Bava Kamma 34 - Half The Loss

“And if a man's ox shall push the ox of his fellow, and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide its money, and the dead one, too, they shall divide.” What are the precise circumstances?

In the case of one ox worth two hundred zuz that gored another ox worth two hundred and the carcass is worth fifty, one owner takes half of the live ox and half of the dead one, and so does the other. Each party thus suffers half the loss, and the damager can give the carcass as a partial payment.

Bava Kamma 33 - Damages in Fighting

If two oxen not previously warned for goring fought and injured one another, then the owner of the less-damaged one pays the other owner half the difference in damages.

If the owners of both were warned that the oxen have gored three times, one pays for the excess full damages.

If one ox was innocent and another one warned, then if the damage done by the warned one is greater, the owner pays for the excess full damages. If the damage done by the innocent one is greater, the owner pays for the excess half damages.

Similarly, if two people injured one another, they pay for the excess full damages.

Bava Kamma 32 - Running Before Shabbat

If two people were walking in the public thoroughfare, one was running, and one was walking, or both were running, and they did damage to one another, both are not liable to pay damages.

Said Rabbi Yochanan, - this ruling is only talking about the time right before Shabbat, when running for the sake of Shabbat is allowed, but otherwise the one who runs is liable.

If one chops wood in the public domain and thereby does damage in the private domain; chops in the private domain and damages in the public; or chops in private and damages in private, he is liable for full damages.

Bava Kamma 31 - Potter Stumbled and Fell

If two potters were walking one behind the other in the public domain, and the first one stumbled and fell, and then the second one stumbled and fell over the first, the first one is liable for the damages to the second. 

Although the potter lying on the ground caused the damage passively, this is a case of damage inflicted by “man,” since the obstacle was his body. He is consequently liable even for the damage to the second person's utensils. Although stumbling is not negligence, he should have warned the person behind him.

Bava Kamma 30 - Pouring Water out in the Street

If one puts out straw or stubble into the public domain to be converted into manure by people and animals stepping on it, and another person is damaged by them, the owner of the straw is liable for damages, and whoever is the first to take the straw acquires it – but we do not announce this last law in public.

Even in those cases where it is allowed to put hazardous objects out, such as pouring water out in the street in a rainy season, if a passerby is damaged by it, the one who poured out the water is liable.

Bava Kamma 29 - Responsibility for One's Objects

If one's pitcher of water broke in the public domain and another person slipped in the water, Rabbi Yehudah makes the owner of the pitcher liable only when he at least had the intent to put the pitcher down. Rabbi Meir makes him liable even when he stumbled or if the pitcher broke by itself; if a camel stumbled, he is liable if he stumbled first, and the camel tripped over him.

They also argue after the breakage: one maintains that if a person leaves his hazardous objects and declares them ownerless, he is liable, while the other one maintains that the person is not liable.

Bava Kamma 28 - Can a Man Take Law into his own Hands?

Two partners were drawing water out of a cistern on alternative days, and one came to draw on the day that was not his. The other one stopped him with a stick.

Rav Yehudah says that a person may not enforce the law for himself, but Rav Nachman says that he may. They argue about a case where there will be no loss if he does not take action.

Rav Yehudah explains: “Since there will be no loss, let him go before the judge.” Rav Nachman says: “Since he is acting in accordance with the law, he does not have to trouble himself and go before the judge.”

The "Common Side" Logic in Midsummer Night's Dream

In addition to creating human psyche, Shakespeare taught the humanity logic, which can be best understood by comparing it to the Talmud. Here is an example.

LYSANDER

Ay me! for aught that I could ever read,
Could ever hear by tale or history,
The course of true love never did run smooth;
But, either it was different in blood,--

Lysander wants to prove that impediment to love do not foretell doom, rather, they portend success.

Proof: sometimes lovers came from different social stratas, and there are multiple cases where it worked out well – so too will our love!

HERMIA

O cross! too high to be enthrall'd to low.

Rebuttal: this only worked for women going higher in state, but I am already high.

LYSANDER

Or else misgraffed in respect of years,--

Proof: impediment to love may come from difference of ages, but observe multiple cases where it worked out well – so too will our love!

HERMIA

O spite! too old to be engaged to young.

Rebuttal: the common cases here are young women marrying older men, but you are so young that you can not marry anyone younger then yourself

LYSANDER

Or else it stood upon the choice of friends,--

Proof: Yet love overcame bad friendships. So too will ours!

HERMIA

O hell! to choose love by another's eyes.

