Halacha
הלכה א
הַמַּזִּיק מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אָנוּס הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמֵזִיד. כֵּיצַד. נָפַל מִן הַגַּג וְשָׁבַר אֶת הַכֵּלִים אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְקַל כְּשֶׁהוּא מְהַלֵּךְ וְנָפַל עַל הַכְּלִי וּשְׁבָרוֹ חַיָּב נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד כא) "וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה" לֹא חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד:
כסף משנה
1.
A person who damages property belonging to a colleague is obligated to pay the full extent of the damages. Regardless of whether he did so unintentionally or because of forces beyond his control, it is considered as if he had acted intentionally.What is implied? If a person fell off a roof and broke utensils, or tripped while he was walking, fell on a utensil and broke it, he is liable to pay the full extent of the damages. This is implied by Leviticus 24:21, which states: "A person who strikes an animal will pay for the damages," without distinguishing between an intentional and unintentional blow.
הלכה ב
וְאֶחָד הַהוֹרֵג בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ הַשּׁוֹבֵר כֵּלָיו אוֹ הַקּוֹרֵעַ בְּגָדָיו אוֹ קוֹצֵץ נְטִיעוֹתָיו הַכּל דִּין אֶחָד הוּא:
כסף משנה
2.
The same laws i.e., that the person who caused the damage should pay for it, as indicated by the proof-text apply whether one kills an animal belonging to a colleague, breaks his utensils, tears his garments or cuts down crops or trees he planted.הלכה ג
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק. אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הַמַּזִּיק אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא אִם הִזִּיק בְּזָדוֹן אֲבָל בִּשְׁגָגָה אוֹ בְּאֹנֶס פָּטוּר. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּרְשׁוּת אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וְהִזִּיק אֶחָד מֵהֶן מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
3.
When does the above apply? When the damage is done in a domain belonging to the person whose possessions were damaged. If the damage was done in a domain belonging to the person who caused the damage, he is not required to pay unless he purposely caused the damage. If he caused the damage unintentionally or due to forces beyond his control, he is not liable.Similarly, if both of them were present in a domain belonging to a third party with his permission - or without his permission - and one unintentionally damaged property belonging to the other, the person who caused the damage is not liable.
הלכה ד
הָיָה עוֹלֶה בַּסֻּלָּם וְנִשְׁמְטָה שְׁלִיבָה מִתַּחְתָּיו וְנָפְלָה וְהִזִּיקָה. אִם לֹא הָיְתָה מְהֻדֶּקֶת וַחֲזָקָה חַיָּב. הָיְתָה חֲזָקָה וּמְהֻדֶּקֶת וְנִשְׁמְטָה אוֹ שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁזּוֹ מַכָּה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הִיא. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. כָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הַמַּזִּיק פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַזִּיק כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
4.
The following rules apply when a person was climbing a ladder and the rung of the ladder broke under him, and it fell and caused damage. If the rung was not tightly fit or it was not strong enough to bear the person's weight, he is liable. If it was tightly fit and strong enough to bear the person's weight, but it slipped from its place or rotted, the person is not liable. For this is an act of God. The same concepts apply in all analogous situations.All the above applies if the damage takes place in the domain belonging to the person whose possessions were damaged. If the damage takes place in the domain belonging to the person who causes the damage, he is not liable unless he intentionally causes the damage, as explained above.
הלכה ה
הֲרֵי שֶׁמִּלֵּא חֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן אֲפִלּוּ הִכְנִיסָם בִּרְשׁוּת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר לִשְׁמֹר הֲרֵי זֶה נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְכָל שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּבֵּר מִן הַכַּדִּים בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ וּבִיצִיאָתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא פָּטוּר עֲלֵיהֶן. וְאִם שְׁבָרָן בְּכַוָּנָה אֲפִלּוּ הִכְנִיסָם בַּעַל הַכַּדִּים שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. [וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה]:
כסף משנה
5.
