⚖️ Mishnah Bava Kamma 3

הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּשְׁבָרָהּ, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזַּק בָּהּ, בַּעַל הֶחָבִית חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ. נִשְׁבְּרָה כַדּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻחְלַק אֶחָד בַּמַּיִם, אוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה בַחֲרָסֶיהָ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּמִתְכַּוֵּן, חַיָּב. בְּאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן, פָּטוּר:

In the case of one who places a kad, a type of vessel, in the public domain and another person comes and stumbles on it and breaks it, the other person is exempt from paying for what he broke. And if the one who stumbled incurred damaged by it, the owner of the ḥavit, a type of vessel, is liable to pay restitution for his damage. If one’s jug broke in the public domain and another person slipped in the water from the jug and was injured from the fall, or if he was injured by the shards of the broken jug, the owner of the jug is liable. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the owner of the jug acted with intent, he is liable, and in a case where he acted without intent, he is exempt.

הַשּׁוֹפֵךְ מַיִם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר, חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ. הַמַּצְנִיעַ אֶת הַקּוֹץ, וְאֶת הַזְּכוּכִית, וְהַגּוֹדֵר אֶת גְּדֵרוֹ בְּקוֹצִים, וְגָדֵר שֶׁנָּפַל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻזְּקוּ בָהֶן אֲחֵרִים, חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן:

In the case of one who pours water in the public domain, and another person in-curred damage due to it, the one who poured water is liable to pay for his damage. In the case of one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass in his wall adjacent to the public domain, or one who puts up a fence of thorns, or one who puts up a fence that subsequently fell into the public domain, and others incurred damage due to any of these, he is liable to pay for their damage.

הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת תִּבְנוֹ וְאֶת קַשּׁוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִזְבָלִים, וְהֻזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר, חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ, חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. הַהוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַגָּלָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר, חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ:

In the case of one who takes out his straw [teven] and his hay [kash] to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer and another person incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage, and whoever takes possession of the hay and straw first acquires them for himself. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to anyone who places obstacles in the public domain and they cause damage, he is liable to pay damages, and whoever takes possession of them first acquires them. In the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, the former is liable to pay for his damage.

שְׁנֵי קַדָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְנִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל, וְנִתְקַל הַשֵּׁנִי בָּרִאשׁוֹן, הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב בְּנִזְקֵי שֵׁנִי:

In the case of two potters carrying pots who were walking one after the other in the public domain, and the first stumbled on a bump and fell, and the second stumbled over the first and fell too, the first is liable to pay for the damage incurred by the second.

זֶה בָּא בְחָבִיתוֹ, וְזֶה בָּא בְקוֹרָתוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה כַדּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּקוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, פָּטוּר, שֶׁלָּזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ וְלָזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ. הָיָה בַעַל קוֹר��ה רִאשׁוֹן, וּבַעַל חָבִית אַחֲרוֹן, נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה, פָּטוּר בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה, חַיָּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְבַעַל הֶחָבִית עֲמֹד, פָּטוּר. הָיָה בַעַל חָבִית רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל קוֹרָה אַחֲרוֹן, נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה, חַיָּב. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל חָבִית, פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לְבַעַל קוֹרָה עֲמֹד, חַיָּב. וְכֵן זֶה בָא בְנֵרוֹ וְזֶה בְפִשְׁתָּנוֹ:

If this person came in the public domain with his barrel, and that person came from the opposite direction with his cross beam, and this one’s jug was broken by that one’s cross beam, the one carrying the cross beam is exempt, because this one had permission to walk in the public domain, and that one also had permission to walk there. If they were walking in the same direction, so that the owner of the cross beam was walking first, in front, and the owner of a barrel last, behind him, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is exempt, since the owner of the barrel saw him in front of him and should have been more careful. But if the owner of the cross beam stopped, causing the barrel to collide with the beam and break, the former is liable, since the latter had no way of anticipating that he would stop. And if he said to the owner of the barrel: Stop, he is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel. Conversely, if the owner of the barrel was walking first and the owner of the cross beam last, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is liable. But if owner of the barrel stopped, the owner of the cross beam is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel. And if he said to the owner of the cross beam: Stop, the owner of the cross beam is liable. And similarly, these halakhot apply in a case where this one came with his lamp and that one came with his flax, and the lamp set fire to the flax.