Rebuttal: we do not have friends, even bad ones, but enemies who try to rule over us.

LYSANDER

Or, if there were a sympathy in choice,
War, death, or sickness did lay siege to it,
Making it momentany as a sound,
Swift as a shadow, short as any dream;
Brief as the lightning in the collied night,
That, in a spleen, unfolds both heaven and earth,
And ere a man hath power to say 'Behold!'
The jaws of darkness do devour it up:
So quick bright things come to confusion.

Winning proof using the "common side" All of the cases above have a stringency not found in another. What is common between them? In all the cases there was love based on sympathy, and there were impediments to it. Regardless of all impediments, salvation came fast and unexpected. This then is the common rule.

HERMIA

If then true lovers have been ever cross'd,
It stands as an edict in destiny:
Then let us teach our trial patience,
Because it is a customary cross,
As due to love as thoughts and dreams and sighs,
Wishes and tears, poor fancy's followers.

Proof accepted. Once we have come to here, let us accept suffering as a human condition (but that is already Tao Te Chin)

Bava Kamma 27 - Liability of Two People Killing a Child

If one threw a child off the top of a roof and another met the falling child with an upturned sword, Rabbi Yehudah ben Betaira says that the one wielding the sword is liable to execution because he hastened the death of the child, but the Rabbis absolve him, because the child is considered partly dead. They argue if “all human life” means any or all of it.

If one places a jug in the public domain and another comes and stumbles and breaks it, the pedestrian is not liable. If the pedestrian was damaged by it, the owner of the jug is liable.

Bava Kamma 26 - A Man Is Always Warned for Damages

A man is never innocent regarding damages, in that he always pays in full for whatever he damages, whether he did the damage unintentionally or intentionally, while awake or asleep. If he blinded the eye of his fellow or he broke utensils, he pays full damages.

By grouping of the “blinding” and “breaking utensils,” this ruling teaches that just as in the case of utensils, he pays for the actual damage but not the  “four things” - pain, healing, unemployment, and humiliation, - so too if he blinded the eye of his fellow unintentionally, he pays for the actual damages but not the “four things.”

Bava Kamma 25 - Ox on the Premises of Damaged Party

If an ox gored, pushed, bit, squatted or kicked and thereby damaged something, then in the public domain its owner pays half damages. On the premises of the damaged party, Rabbi Tarfon says: "Full damages," but the Sages say: "Half damages."

Rabbi Tarfon said: "Consider a lenient case of tooth or foot in the public domain, where the owner is not liable to pay at all, yet on the premises of the damaged party the owner would pay full damages. Is it not logical to require full payment in my stricter case?" And the Sages? Logic can make the payment equal but not increase it.

Bava Kamma 24 - From Warned Back To Innocent

An innocent ox becomes “warned” for damages and its owner becomes liable for complete payment after three gorings, which must happen on three different days, according to Rabbi Yehudah, or even on one day, according to Rabbi Meir.

The source: “...from (1) yesterday (2) and before yesterday (3)...”

It reverts to “innocent” if it is confronted by circumstances that triggered goring the first three times yet now desists from this behavior on three separate days. Rabbi Meir adds that it reverts to “innocent” any time that the children poke it between the horns and it does not gore.

Bava Kamma 23 - Fire Damages

If a person lit a fire in his field and the fire spread, that person is liable. Is that fire his “property,” and he is liable only for the damages, or is it “arrows” - his own force, and he is liable also for pain, healing, and unemployment? It is “arrows.”

A cow is only liable for eating someone else's fruit if it veered into this someone's field. The owner of the cow could try to claim that the cow's mouth is his premises, and “what is your fruit doing in my cow's mouth?”, but the above case of a dog that ate a biscuit precludes this.

Bava Kamma 22 - Dog or Kid Jump From a Roof

If a dog or a goat kid jumped from the top of a roof and broke the utensils it landed on below, the animal's owner pays full damages. If it fell? This opinion implies that the owner is not liable, but the final law is that in a situation that begins with negligence and ends in unavoidable mishap the owner is liable.

If a dog took a biscuit from the coals and went to a stack of grain sheaves, where it ate the biscuit and set fire to the stack, for the biscuit the dog's owner pays full damages and for the stack he pays half the damage.

Bava Kamma 21 - This One Benefits, The Other One Does not Lose

The case of one living in the house of his fellow without the latter's knowledge is in essence “this one benefits and this one does not lose,” and the final decision on it is that the squatter doesn't need to pay rent.