If another person filled a courtyard belonging to a colleague with jugs of wine and oil, the owner of the courtyard may enter and leave in an ordinary manner. If any of the jugs break when he enters or leaves, he is not liable for them. This applies even if the jugs were brought in with the permission of the owner of the courtyard, as long as the owner of the courtyard did not accept responsibility for watching them.If, however, the owner of the courtyard broke the jugs intentionally, he is liable to pay for them. This applies even if the jugs were brought in without the permission of the owner of the courtyard.
הלכה ו
שׁוֹר שֶׁעָלָה עַל גַּבֵּי שׁוֹר לְהָרְגוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַמַּזִּיק שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל הַתַּחְתּוֹן בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה תָּם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה מוּעָד וּבָא בַּעַל הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְשָׁמַט אֶת שׁוֹרוֹ לְהַצִּילוֹ וְנָפַל עֶלְיוֹן וּמֵת הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
6.
When one ox climbs on top of another ox with the intention of killing it in a domain belonging to the owner of the lower ox, and the owner of the lower ox pulls his ox away to save it, thus causing the upper ox to fall and die, the owner of the lower ox is not liable. This applies regardless of whether the ox that attacked was tam or mu'ad.הלכה ז
דְּחָפוֹ לְעֶלְיוֹן וּמֵת אִם הָיָה יָכוֹל לְשָׁמְטוֹ וְלֹא שְׁמָטוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לְשָׁמְטוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
7.
The following rules apply when the owner of the lower ox pushes the upper ox, and it dies. If he could have pulled one ox away, so that the attacking ox would not be pushed violently, and he did not do so, he is liable. If he could not have pulled an ox away, he is not liable.הלכה ח
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים זֶה בָּא בְּחָבִיתוֹ וְזֶה בָּא בְּקוֹרָתוֹ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִיתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּקוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁלָּזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ וְלָזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ. הָיָה בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל הֶחָבִית אַחֲרוֹן וְנִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה פָּטוּר. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה לָנוּחַ מִכֹּבֶד מַשָּׂאוֹ חַיָּב. וְאִם הִזְהִיר לְבַעַל הֶחָבִית וְאָמַר לוֹ עֲמֹד פָּטוּר. עָמַד לְתַקֵּן מַשָּׂאוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְהַלֵּךְ וּפָטוּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִזְהִיר לְבַעַל הֶחָבִית, שֶׁהוּא טָרוּד בְּדַרְכּוֹ. הָיָה בַּעַל הֶחָבִית רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל קוֹרָה אַחֲרוֹן וְנִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה חַיָּב שֶׁזֶּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁשְּׁבָרוֹ בְּיָדוֹ בְּכַוָּנָה. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל חָבִית לָנוּחַ פָּטוּר. וְאִם הִזְהִיר לְבַעַל הַקּוֹרָה וְאָמַר לוֹ עֲמֹד הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. וְאִם עָמַד לְתַקֵּן מַשָּׂאוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִזְהִיר לְבַעַל הַקּוֹרָה הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב. וְכֵן זֶה בָּא בְּנֵרוֹ וְזֶה בָּא בְּפִשְׁתָּנוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
8.
The following rules apply when two people were walking in the public domain. If one approached carrying a jug, and the other approached carrying a beam, and the person's jug was broken by the other's beam, the owner of the beam is not liable. The rationale is that they both have permission to walk in this domain.If the owner of the beam was walking ahead and the owner of the jug following afterwards, and the jug was broken on the beam,the owner of the beam is not liable. If the owner of the beam stood still to rest because of the weight of his burden, and the jug was broken on the beam, the owner of the beam is liable. If the owner of the beam warned the owner of the jug and told him to stand still, the owner of the beam is not liable.
If the owner of the beam stood still to adjust his burden, he is considered as if he is walking, and he is not liable. This applies even if he failed to warn the owner of the jug, for he is preoccupied with his own progress.
If the owner of the jug was walking ahead, and the owner of the beam following afterwards, and the jug was broken on the beam, the owner of the beam is liable. It is considered as if he broke the jug intentionally with his hands. If the owner of the jug stood to rest, the owner of the beam is not liable. If, however, the owner of the jug warned the owner of the beam and told him to stand, the owner of the beam is liable. If the owner of the jug stood still to adjust his burden, the owner of the beam is liable, even if the owner of the jug did not warn him.
