Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of Damages from Animals
Tort Law
Sources
A
MISHNA:
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…
Bava Kamma 17a:13-20a:16
MISHNA:
One who says: I seduced the daughter of so-and-so, pays
compensation for
humiliation and degradation
based
on his own
admission,
but does not pay
the
fine.
Similarly,
one who says: I stole, pays the principal,
the value of the stolen goods,
based on his own
admission,
but does not pay
the
double payment and
the
payment four and five
times the principal for the slaughter or sale of the sheep or ox that he stole…
Ketubot 41a:1-10
The Gemara comments:
Rav Yosef, and some say
it was
Rabba, would announce: Those that ascend
to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, bringing with them the rulings of the Babylonian Sages,
as well as those that descend
to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, bringing the rulings of the sages of Eretz Yisrael with them, all agree to the following
halakha
: With regard to
these goats
that loiter
in the market
until they are slaughtered and in the meantime
cause damage
to others,
we warn their owner two or three times…
Bava Kamma 23b:15-16
The Gemara answers that the latter clause of the
baraita
concerns a different case than that of the previous clause.
This
is what the latter clause of the
baraita
is saying: If,
by contrast, the borrower
did undertake
the responsibility of
safeguarding
the lender’s ox to prevent it
from causing damage,
if it causes damage, the borrower is
liable.
But if the ox was safely enclosed and the wall enclosing it
broke open at night, or
if
bandits broke it open and
the ox
went out and caused damage,
he is
exempt.
…
Bava Kamma 14a:3-14b:7
MISHNA:
In the case of
one who brought
his flock of
sheep into the pen and locked
the door
before it
in a manner that is
appropriate, and
despite this sheep
went out and caused damage
in another person’s field by eating produce or trampling it, the owner is
exempt,
since he safeguarded the animals appropriately. If
he did not lock
the door
before
the sheep in a manner that is
appropriate, and
sheep
went out and caused damage,
the owner is
liable,
since his negligence led to the damage…
Bava Kamma 55b:1-7
Rabbi Zeira objects to
the explanation of the
baraita
, that the mishna is referring only to one specific case:
But are there no more
cases?
But isn’t there
the case of one who
transferred his ox to five individuals
in order for them to safeguard it,
and one of them was negligent
in his duties
and
the ox
caused damage?
Isn’t this individual
liable
for all the damage? This seems to be an additional example of the principle in the mishna that if one facilitated part of the damage caused…
Bava Kamma 10a:18
§ The mishna teaches: If the animal
fell into a garden and derives benefit,
the owner
pays
for
the benefit that
it
derives. Rav says:
This is referring to a case
where
the vegetables softened the impact of
striking
the ground, and the owner pays for this benefit of the animal being saved from injury. The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav indicates that the owner pays only for what occurred while the animal landed,
but if
the animal then
ate
from the garden…
Bava Kamma 57b:13-58b:8
§
The Sages taught
in a
baraita
: If there is
a shepherd
of small domesticated animals
who repented,
the court
does not obligate him to sell
all his animals
immediately. Rather, he may sell
them
gradually. And likewise,
in the case of
a convert who came into
possession of
dogs and pigs
(see 83a)
as
part of
his inheritance,
the court
does not obligate him to sell
all of them
immediately. Rather, he may sell
them
gradually.
Bava Kamma 80a:8
Whenever a living animal owned by a person causes damages, the owner is required to pay, for the damage was caused by his property. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35:] "When a person's ox will gore an ox belonging to a colleague...." These laws apply equally to an ox and to any other animal, beast or fowl. The verse mentions an ox only because that is a common instance. How much must [the owner] pay? If [the animal] caused damage through the performance of an act that it performs frequently and that is its natural habit - e.g…
Mishneh Torah, Damages to Property 1-5
The Gemara notes:
This
interpretation of the mishna
is also taught
in a
baraita
: There are
five
damage-causing acts that animals can perform twice and remain
innocuous, but if they were warned
for performing those acts three times with regard to
the five
acts,
they are
considered
forewarned.
The next part of the mishna then provides another
halakha
:
But
for damage of the categories of
Eating and Trampling,
an animal is considered
forewarned from the outset…
Bava Kamma 16a:9-12
MISHNA:
One may not raise small domesticated animals,
i.e., sheep and goats,
in
settled areas of
Eretz Yisrael,
as they graze on people’s crops.
