Halacha
הלכה א
שׁוֹר שֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ בְּעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵרָה וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק. אִם תָּם הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק. וְאִם הָיָה מוּעָד פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לו) "וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ" הָא אִם שְׁמָרוֹ פָּטוּר וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה. וְכֵן אִם הִזִּיק בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מוּעָד לוֹ מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל דְּבָרִים הָרְאוּיִים לוֹ אוֹ שָׁבַר בְּרַגְלָיו בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם:
כסף משנה
1.
[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.1 I.e., with a gate that can withstand an ordinary wind. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:1), this halachah is speaking about guarding the animal in an inferior manner as explained in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 4. If the animal is guarded in an excellent manner, there is no liability. 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,2 According to the Rambam, the owner is not liable for even half the damages. Rabbenu Asher and others differ. According to their view, since he did guard the ox to some degree, he is not liable for the full damages. He is, however, liable for half the damages, for there is no reason why the laws governing him should be more lenient than those governing an ordinary ox. See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 396:1. 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.3 Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama, conclusion of Chapter 4), which states that since this ox frequently gores, it is a mitzvah to slaughter it.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].הלכה ב
הָיָה מוּעָד לְקֶרֶן יָמִין וְאֵינוֹ מוּעָד לְקֶרֶן שְׂמֹאל וְיָצָא אַחַר שֶׁשְּׁמָרוֹ כָּרָאוּי וְנָגַח בֵּין בְּקֶרֶן יָמִין בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאל מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק:
כסף משנה
2.
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.4 Since the ox is considered to be a tam with regard to one element of goring, the owner is never freed from the obligation to pay the half damages that the owner of an ordinary ox would pay. [This applies] regardless of whether it gored with its right horn or its left horn.הלכה ג
בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחָבְלָה בְּאָדָם בֵּין בְּכַוָּנָה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה. אִם תַּמָּה הִיא מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק מִגּוּפָהּ וְאִם מוּעֶדֶת הִיא מְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. וּפָטוּר מִן הַשֶּׁבֶת וּמִן הַבּשֶׁת וּמִן הַצַּעַר וּמִן הָרִפּוּי. שֶׁאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ לֹא חִיְּבָה בָּהֶן תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּאָדָם שֶׁחָבַל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחָבְלָה בָּאָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהִזִּיקָה מָמוֹנוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חֲצִי נֵזֶק בִּלְבַד. לְפִיכָךְ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁבִּיֵּשׁ פָּטוּר וְאִם בִּיֵּשׁ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ חַיָּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְשׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁחָבַל בְּאָבִיו אוֹ בְּאִמּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִדְלִיק גְּדִישׁ חֲבֵרוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּב בִּנְזָקִין וְאִלּוּ הָיָה הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ הָעוֹשֶׂה זֶה פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:
כסף משנה
3.
[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.5 Although these principles are stated in the Torah explicitly with regard only to damage done to another animal, Bava Kama 33a explains how an equation to human injury is derived. 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.6 For Leviticus 24:19, the source for the laws applying to human injury, states: When a man will cause a blemish to a colleague.... Implied is that these laws apply only when the injury is caused by another man. 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.7 Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:1,9.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.8 A human being is not liable in these instances. The rationale is that he is liable for capital punishment for injuring his parents or desecrating the Sabbath. Whenever a person incurs both liability for capital punishment and monetary restitution with the performance of a single deed, he is freed of responsibility for the monetary claim. See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:5,7.הלכה ד
הַמַּכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ נְשָׁכוֹ כַּלְבּוֹ פָּטוּר. וְאִם נָגַח הוּא שׁוֹר שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אִם הָיָה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק וְאִם הָיָה מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם כְּדִין הַנּוֹגֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים:
כסף משנה
4.
[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.9 The words as if it had gored in the public domain refer to the fact that the owner of an ox that is tam pays for only half the damages. One might draw a comparison to the damage caused by eating or treading, in which instance the owner of the ox is not held liable for damage caused in the public domain, but he is liable for the entire amount of damages caused in the domain of the owner of the produce. To counter this hypothesis, the Rambam emphasizes that with regard to goring, one is liable as in the public domain, but not more.הלכה ה
נָפַל לְבוֹר שֶׁבְּחָצֵר זוֹ וְהִבְאִישׁ אֶת מֵימָיו. אִם הִבְאִישׁ אֶת מֵימָיו מִיָּד בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה חַיָּב בְּנִזְקֵי הַמַּיִם. וְאִם אַחַר זְמַן פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה הַשּׁוֹר תַּקָּלָה כְּבוֹר וְהַמַּיִם הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכֵלִים וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בּוֹר שֶׁחִיֵּב בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר פָּטוּר. וְאִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִשְׁמֹר הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב בְּנֵזֶק הַשּׁוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר:
כסף משנה
5.