Additional support for this ruling comes from “...through desolation the gate is broken apart,” meaning that demons of desolation ruin the house, or alternatively from the reason that the residents see what needs repair and attend to it. What is the practical difference between these two reasons? Using the house for storing wood ans straw.

Bava Kamma 20 - "Tooth" damages

What are normal "tooth" damages obligating the owner in full payment? Fruits and vegetables. If an animal ate a garment or utensil, the owner pays half damage. When is this? On the damaged party's premises, but if the animal eats in the public domain, owner pays only for what he benefited by skipping its next feeding.

Eating in a pinch, such as cats eating dates and donkeys eating fish, is normal damage.

If one lives in the yard of his fellow without the latter's knowledge, does he have to pay rent? The inquiry is in regard to yard that is not for rent and a person who usually rents.

Bava Kamma 19 - Animals

If an animal dropped dung onto a dough, ruining it, then it is not similar to pushing with the body, for which the owner pays full damages, but rather to pebbles shooting from under the animal's foot, for which the owner pays half damages.

If a rooster extended his head into the hollow of a glass vessel and shrieked into it, breaking it, then this too is similar to pebbles, because the rooster did not do damage with his body but with vibrations. But  isn't it abnormal? There were seeds there.

Is an animal damaging by swishing its male organ similar to horn damage or to foot damage? Unresolved.

Bava Kamma 18 - Breaking a Broken Utensil

If one threw a utensil from the top of a roof, and someone came along and shattered this utensil in midair with a stick, is the one wielding the stick liable, or has he merely broken a broken utensil? Is the utensil considered broken form the start of the process?

Can we rely on another ruling: if chickens were pecking at the rope of a bucket, and it snapped, and the bucket broke, the owner of the chicken is responsible for damages. Is it because the bucket is broken from the beginning of the fall and thus the chickens are directly responsible? No! Damages for the rope.

Bava Kamma 17 - Innocent and Established Damagers

What difference exists between the nature of the half payment in the case of an innocent and the nature of the full payment in the case of an established damager? The owner's liability in the case of innocent first-time gorings is limited to the value of the ox that did the damage, and in the case of established damagers the owner pays pays the full amount of the damage with his best property.

Regarding what is the foot of an animal considered an established damager? For breaking things in the course of its walking but not when kicking.

Bava Kamma 16 - Usual and Unusual Damagers

The final decision is that half-damages are a penalty. Thus if a dog killed and ate sheep or a cat killed and ate a chicken, it is a case of unusual damage, and it is not collected in court. This however only applies to large animals, but small animals are "tooth" damage and it can be collected.

Five damagers are considered unusual and liable for only half-damage: domestic animal to gore, push, bite, squat, and kick. Among the five damagers considered normal, with their owners "warned" of the complete liability: animal while walking ("foot"), ox that already gored, and a man that does damage.

Bava Kamma 15 - Do Normal Oxen Gore?

Payment of half damages for goring, is it compensation payment or a penalty?

Compensation argument: it is common for oxen to gore and they must therefore be guarded. By rights, therefore, the ox's owner should pay for all the damage, but the Merciful One took pity on him and reduced his liability by half, because this ox has not yet become warned.

Penalty argument: oxen do not ordinarily gore or do malicious damage. By rights, therefore, the ox's owner should not pay have to pay at all, but the Merciful One penalized him, in order that he should guard his ox more carefully.

Bava Kamma 14 - Who Can Judge?

If the damage done by tooth or foot of an animal happened in a jointly owned yard, then if the yard was set for joint use for produce but not for oxen, the damager is liable.

Any three knowledgeable persons who have mastered related areas of law can form a court to judge ordinary cases of damages. However, unusual cases involving penalties, such as half-damages awarded in the first three instances of goring by an ox, can only be judged by people possessing uninterrupted chain of ordination since the time of Moses. Therefore, such cases can not be judged today.

Bava Kamma 13 - Whose Ox Did the Damage?

The laws of damages only apply to privately held properties. Thus, if the identity of the damaging ox is unclear, and the owners of the two suspect oxen each blame the other, one saying, "It was your ox that damaged," while the other one saying, "No, it was your ox that damaged" - the damaged party cannot collect from either owner.

One is liable for damage done in any place except for a premises that is reserved exclusively for the damage. For if the damage occurs on his premises, the damager can say to him, "What was your ox doing on my premises?"

Bava Kamma 12 - Are Slaves Like Land?