Similar principles apply if one person proceeds while carrying a lamp, and another comes carrying flax, or in other analogous situations.
הלכה ט
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ וְהֻזַּק אֶחָד מֵהֶן בַּחֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה. זֶה הָרָץ חַיָּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁנֶּה. וְאִם הָיָה עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הוּא רָץ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּכָּנֵס הַשַּׁבָּת וְהוּא אֵינוֹ פָּנוּי. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִים וְהֻזְּקוּ זֶה בָּזֶה שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים:
כסף משנה
9.
When two people were proceeding in the public domain, one of them was running and one was walking, and one was injured by the other unintentionally, the one who is running is liable, for he is departing from the norm.If it was Friday afternoon, after sunset, when the collision took place, he is not liable. For he has permission to run at that time, so that the Sabbath will not enter when he is not ready to accept it. If both individuals were running, and one injured the other, neither is liable. This applies even on other days.
הלכה י
אֶחָד הַמַּזִּיק בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁזָּרַק אֶבֶן אוֹ יָרָה חֵץ וְהִזִּיק בּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁפָּטַר מַיִם עַל חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ עַל הַכֵּלִים וְהִזִּיק אוֹ שֶׁרָק אוֹ נָע וְהִזִּיק בְּכִיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁהָלְכוּ מִכֹּחוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַזִּיק בְּיָדוֹ וְהֵם תּוֹלָדוֹת שֶׁל אָדָם. אֲבָל אִם נָח הָרֹק וְהַכִּיחַ עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְקַל בָּהֶן אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹרוֹ. שֶׁכָּל תַּקָּלָה תּוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹר הִיא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
10.
There is no difference whether a person injures a colleague with his hand, injures him by throwing a stone or shooting an arrow, opens a current of water on a person or on utensils and damages him or them, or spits or sneezes and causes damage with his spittle or mucus while it is being propelled by his power. All of these are considered derivatives of damage that a person causes,and he is liable for all of them, as if he had caused the damage with his hands.If, however, the spittle or the mucus came to rest on the ground, and afterwards a person slips on them, the person who spat or sneezed is liable as if it were a cistern. For every obstacle is considered a derivative of a cistern, as we have previously explained.
הלכה יא
לוֹטֵשׁ שֶׁהָיָה מַכֶּה בְּפַטִּישׁ וְיָצָא גֵּץ מִתַּחַת הַפַּטִּישׁ וְהִזִּיק הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב כְּמִי שֶׁזָּרַק אֶבֶן אוֹ חֵץ. וְכֵן הַבַּנַאי שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּתֶל לְסָתְרוֹ וְשָׁבַר אֶת הָאֲבָנִים אוֹ הִזִּיק חַיָּב. הָיָה סוֹתֵר מִצַּד זֶה וְנָפַל מִצַּד אַחֵר פָּטוּר. וְאִם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה חַיָּב שֶׁזֶּה כְּזוֹרֵק חֵץ וְהִזִּיק בּוֹ הוּא:
כסף משנה
11.
When a blacksmith who was beating with a hammer on an anvil causes a spark to fly from beneath the hammer, and the spark causes damage, the blacksmith is liable. It is as if he threw a stone or an arrow.Similarly, if a builder who is contracted to tear down a wall cracks the stones or causes other damage, he is liable. If he is tearing down one side of a wall, and the stones on the other side fall, he is not liable. If they fall because of his blows, he is liable. For this is considered like shooting arrows and causing damage.
הלכה יב
הַכּוֹבֵשׁ בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּמַיִם אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלָה וּמְנָעָהּ מִלַּעֲלוֹת עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה בַּמַּיִם. אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ בַּחַמָּה וְצִמְצֵם עָלֶיהָ הַמָּקוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּמְצָא צֵל עַד שֶׁהֲרָגַתָּה הַחַמָּה. חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
12.
A person who holds under water an animal belonging to a colleague, or if an animal fell into water and he prevented it from ascending and thus caused it to die in the water, or if he left it in the sun and restricted its movement so that it could not find shade until the sun killed it - in all these, and in any analogous situations, the perpetrator of these acts is liable to pay for the animal's loss.הלכה יג
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵמִיתוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה כְּאַחַת אוֹ שָׁבְרוּ אֶת הַכְּלִי כְּאַחַת מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶן:
כסף משנה
13.