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִים, וְהִזִּיקוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין:

With regard to two people who were walking in the public domain, or one who was running and another one who was walking, or who were both running, and they damaged one another, both of them are exempt.

הַמְבַקֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר, חַיָּב:

With regard to one who was chopping wood in his private property and a chip flew off and caused damage in the public property, or one who was chopping wood in the public property and caused damage in the private property of another, or one who was chopping wood in his private property and caused damage in the private property of another, in all these cases he is liable.

שְׁנֵי שְׁוָרִים תַּמִּים שֶׁחָבְלוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה, מְשַׁלְּמִים בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. שְׁנֵיהֶם מוּעָדִים, מְשַׁלְּמִים בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, מוּעָד בַּתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, תָּם בַּמּוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁחָבְלוּ זֶה בָזֶה, מְשַׁלְּמִים בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָדָם בְּמוּעָד וּמוּעָד בְּאָדָם, מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָדָם בְּתָם וְתָם בְּאָדָם, אָדָם בְּתָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, תָּם בְּאָדָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר חֲצִי נֶזֶק. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף תָּם שֶׁחָבַל בְּאָדָם, מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:

With regard to two innocuous oxen that injured each other, the respective damages are evaluated, and if one amount is more than the other, the owner pays half the damages with regard to the difference. In other words, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the other owner half the difference. If both oxen were forewarned, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. In a case where one of the oxen was innocuous and the other one was forewarned, if the forewarned ox caused greater damage to the innocuous ox than the reverse, the owner of the forewarned ox pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. If the innocuous ox caused greater damage to the forewarned ox, its owner pays half the damage with regard to the difference. And similarly, with regard to two people who injured each other, the one who did greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference, since one is always considered forewarned with regard to damage he causes. If a person caused damage to a forewarned ox and the forewarned ox caused damage to the person, whichever side caused the greater damage pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. In a case where a person caused damage to an innocuous ox and the innocuous ox caused damage to the person, if the person caused greater financial damage to the innocuous ox he pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. If the innocuous ox caused greater damage to the person, its owner pays only half the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of the innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injures a person.

שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה כְלוּם, נוֹטֵל אֶת הַשּׁוֹר. שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְאֵין הַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה כְלוּם, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (שמות כא) וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְכֵן הֲלָכָה, קִיַּמְתָּ וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ, וְלֹא קִיַּמְתָּ (שם) וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן, וְאֵיזֶה, זֶה שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם, וְהַנְּבֵלָה יָפָה חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, שֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַחַי וַחֲצִי הַמֵּת:

With regard to an innocuous ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass of the dead ox is not worth anything, its owner takes the entire ox that gored it, since it is worth half the value of the damage. With regard to an innocuous ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing, Rabbi Meir said: It is about this type of case that it is stated: “Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value” (Exodus 21:35). Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And that is the halakha, yet your interpretation of the verse is incorrect. You have upheld the clause: “Then they shall sell the live ox and divide its monetary value,” which fits your interpretation of the case. But you have not upheld the latter clause of the verse: “And the dead they shall also divide,” since in the case you mentioned the carcass is worthless. Rather, to which case is the verse referring? It is the case of an ox worth two hundred dinars that gored another ox worth two hundred dinars, and the carcass is worth fifty dinars. In this case, this party takes half the value of the living ox, one hundred dinars, and half the value of the dead ox, twenty-five dinars; and that party also takes half the value of the living ox and half the value of the dead ox.

