מִצְוַת בֵּית דִּין לָדוּן בְּנִזְקֵי הֶבְעֵר – לָדוּן בְּנִזְקֵי שֵׁן וְרֶגֶל, כְּלוֹמַר מִי שֶׁהִזִּיק לַחֲבֵרוֹ נֶזֶק הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הַשֵּׁן אוֹ מֵחֲמַת הָרֶגֶל, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכְנִיס בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בִּשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָכְלָה שָׁם אוֹ הִפְסִידָה יוֹנְקוֹתָיו בְּעָבְרָהּ שָׁם בְּרַגְלֶיהָ, שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֵינוּ לְחַיְּבוֹ בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין מִן הָעִדִּית שֶׁלּוֹ כָּל מָה שֶׁהִפְסִיד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ד) כִּי יַבְעֶר אִישׁ שָׂדֶה וְגוֹ' וּפֵרְשׁוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (ב"ק ב, ב) דְּהַיְנוּ שֵׁן, וּמָה שֶׁכָּתוּב אַחַר כֵּן וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה וכו', פֵּרְשׁוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה דְּהַיְנוּ רֶגֶל, וְנֶאֱמַר עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם. The commandment on the court to judge concerning damages of destruction: To judge concerning the damages of the tooth and the foot — meaning to say one who damaged his fellow with a damage that came as a result of [his animal’s] foot or tooth — that we must obligate him in payment from his choice properties for all that he destroyed, as it is stated (Exodus 22:4), “If a man destroys the field, etc.” For example, one who brings his animal into the field of his fellow and he ate there; or destroyed those things that sustain themselves from it, when it passed through there with its feet. And they, may their memory be blessed, explained that it is [referring to] the tooth (Bava Kamma 2b). And they, may their memory be blessed, explained that that which is written afterwards, “and he sent its destroyer, etc.” [refers to] the foot. And it is stated about both of them, “and with the best of his field and the best of his vineyard shall he pay.”
שֹׁרֶשׁ מִצְוַת הַמִּשְׁפָּט יָדוּעַ. The root of the commandment of jurisprudence is well-known.
דִּינֶיהָ כְּגוֹן (שם כד ב) מָה הֵם הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁחַיָּבִין שָׁם עַל הַשֵּׁן וְהָרֶגֶל, וּמָה הֵן שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְחִלּוּק הַדִּין (שם יט ב) בְּאוֹכֶלֶת מָה שֶׁרָאוּי לָהּ לֶאֱכֹל לְמָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי, וְכֵן מָה שֶׁרָאוּי לָהּ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק, כְּגוֹן פָּרָה שֶׁאָכְלָה שְׂעוֹרִים, וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁאָכַל כַּרְשִׁינִין אוֹ דָּגִים, וַחֲזִיר שֶׁאָכַל בָּשָׂר, וְכֶלֶב שֶׁלִּקְלֵק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְחָתוּל שֶׁאָכַל תְּמָרִים, וְאִם נֶהֱנֵית שֶׁמְּשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶׁנֶּהֱנֵית. וְיֶתֶר פְּרָטֶיהָ, בְּגִטִּין וּבְקַמָּא. וְהָתָם אָמְרוּ פֶּרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא פד, ב) כִּי קָא אָמַר רָבָא הַשּׁוֹר בְּשׁוֹר גּוֹבִין אוֹתוֹ, בְּשֵׁן וּבְרֶגֶל, דְּמוּעָדִין מִתְּחִלָּתָן נִינְהוּ (חה"מ מ שצ"ט עד תו). Its laws are, for example, what are the places in which one is liable for the tooth and the foot and what are the ones in which one is not liable for them (Bava Kamma 24b); the difference in the law if it eats what is fitting for it to eat or it eats something not fitting, and so [too,] that which is fitting under duress — for example a cow that ate barley, a donkey that ate vetch or fish, a pig that ate meat, a dog that licked oil or a cat that ate dates — that if it derived benefit, it pays according to what it benefited. And the rest of its details are in Gittin and in [Bava] Kamma. And there in the chapter [entitled] Hachovel (Bava Kamma 84b), they said that that which Rava said that we collect, with an ox against an ox, for the tooth or the foot, is with those that are muad from the beginning. (See Tur, Choshen Mishpat 399-406.)
וְנוֹהֶגֶת בִּזְכָרִים, שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן לַעֲשׂוֹת הַדִּין. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם הַנְּקֵבוֹת בִּכְלַל דִּין הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין בֵּין הִזִּיקוּ אוֹ הֻזְּקוּ, וּבֵית דִּין הָעוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא דָּן דִּין זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב, בִּטֵּל עֲשֵׂה. And [it] is practiced by males, since it is upon them to administer justice. But women are, nonetheless, included in the law of payments, whether they caused damage or had damage caused to them. And a court that transgresses it and does not judge this law as it is written has negated a positive commandment.