[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,10 E.g., the ox was covered with filth at the time it fell into the cistern. [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,11 E.g., the ox spoiled it with its wastes. [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.12 See Chapter 13, Halachah 1. 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.13 The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 8-9, when an ox causes damage in a courtyard belonging jointly to its owner and another person, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage it causes. Why then, asks the Ra'avad, is the owner of the ox not liable in this situation? The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 398:5), however, quotes the Rambam's ruling. If the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for the ox,14 As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 3, Halachot 13-15, the Tur differs with Rambam and maintains that granting the owner of the ox permission to bring his ox into the courtyard is equivalent to accepting responsibility for any damage to it caused by the owner or his property. With regard to damages caused by others, however, the owner of the courtyard is not liable unless he accepts responsibility. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's wording, while the Ramah follows the perspective of the Tur. he is liable for the damages it suffers from falling into the cistern.הלכה ו
הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וְהִזִּיק אֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אוֹ שֶׁהֻזַּק בּוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אוֹ שֶׁחָפַר בֶּחָצֵר בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר חַיָּב בְּנִזְקֵי חָצֵר וּבַעַל חָצֵר חַיָּב בְּנִזְקֵי הַבּוֹר שֶׁהֲרֵי עָלָיו לְסָתְמוֹ:
כסף משנה
6.
[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,15 The Maggid Mishneh and Sefer Me'irat Einayim 398:2 state that the owner of the courtyard is generally not liable for the injury another person suffered because of these pits, since he can always claim: Who gave you permission to enter my property? Only when the owner gives up ownership of his property or gives others the right to enter is he liable. the owner of the courtyard is liable, for it is his responsibility to fill them up.הלכה ז
הִזִּיק בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶת הַשּׁוֹר. אִם הִזִּיקוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמְרִין לוֹ לָמָּה נִכְנַסְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת. שֶׁלֹּא יָדַעְתִּי עַד שֶׁשָּׁגַגְתִּי בְּךָ. וְאִם הִזִּיקוֹ לְדַעַת חַיָּב נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ אֲבָל לְהַזִּיקוֹ אֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת:
כסף משנה
7.
[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."16 This phrase has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for it implies that if the owner of the courtyard knew that the animal had entered his property, he would be liable even when he caused the damage accidentally. From Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:16, 6:3, however, it appears that he would not be liable in such an instance. See Migdal Oz, Lechem Mishneh. 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.הלכה ח
שָׁמִין לִנְזָקִין. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁבַר כְּלִי שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין הוּא בֵּין בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אֵין אוֹמְרִין לַמַּזִּיק קַח אַתָּה הַכְּלִי הַשָּׁבוּר וְשַׁלֵּם לָזֶה דְּמֵי הַכְּלִי אֶלָּא אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה פָּחַת הַכְּלִי מִדָּמָיו וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ כָּל הַפְּחָת אִם הַמַּזִּיק מוּעָד אוֹ חֲצִי הַפְּחָת אִם הָיָה תָּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לד) "וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ" לַנִּזָּק. פְּחַת הַנְּבֵלָה עַל הַנִּזָּק. וְשֶׁבַח הַנְּבֵלָה חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ הַנִּזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק:
כסף משנה
8.
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."17 Note the contrast to Hilchot Geneivah 1:15. See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 403:1. 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.הלכה ט
כֵּיצַד. שׁוֹר שָׁוֵה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנְּגָחוּהוּ וּמֵת וַהֲרֵי הַנְּבֵלָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה מֵאָה וּבִשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין פָּחֲתָה וַהֲרֵי שָׁוָה שְׁמוֹנִים. אֵין הַמַּזִּיק מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מֵאָה אִם הָיָה מוּעָד. וְאִם הָיָה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים מִגּוּפוֹ:
כסף משנה
9.