But one may raise
them
in Syria,
despite the fact that with regard to many other
halakhot
Syria is treated like Eretz Yisrael,
and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael.
One may not raise chickens in Jerusalem, due to the sacrificial meat
that is common there. There is a concern that chickens will pick up garbage that imparts ritual impurity and bring it into contact with sacrificial…
Bava Kamma 79b:12-14
It is
taught explicitly
in a
baraita
: The verse:
“Of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay”
(Exodus 22:4), teaches that the appraisal is of
the best of the fields of the injured
party,
and
of
the best of the vineyards of the injured
party. This is
the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:
The appraisal is of
the best of the fields of the one who caused the damage, and
of
the best of the vineyards of the one who caused the damage…
Gittin 49b:1
The Gemara asks:
But
if the animal
did not tunnel
under the wall,
what
is the
halakha
? Would the owner be
liable? What are the circumstances? If we say
that the pen had
a stable wall,
then even
if
the animal
did not tunnel, why
is the owner
liable? What should he have done?
Clearly, he cannot be held liable for the damage.
Rather,
the pen had
an unstable wall.
The Gemara asks: Even
if
the animal
tunneled
under the wall and knocked it down…
Bava Kamma 56a:19-56b:8
After determining that there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is like that of primary categories, e.g., Shabbat, and there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is dissimilar to that of primary categories, e.g., ritual impurity, the Gemara asks:
Here,
with regard to the laws of damages,
what
is the relationship between the primary categories and their subcategories?
Rav Pappa said: There are, among
the primary categories of damage, some whose subcategories
are similar to them, and there are, among them…
Bava Kamma 2b:2-3a:17
§ The mishna teaches: Under
what
circumstances does the owner of the animal
pay
for
the benefit that
his animal
derived?
If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the food from which it benefits. 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…
Bava Kamma 21a:10-22a:1
The Gemara concludes:
And the
halakha
is
in accordance with
the opinion
of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramean date palm,
i.e., one of lesser quality, and it is assessed relative to the land,
but the
halakha
is
in accordance with
the opinion
of the Exilarch with regard to a Persian date palm,
as they are of higher quality and each one is valuable, and it is not assessed relative to the land.
Bava Kamma 59a:19
The Gemara answers:
You
can
even say
that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Meir,
who holds that the owner of a forewarned ox is liable even if he provides only reduced safeguarding. Although animals are considered forewarned with regard to Eating and Trampling, one cannot apply to them a
halakha
stated with regard to an animal that is forewarned with regard to Goring. The
halakha
is different
with regard to
Eating and Trampling since the Torah limited
the required standard of
safeguarding for them…
Bava Kamma 55b:10-20
The
baraita
continues:
Just as
the Sages
said
that
one may not raise small domesticated animals,
i.e., sheep and goats,
so
too
they said
that
one may not raise small undomesticated animals. Rabbi Yishmael says: One may raise village dogs, cats, monkeys, and genets, because they serve to clean the house
of mice and other vermin. The Gemara asks:
What are
these
genets? Rav Yehuda said:
These are known in Aramaic as
shartza ḥartza
. And there are
those
who say
that in Aramaic this animal is called
ḥarza
…
Bava Kamma 80a:11-14
The
baraita
teaches:
And
that
they
shall have the right to
pluck off a shoot anywhere
for propagation and planting,
except for olive shoots,
as this would cause damage to the olive tree.
Rabbi Tanḥum and Rabbi Berayes explained
this
in the name of a certain elder: With regard to olive
trees, one must leave a shoot
the size of an egg
on the trunk when detaching it from the trunk; in the case
of reeds and grape vines,
he may take shoots only
from the
place of the first
knot and above…
Bava Kamma 81a:9-81b:19
Rava said:
Even
if you say
that one who
incites the dog of another against
yet
another
person is
liable,
nevertheless if
he incited the dog against himself,
i.e., the dog bit the one who was inciting it to attack, he is
exempt. What is the reason
for this? Due to the principle that with regard to
anyone who deviates
from normative behavior in his actions,
if another came along
afterward
and deviates
from the norm
with regard to
the action the first has done and thereby causes damage to him…
Bava Kamma 24b:9-12
Related
ראו גם
Damages of the Feet
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