יֵשׁ חַיָּב עַל מַעֲשֵׂה שׁוֹרוֹ וּפָטוּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה עַצְמוֹ, פָּטוּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה שׁוֹרוֹ וְחַיָּב עַל מַעֲשֵׂה עַצְמוֹ. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁבִּיֵּשׁ, פָּטוּר, וְהוּא שֶׁבִּיֵּשׁ, חַיָּב. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁסִּמֵּא אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ, וְהִפִּיל אֶת שִׁנּוֹ, פָּטוּר, וְהוּא שֶׁסִּמֵּא א��ת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ, וְהִפִּיל אֶת שִׁנּוֹ, חַיָּב. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁחָבַל בְּאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, חַיָּב, וְהוּא שֶׁחָבַל בְּאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, פָּטוּר. שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, חַיָּב, וְהוּא שֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ:

There are cases where one is liable for an act of damage caused by his ox, but exempt from liability for the same action if he performed it himself. Conversely, there are also cases where one is exempt from liability for the action of his ox, but liable for his own action. How so? If his ox caused a person humilation, he is exempt from paying compensation, but if he himself humiliated another, he is liable. Similarly, if his ox blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his slave’s tooth, he is exempt from having to emancipate the slave for this mutilation. But if he himself blinded his slave’s eye or knocked out his tooth, he is liable to emancipate him, as stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:26–27). By contrast, if his ox injured the owner’s father or his mother, he is liable to pay damages, but if he himself injured his father or his mother, he is exempt from paying compensation. Similarly, if his ox set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is liable to pay damages. But if he himself set fire to a haystack on Shabbat, he is exempt from paying damages. He is exempt from payment in these cases due to the fact that he is liable to receive the death penalty for injuring his father or mother or for desecrating Shabbat.

שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר שׁוֹר אַחֵר, וְהֻזַּק, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא בְסֶלַע לָקָה, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִים אַחַר אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד, שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין. הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן הִזִּיק. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם הִזִּיק, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ הַנִּזּוֹקִין שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיקִים שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְקָטָן אֶת הַקָּטָן, וּמַזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְגָדוֹל אֶת הַקָּטָן. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְתָם אֶת הַקָּטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וּמוּעָד אֶת הַקָּטָן, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה:

With regard to an ox that was pursuing another ox, and the ox being pursued became injured, but there are no witnesses as to how it was injured, and this one, the owner of the injured ox, says to the owner of the pursuing ox: Your ox injured my ox, and you are liable to pay me damages, and that one, the owner of the pursuing ox, says in response: No; rather, it was hurt by a rock, and I am not liable, then in this case, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. As long as the owner of the injured ox cannot prove that the injury was inflicted by the pursuing ox, the owner of the pursuing ox is not liable. In a case where two oxen, belonging to two different owners, were pursuing one ox belonging to a third person, and that ox was injured by one of the pursuing oxen, and this one, the owner of one of the pursuing oxen, says to the owner of the other: It was your ox that caused the injury, and that one, the owner of the other pursuing ox, says: No, it was your ox that caused the injury, the two of them are exempt, since each of them rejects the claim of the injured party that his ox caused the injury. If both oxen belonged to one person, both are liable, as will be explained in the Gemara. If the pursuing oxen both belonged to one person, and were both innocuous, so that restitution is paid exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the belligerent ox, and one was large and the other one small, in this case, if the injured party says that the large ox caused the damage, and he is therefore entitled to receive restitution for half the damage from the value of the large ox, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small ox caused the damage, and half of its value is not sufficient to cover half the damage; or, similarly, in a case where one ox is innocuous and one is forewarned, and the injured party says: The forewarned ox caused the damage, and the injured party is therefore eligible to receive full damages, but the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the innocuous ox caused the damage, in which case he is liable to pay only half the damage; in both of the above cases, the principle is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. If the injured animals were two oxen, one large and the other one small, and the ones that caused the damage were also two oxen, one large and one small, and the injured party says: The large one injured the large one and the small one injured the small one, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the small one injured the large one, in which case, if half the value of the belligerent ox does not cover half the damage, he is not required to pay more, and the large one injured the small one; or, similarly, if one of the belligerent oxen was innocuous and one forewarned, and the injured party says: The forewarned ox injured the large one, and the innocuous ox injured the small one, and the one liable for damage says: No; rather, the innocuous ox injured the large one and the forewarned ox injured the small one; here too, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.