Movable properties can be acquired by dint of land acquisition, and no additional act of acquisition (such as lifting) is then required, based on "...And their father gave them many gifts of gold and silver, and delicacies, together with the fortified cities in Judah." Since the slaves are inherited like land, based on "...you shall bequeath them as permanent property..." can one acquire movables together with the slaves? - No, because they move, unlike cities in Judah.

One is not liable for damages to properties belonging to the Temple, based on "...the ox of his fellow..."

Bava Kamma 11 - The Value of a Carcass

How do we know that it is incumbent upon the owner of the pit to raise the dead ox from the pit and bring it to court for appraisal? Because the owner of the pit "...shall return money to the animal's owner and the carcass (will be his)"

Since the payment for the damage in this case is the difference between the live animal and the worth of the carcass, the court estimates the worth of the carcass. Similarly the courts evaluate the value of a broken object for a borrower, but not for a thief or robber.

Bava Kamma 10 - An Animal Falls into the Pit

What is the case where one causes a portion of the damage but is liable for the complete damage? It is this case of a pit:

When an animal falls into the pit and dies, if the pit is at least 10 hand-breadths deep, the owner of the pit is liable. If one person digs the 9 hand-breadths and the second one adds 1 hand-breadth, the second one is liable for all the damage, since he added the lethal quality to the pit.

The owner of the pit pays the difference between the animal's worth while alive and the carcass' value.

Bava Kamma 9 - Paying for Damages with Movable Items

When the verse states "...he [the owner of the pit] shall return money..." , it means to include an article worth money as an acceptable form of payment, and even something such as bran. There are three ways to understand this:

1. One can pay with bran only if he has no money and no land;
2. One can pay with bran only if he doesn't have money;
3. One can pay with bran even if he has money, and if he has no money or movables left, then he needs to pay with superior land.

Bava Kamma 8 - His Best Land or World's Best Land?

When the courts assess land to determine which lands are considered "superior" for the payment of damages, do they asses in terms of the damager's own properties, or do they asses in terms of the properties of the world at large? This question is only relevant to Rabbi Akiva's opinion, because Rabbi Ishmael unambiguously stated that they assess in terms of the damaged party's lands. What is the answer?

From a ruling about a damager possessing only average and inferior land, do we see that we assess relative to the world at large? No! He had superior land but sold it.

Bava Kamma 7 - Whose Best Land?

The damager is liable to make payments for the damage from the choicest of his land, based on this passage.

Whose best land is it?

Rabbi Ishmael says: "The damaged party's choicest field, or the damaged party's choicest vineyard." Why? Just as another man's field (mentioned before) was that of the damaged party, so too the payment is measured by the quality of the damaged party's land.

And Rabbi Akiba says: "'...he shall pay his choicest field...'" clearly means - with the choicest field of the one who is paying."

Money or valuables are also acceptable.

Bava Kamma 6 - Other Damages Include...

The characteristic common to all of the damagers mentioned in the Mishnah is that it is their way to cause damage and that the owner is responsible for watching them.

However, when the words "common characteristic" appear in the Mishnah, this is meant to include something else. What is it?

Abaye said: "One's stone, knife or burden that he left on top of his roof and they fell down and did damage." Wind makes this case different.

Rava said: "An object that was left in the public domain (pit category), rolled to another place by the feet of the passerby and damaged there."

Bava Kamma 5 - Can Ox and Man Teach About Fire?

Ox and man each have stringencies over the other, and the liability for one can't be derived from another.

If combined, can the two teach liability for fire? Ox has the intent to damage, whereas fire does not. However a man is liable even for damage which he inflicts while sleeping. Thus, the intent to damage is not essential.

Man is liable for four damage payments, but fire for just one. However, the ox disproves that, since it is also liable for just one payment.

Man and ox are alive, and fire is not, thus liability for fire had to be mentioned in the Torah.

Bava Kamma 4 - How to Translate Mav'eh?

Out of the four damagers: ox, pit, man, and fire, the term for "man", or "ma'veh" can have various translations. Rav translates mav'eh as a seeker, or man; Shmuel translates it as "tooth" of an animal consuming produce. Then how does this "tooth" differ from ox? The intent of eating (tooth) is to have pleasure, while the intent of goring (ox) is to harm.

Rabbi Oshaya listed thirteen primary damagers: unpaid custodian, borrower, paid custodian, renter, bully, pain, healing, unemployment, and humiliation, plus the four primary damagers above. Why does the Mishna not include these? - It listed man and meant all types of damage inflicted by man.