If two people kill an animal together or break a utensil together, the damages are divided between them.הלכה יד
חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁהִנִּיחוּ חָמֵשׁ חֲבִילוֹת עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא מֵתָה וּבָא זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן וְהִנִּיחַ חֲבִילָתוֹ עָלֶיהָ וּמֵתָה. אִם הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בְּאוֹתָן הַחֲבִילוֹת וּמִשֶּׁהוֹסִיף זֶה חֲבִילָתוֹ עָמְדָה וְלֹא הָלְכָה הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּב. וְאִם מִתְּחִלָּה לֹא הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת הָאַחֲרוֹן פָּטוּר. וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ כֻּלָּן מְשַׁלְּמִין בְּשָׁוֶה:
כסף משנה
14.
Our Sages ruled in the following manner concerning the liability in the situation to be described. Five people placed their five burdens on an animal and it did not die, and then a sixth person came and placed his burden upon it, and it did die. If the animal was walking while carrying the previous burdens, and it stood still and did not walk when the last person placed its burden upon it, the last person is liable.If at the outset, the animal was not walking, the last person is not liable. If it is not known whether or not the animal was walking, all the six people should share the damages equally.
הלכה טו
וְכֵן חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ עַל הַכִּסֵּא וְלֹא נִשְׁבַּר וּבָא אַחֲרוֹן וְיָשַׁב עָלָיו וְנִשְׁבַּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה רָאוּי לְהִשָּׁבֵר בָּהֶן קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּשַׁב הוֹאִיל וְקֵרֵב אֶת שְׁבִירָתוֹ הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּב. שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אִלּוּ לֹא נִסְמַכְתָּ עָלֵינוּ הָיִינוּ עוֹמְדִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשָּׁבֵר. וְאִם יָשְׁבוּ כְּאַחַת וְנִשְׁבַּר כֻּלָּן חַיָּבִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
15.
Similarly, if five people sat on a chair and it did not break, and then another person sat down upon it and it did break, the last person who sat down is liable. Although it was fit to break before he sat down, he is responsible, since he caused it to break sooner. For the others could say to him: "Had you not used it for support, we would have stood up before it broke."If they all sat down at the same time, they are all liable. The same rules apply in other analogous situations.
הלכה טז
אָדָם וְשׁוֹר שֶׁדָּחֲפוּ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ אָדָם אוֹ כֵּלִים אוֹ בֶּהֱמַת פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין לַבּוֹר וְהֻזַּק הַנִּדְחָף בַּבּוֹר אוֹ מֵת אוֹ נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ הַכֵּלִים. לְעִנְיַן נִזְקֵי אָדָם אוֹ הֶזֵּק בְּהֵמָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן חַיָּבִין הָאָדָם הַדּוֹחֵף וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר וּמְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶן. לְעִנְיַן דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת וְאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים אָדָם חַיָּב וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר פְּטוּרִין. לְעִנְיַן כֹּפֶר וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר חַיָּב וְאָדָם וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר פְּטוּרִין. לְעִנְיַן כֵּלִים וּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין אָדָם וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר חַיָּבִין וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
16.
Our Sages divided the liability for the damages in situations when a man and an ox combined to push into a cistern a person, utensils, or an ox that was disqualified for use as a sacrifice. If the person or the animal pushed into the cistern was injured or died, or the utensils were broken, all three - the person who pushed, the owner of the ox and the owner of the cistern - are liable, and the damages should be divided among them in the following manner.With regard to the payment for offspring which were aborted because of the fall and the four assessments other than damages, the man is liable, and the owner of the ox and the owner of the cistern are not liable. With regard to the atonement fine and the fine of 30 shekalim for killing a servant, the owner of the ox is liable, and the man and the owner of the cistern are not liable. With regard to the destruction of utensils and the death of an animal that was disqualified as a sacrifice, the man and the owner of the ox are liable, and the owner of the cistern is not liable.