(Exodus 22:4) "If a man ravage a field or a vineyard, and he send his beast, etc.": Why is this written? (Even) if it were not written, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a pit is his property, and his (beast, that is) "sent" is his property, then if you have learned that he is liable for his pit, (which is stationary,) then should he not be liable for his beast, (which is sent)! If it is derivable a fortiori, why need the verse be stated? It comes to teach that the tooth is a mued (i.e., "confirmed") to eat what is appropriate for it, and a best is a mued to break (objects in its path) as it walks, (so that there is full liability even for the first instance of such damages).
He is not liable unless the "damager" leaves his domain and causes damage, in which instance the damage is assessed (to be paid) from the best of his land — a fortiori (if the damage is) to consecrated property.
"If a man ravage a field or a vineyard": each in itself. "a field or a vineyard": Just as a vineyard produces fruit, so "field" (here) is one which produces fruit.
"and he send his beast": From here they ruled: If he gave his sheep to his son, his messenger, or his servant, he is not liable (for the damage it causes.) (If he gave it) to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, he is liable.
"and it eat in another's field": R. Nathan says: If one were stacking grain in another's field without permission, and the owner's beast came out and damaged it, (I might think that) he is subsumed in "and he send his beast, etc." It is, therefore, written "and it eat in another's field." And this is not "another's."
"the best of his field and the best of his vineyard": the best of the field of the nizak (the one damaged) and the best of the vineyard of the nizak. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
R. Akiva says: Scripture (here) comes to apprise us that the damage is to be assessed (to be paid) from the best of his land — a fortiori (if the damage is) to consecrated property.
(Exodus 22:5) "If fire go out and it find thorns … pay shall pay he that lights the fire": Why need this be written? It is derivable a fortiori, viz. If he is liable (if the fire proceeds) through thorns, how much more so if he himself lights it (directly)! If it is derivable a fortiori, why need the verse be stated? Scripture (thus) comes to equate (for liability) (damaging) perforce with (damaging) wilfully, (damaging) non-intentionally with (damaging) intentionally, and (to equate) a woman with a man for all the damaging in the Torah.
"If fire go out and it find thorns": "thorns" are mentioned only to assign a limit (for his liability). If thorns are present (and carry the fire), there is a limit (for his liability). If they are not present (and he lights it directly) there is no limit.
From here they ruled: If it crossed a river or a (public) way or a fence ten cubits high and caused damage, he is not liable. How is he perceived? He is perceived as standing in the midst of a beth-kor and damaging, (liability obtaining up to about 137 cubits on all sides.)
R. Eliezer says: Sixteen cubits, as (the distance of) the public way. R. Akiva says: Fifty cubits. R. Shimon says: "Pay shall he pay, he that lights the fire" — all according to the fire (i.e., according to the height of the fire and its mass. The bigger it is, the farther it travels.)
It once happened that a fire crossed the Jordan and caused damage because of its mass. When is this so? When it moves in spurts; but when it moves contiguously, even up to a mil, he is liable.
"and there be consumed sheaves": All things are included: a pile of reeds and beams, a mound of stones, and of pebbles for the processing of lime. "or the standing corn": trees also are included. "or the field": even if it singed the ground. But perhaps even if there were vessels hidden in his stack and they were burned? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "or the standing corn or the field." Just as the field is in the open, so must (what is found) in the standing corn be in the open (for liability to obtain).
"Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire": Why is this written? From (22:4) "a man," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire" — in any event. This tells me only of beast and fire. Whence do I derive the same for all of the other damagers in the Torah? It follows inductively from both. Beast is not like fire, and fire is not like beast. What is common to both is that it is their nature to damage, that they are your property, that it is your obligation to guard them, and that when they cause damage, you must pay for the damage with the best (produce) of the land.
Four general rules were stated by R. Yishmael in the name of R. Meir in respect to damages. Wherever the mazik ("the damager") has permission (to be), but not the nizak ("the damaged"), he (the mazik) is not liable. Wherever the nizak has permission, but not the mazik, he (the mazik) is liable for everything. Where neither the nizak nor the mazik have permission (to be), such as property which belongs to neither of them, he (the mazik) is liable for (damage of) "tooth" and "foot," and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages. Wherever both have permission (to be), such as property owned in common, open land, the public domain, and the like, for "tooth" and "foot" he is not liable and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages.
(שמות כב,ד) ["כִּי יַבְעֶר אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶרֶם, וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר, מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם."] "כִּי יַבְעֶר אִישׁ שָׂדֶה", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, הָיָה לִי בַדִּין: הוֹאִיל וְהַבּוֹר מָמוֹנוֹ, וְהַהֶבְעֵר מָמוֹנוֹ, אִם לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל יְדֵי בוֹרוֹ, לֹא יְהֵי חַיָּב עַל יְדֵי הֶבְעֵרוֹ? אִם זָכִיתִי מִן הַדִּין, מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כִּי יַבְעֶר אִישׁ"? אֶלָּא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ, שֶׁהַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת לֹאכַל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ, וְהַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְשַׁבֵּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ.