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,18 The Tur maintains that the time that is significant is not the time of the animal's death, but the time when its owner is notified regarding its death. Until that time, the one who caused the damage is responsible for the loss. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) mentions this view. 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],19 And not 120. 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.הלכה י
הִשְׁבִּיחָה הַנְּבֵלָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים. הֲרֵי הַמַּזִּיק מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ תִּשְׁעִים אִם הָיָה מוּעָד. וְאִם הָיָה תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִגּוּפוֹ וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לה) "וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן" [שֶׁבַח הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן]:
כסף משנה
10.
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 9020 I.e., the 100 zuz that the owner of the ox lost, minus 10 zuz, which is the share of the profit given to the person who caused the damage. 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.21 The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) emphasize that although the person who caused the damage is given a share in the value of the dead ox, this applies only with regard to the loss. If the price of meat rises to the extent that the meat of the ox is worth more than the ox was worth when it was alive, the one who caused the damages is not given a share of the profits.הלכה יא
שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם וְהִפְחִיתוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים וּבִשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין הִשְׁבִּיחַ הַנִּזָּק וַהֲרֵי הוּא שָׁוֶה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז וְאִלּוּלֵא הַנְּגִיחָה שֶׁהִפְחִיתוֹ הָיָה שָׁוֶה שְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁשִּׁבֵּחַ מֵאֵלָיו אֵין נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא כִּשְׁעַת הַנֵּזֶק. כִּחֵשׁ מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה בִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין וַהֲרֵי הַפְּחָת שָׁוֶה מֵאָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין:
כסף משנה
11.
[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,22 I.e., the price of cattle increased. the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time the damage took place.23 I.e., 50 zuz if the ox was mu'ad. With regard to the larger sum, the matter is considered one of grama, an indirect cause of damage. Therefore, the owner of the ox is not liable (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 404:2). 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.24 Tosafot, Bava Kama 10b draws a distinction between this instance and Halachah 8, which states that the increased loss to the carcass is suffered by its owner. The rationale for this distinction is that once the ox died, its owner should have sold it immediately. In this instance, since the ox was still alive, its owner thought that it would recover and that the loss would be less.הלכה יב
הִשְׁבִּיחַ הַמַּזִּיק בִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין. אִם מֵחֲמַת שֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ שִׁבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּלֵּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהָיָה שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִזִּיק. וְאִם מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ הִשְׁבִּיחַ מִשְׁתַּלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק מִמֶּנּוּ כֻּלּוֹ כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין:
כסף משנה
12.
[The following rules apply if] the value of the ox that caused the damage increased at the time of the trial.25 This increase is significant, because the owner of the ox that was damaged can collect the payment (half of the damage) for the damages, only from the body of the ox that caused the damage. Thus, if the damage to an ox was 200 zuz, and the ox that caused the damage was worth only 80 zuz, the fact that its value increased to 100 zuz could affect the amount the owner of the damaged ox receives. 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.26 I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be only 80 zuz. The rationale is that the owner of the ox who caused the damage will say: Did I fatten my ox so that you will take the profit?The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 404:2) differ and maintain that if the increase in the value of the ox exceeds the cost of fattening it, the cost of fattening it is deducted from its value, and the person whose ox was damaged receives half of the difference. If its value increased because of market fluctuations, half of the damages may be collected from its value at the time of the trial.27 I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be 100 zuz. The rationale is that since the body of the ox that caused the damage is on lien for the damages, and now that body is worth 100 zuz, the entire amount may be expropriated. Note the Or Sameach, who emphasizes that although the payment is taken from the body of the ox that caused the damages, the lien is not established until the time of the trial. Thus, if the owner of the ox that caused the damage consecrates it, it is consecrated, and the owner of the damaged ox receives no payment at all.הלכה יג
עַל הַמַּזִּיק לִטְרֹחַ בַּנְּבֵלָה עַד שֶׁמַּמְצִיא אוֹתָהּ לַנִּזָּק. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפַל הַשּׁוֹר לַבּוֹר וּמֵת מַעֲלֶה הַנְּבֵלָה מִן הַבּוֹר וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַנִּזָּק וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמִין לוֹ פְּחַת נְבֵלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לד) "כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְהָשִׁיב אֶת הַנְּבֵלָה וְאֶת הַפְּחָת שֶׁפָּחֲתָה מִן הַחַי לַנִּזָּק. וְאִם הָיָה תָּם חֲצִי הַפְּחָת. כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה