצי נזק ותו לא, דהלכתא גמירא לה. וברשות הניזק קאמר, דברה״ר פטור, דצרורות תולדה דרגל נינהו לפטרם ברה״ר:

ונפל על כלי אחר. ראשון נזקי רגל הן ומשלמת נזק שלם. והאחרון על ידי צרורות נשבר, הלכך חצי נזק:

דליל קשור ברגלו. כל דבר הנקשר ברגל התרנגולת קרוי דליל. ואית דגרסי דלי:

מהדס. מרקד. ואית דמפרשי, חופר ברגליו בארץ, כדרך התרנגולים:

משלם חצי נזק. דדליל היינו צרורות, דבאותו דליל אדיינהו לצרורות על הכלים. והידוס נמי כגון שהתיז ואותן צרורות שברו הכלים:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 2 Mishnah 2

בבא קמא פרק ב׳ משנה ב׳

2
Within the context of the primary category of Eating, for what damage caused with the tooth is an animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption. The domesticated animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. If the animal ate garments or vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. As these are not items fit for its consumption, the animal is not deemed forewarned in this case. In what case is this statement applied, that one pays the full value of the food eaten by the animal? It is a case where the animal ate the food on the property of the injured party; but if the animal ate food in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability. And even if the animal ate food in the public domain, if the animal derives benefit from eating another’s produce in the public domain, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives, just not for the full cost of the food. Under what circumstances does the owner of the animal pay for the benefit that it derives? If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that it derives. If the animal ate from food placed at the side of the public square, which is not a public thoroughfare, the owner of the animal pays for what it damaged, as the legal status of that area is like that of the property of the injured party. If the animal ate produce from the entrance of the store, its owner pays for the benefit that it derives, as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. If the animal ate produce from inside the store, its owner pays for what it damaged.
כֵּיצַד הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת. לֶאֱכֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכֹל פֵּרוֹת וִירָקוֹת. אָכְלָה כְסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, פָּטוּר. אִם נֶהֱנֵית, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. אָכְלָה מִתּוֹךְ הָרְחָבָה, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. מִצִּדֵּי הָרְחָבָה, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה. מִפֶּתַח הַחֲנוּת, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. מִתּוֹךְ הַחֲנוּת, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה:
ב׳

כיצד השן מועדת – in what manner is it “forewarned?” And it answers: to eat what is is appropriate for it.

משלם חצי נזק – for it is unusual (to eat clothing or chew up utensils).

בד"א וכו' - it refers to when it eats fruits or vegetables that are in the public domain, it is exempt, for we require (Exodus 22:4): “When a man lets his livestock loose to graze in another’s land,” but if it ate clothing or utensils, even in the public domain it is liable one-half damages, for people generally put clothing and utensils in the public domain according to the hour and it is the “horn” in the domain of the person suffering damages and he is liable.

משלם מה שנהנית – these are not valid payments but rather if it ate something that its value was great, we view it as if they barley, and he doesn’t pay anything other than the value of the barley at its cheapest, which is a full third less than what they are sold for in the marketplace. But, if it ate something whose worth is less than the barley, he pays the worthy of that thing that it ate at its cheapest, and if it (i.e., the animal) ate that which he damaged such as that it ate the wheat but since it did not benefit, it [the owner] is exempt [from payment].

מצדד הרחבה משלם מה שהזיקה – if it (i.e., the animal) stood and at the sides of the road in a place where it is not the manner of bulls to walk there, it is not compared to the public domain, and it pays what it damages.

כיצד השן מועדת. באיזה דבר היא מועדת. ומשני, לאכול את הראוי לה:

משלם חצי נזק. דמשונה הוא:

בד״א וכו׳ אאכלה פירות או ירקות קאי, דברה״ר פטור דבעינן וביער בשדה אחר. אבל אכלה כסות וכלים אפילו ברשות הרבים חייב חצי נזק, דעבדי אנשי דמנחי כסות וכלים ברה״ר לפי שעה, והוי קרן ברשות הרבים וחייב:

משלם מה שנהנית. לאו תשלומין מעלייתא, אלא אם אכלה דבר שדמיו יקרים רואים אותו כאילו הן שעורים, ואינו משלם אלא דמי שעורים בזול, שהוא שליש פחות ממה שהם נמכרים בשוק. ואם אכלה דבר שדמיו פחותים מן השעורים, משלם דמי אותו דבר שאכלה בזול. ואם אכלה דבר שהזיק לה, כגון שאכלה חטים, הואיל ולא נהנית פטור:

מצדי הרחבה משלם מה שהזיקה. אם הלכה ועמדה בצדי הרחבה במקום שאין דרך שוורים ללכת שם, לאו כרה״ר דמי, ומשלמת מה שהזיקה:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us