(Exodus 22:4) "If a man ravage a field or a vineyard, and he send his beast, etc.": Why is this written? (Even) if it were not written, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a pit is his property, and his (beast, that is) "sent" is his property, then if you have learned that he is liable for his pit, (which is stationary,) then should he not be liable for his beast, (which is sent)! If it is derivable a fortiori, why need the verse be stated? It comes to teach that the tooth is a mued (i.e., "confirmed") to eat what is appropriate for it, and a best is a mued to break (objects in its path) as it walks, (so that there is full liability even for the first instance of such damages).
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיָּצָא הַמַּזִּיק מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ וְהִזִּיק, שֶׁשָּׁמִין נְזִקִין בָּעִדִּית, וְקַל וָחֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
He is not liable unless the "damager" leaves his domain and causes damage, in which instance the damage is assessed (to be paid) from the best of his land — a fortiori (if the damage is) to consecrated property.
"כִּי יַבְעֶר אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶרֶם", לְחַיֵּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ; "שָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶרֶם", מַה כֶּרֶם יֵשׁ בּוֹ פֵרוֹת, אַף שָׂדֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ פֵרוֹת.
"If a man ravage a field or a vineyard": each in itself. "a field or a vineyard": Just as a vineyard produces fruit, so "field" (here) is one which produces fruit.
"וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה". מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: מָסַר צֹאנוֹ לִבְנוֹ, לִשְׁלוּחוֹ וּלְעַבְדּוֹ, פָּטוּר; לְחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, חַיָּב.
"and he send his beast": From here they ruled: If he gave his sheep to his son, his messenger, or his servant, he is not liable (for the damage it causes.) (If he gave it) to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, he is liable.
"וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר". רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הַמַּגְדִּישׁ בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, וְיָצַאת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁלְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְהִזִּיקָה, קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו: "וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר", בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר הוּא זֶה.
"and it eat in another's field": R. Nathan says: If one were stacking grain in another's field without permission, and the owner's beast came out and damaged it, (I might think that) he is subsumed in "and he send his beast, etc." It is, therefore, written "and it eat in another's field." And this is not "another's."
"מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם." מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁלַּמַּזִּיק. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
"the best of his field and the best of his vineyard": the best of the field of the nizak (the one damaged) and the best of the vineyard of the nizak. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁשָּׁמִין נְזִקִין בָּעִדִּית, קַל וָחֹמֶר בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
R. Akiva says: Scripture (here) comes to apprise us that the damage is to be assessed (to be paid) from the best of his land — a fortiori (if the damage is) to consecrated property.
(שמות כב,ה) ["כִּי תֵצֵא אֵשׁ וּמָצְאָה קֹצִים, וְנֶאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ אוֹ הַקָּמָה אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה, שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה."] "כִּי תֵצֵא אֵשׁ", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַדִּין: הוֹאִיל וְחַיָּב עַל יְדֵי קָנוּי לוֹ, לֹא יְהֵי חַיָּב עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ? אִם זָכִיתִי מִן הַדִּין, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר "כִּי תֵצֵא אֵשׁ"? אֶלָּא, בָּא הַכָּתוּב לַעֲשׁוֹת אֶת הָאֹנֶס כָּרָצוֹן, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן כַּמִּתְכַּוֵּן, וְאֶת הָאִשָּׁה כָּאִישׁ בְּכָל הַנְּזִקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
(Exodus 22:5) "If fire go out and it find thorns … pay shall pay he that lights the fire": Why need this be written? It is derivable a fortiori, viz. If he is liable (if the fire proceeds) through thorns, how much more so if he himself lights it (directly)! If it is derivable a fortiori, why need the verse be stated? Scripture (thus) comes to equate (for liability) (damaging) perforce with (damaging) wilfully, (damaging) non-intentionally with (damaging) intentionally, and (to equate) a woman with a man for all the damaging in the Torah.
"וּמָצְאָה קֹצִים". הָא לֹא בָאוּ קוֹצִים אֶלָּא לִתֵּן שִׁעוּר. אִם יֵשׁ קוֹצִים, יֵשׁ שִׁעוּר, וְאִם אֵין קוֹצִים, אֵין שִׁעוּר.
"If fire go out and it find thorns": "thorns" are mentioned only to assign a limit (for his liability). If thorns are present (and carry the fire), there is a limit (for his liability). If they are not present (and he lights it directly) there is no limit.
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: עִבְּרָה אֶת הַנָּהָר וְאֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְאֶת הַגָּדֵר שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְהִזִּיקָה, פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. כֵּיצַד עוֹמְדִין עַל הַדָּבָר? רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא עוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע בֵּית כּוֹר וּמַדְלִיק. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה.
From here they ruled: If it crossed a river or a (public) way or a fence ten cubits high and caused damage, he is not liable. How is he perceived? He is perceived as standing in the midst of a beth-kor and damaging, (liability obtaining up to about 137 cubits on all sides.)
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, כְּדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: "שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה." הַכֹּל לְפִי הַדְּלֵקָה.
R. Eliezer says: Sixteen cubits, as (the distance of) the public way. R. Akiva says: Fifty cubits. R. Shimon says: "Pay shall he pay, he that lights the fire" — all according to the fire (i.e., according to the height of the fire and its mass. The bigger it is, the farther it travels.)
מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעִבְּרָה דְלֵקָה אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן וְהִזִּיקָה, כְּשֶׁהִיא מְרֻבָּה. אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁקָּפְצָה, אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה מְצַפְצֶפֶת וּמְהַלֶּכֶת, אֲפִלּוּ עַד מִיל,*מְצַפְצֶפֶת: מהבהבת, שורפת באיטיות. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב.
It once happened that a fire crossed the Jordan and caused damage because of its mass. When is this so? When it moves in spurts; but when it moves contiguously, even up to a mil, he is liable.
"וְנֶאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ", הַכֹּל בְּמַשְׁמָע. וְכֵן סְוָאר שֶׁלְּקָנִים וְשֶׁלְּקוֹרוֹת,*סְוָאר: ערימה. וְכֵן מִדְבָּךְ שֶׁלַּאֲבָנִים וְשֶׁלִּצְרוֹרוֹת שֶׁהִתְקִינוֹ לָסִיד.*מִדְבָּךְ = נִדְבָּךְ. "אוֹ הַקָּמָה", אַף הָאִילָן בְּמַשְׁמָע. "אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה", אֲפִלּוּ לִחֲכָה אֶת הֶעָפָר. אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לוֹ כֵלִים טְמוּנִים בַּגָּדִישׁ וְהִדְלִיקָן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אוֹ הַקָּמָה, אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה": מַה הַשָּׂדֶה בַּגָּלוּי, אַף הַקָּמָה בַּגָּלוּי.
"and there be consumed sheaves": All things are included: a pile of reeds and beams, a mound of stones, and of pebbles for the processing of lime. "or the standing corn": trees also are included. "or the field": even if it singed the ground. But perhaps even if there were vessels hidden in his stack and they were burned? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "or the standing corn or the field." Just as the field is in the open, so must (what is found) in the standing corn be in the open (for liability to obtain).
"שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אִישׁ", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ; אִשָּׁה וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה", מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הֶבְעֶה וְהֶבְעֵר,* הֶבְעֶה: אחד מארבע אבות נזיקין, הנקרא במשנה מַבְעֶה (מן השורש בעי, חשף. מכאן הבעה, חיסל יבול של שדה). נחלקו האמוראים בפירושו. לפי רב, נזקי אדם. לפי שמואל, נזקי שן, לפי הירושלמי, נזקי שן ורגל. שְׁאָר כָּל הַמַּזִּיקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, מְנַיִן? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן בִּנְיַן אָב מִבֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶן: לֹא הֲרֵי הֶבְעֶה כַהֲרֵי הֶבְעֵר, וְלֹא הֲרֵי הֶבְעֵר כַּהֲרֵי הֶבְעֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַזִּיק, שְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ, וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק, חָב הַמַּזִּיק, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ.
"Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire": Why is this written? From (22:4) "a man," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire" — in any event. This tells me only of beast and fire. Whence do I derive the same for all of the other damagers in the Torah? It follows inductively from both. Beast is not like fire, and fire is not like beast. What is common to both is that it is their nature to damage, that they are your property, that it is your obligation to guard them, and that when they cause damage, you must pay for the damage with the best (produce) of the land.
אַרְבָּעָה כְלָלוֹת הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּנְזִקִין: בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ רְשׁוּת לַמַּזִּיק וְלֹא לַנִּזָּק, פָּטוּר; לַנִּזָּק וְלֹא לַמַּזִּיק, חַיָּב. לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק, אֲפִלּוּ מְיֻחֶדֶת, כְּגוֹן חָצֵר שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין וְהַפָּנְדָּק;*פָּנְדָּק. pandokeîon: מלון, מסעדה. לֹא לַנִּזָּק וְלֹא לַמַּזִּיק, כְּגוֹן רְשׁוּת אַחֶרֶת, עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל, חַיָּב, וְעַל הַשּׁוֹר, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק, וְהַבִּקְעָה וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן, עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל, פָּטוּר, וְעַל הַשּׁוֹר, מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְתָם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
Four general rules were stated by R. Yishmael in the name of R. Meir in respect to damages. Wherever the mazik ("the damager") has permission (to be), but not the nizak ("the damaged"), he (the mazik) is not liable. Wherever the nizak has permission, but not the mazik, he (the mazik) is liable for everything. Where neither the nizak nor the mazik have permission (to be), such as property which belongs to neither of them, he (the mazik) is liable for (damage of) "tooth" and "foot," and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages. Wherever both have permission (to be), such as property owned in common, open land, the public domain, and the like, for "tooth" and "foot" he is not liable and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages.