ליתא לפרה משתלם רביע נזק מולד if the cow is not here, e.g., it went astray, only one-quarter of the cost of the damage is reimbursed from the offspring.
טעמא דלא ידעינן אי הוה ולד בהדה כי נגחה אי לא הוה אבל אי פשיטא לן דהוה ולד בהדה כי נגחה משתלם כוליה חצי נזק מולד The Gemara infers: According to Rava, the reason for paying only one-quarter of the cost of the damage is that we do not know if the offspring was with it, as a fetus, when the cow gored or whether it was not. But if it is obvious to us that the offspring was with it as a fetus when it gored, the full amount of half the cost of the damage may be reimbursed from the offspring if the cow is not there.
רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא פרה שהזיקה גובה מולדה מאי טעמא גופה היא תרנגולת שהזיקה אינו גובה מביצתה מ"ט פירשא בעלמא הוא The Gemara comments: In this respect, Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava says: In the case of a cow that caused damage while pregnant, the injured party collects compensation from its offspring, i.e., the offspring that had been a fetus at the time of the goring. What is the reason? It is because it is considered an integral part of its body and therefore may be used to collect payment. By contrast, in the case of a hen that caused damage, the injured party does not collect compensation from its egg. Payment can be collected only from the body of the hen. What is the reason? The egg is simply a secretion and not an integral part of the hen’s body.
ואמר רבא אין שמין לפרה בפני עצמה ולולד בפני עצמו אלא שמין לולד על גב פרה שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אתה מכחיש את המזיק § And Rava also says: When assessing the damage inflicted by a goring ox on a cow whose newborn calf is found dead by its side, the court does not appraise the damage to the cow by itself and the damage to the offspring by itself. Rather, the court appraises the offspring together with the cow and evaluates the overall damage inflicted on the pregnant cow, which will be slightly less than it would be with two separate evaluations. The reason for this is that if you do not say this, you will be found to have ultimately weakened the one liable for damage by inflicting a loss on him, as the market value of a newborn calf is greater than the difference in market value between a pregnant cow and one that is not pregnant.
וכן אתה מוצא בקוטע יד עבדו של חבירו וכן אתה מוצא במזיק שדה של חבירו And similarly, you find this principle in a case where someone severed the hand of another’s slave. The difference in value between a slave with a hand and a slave without a hand is assessed, rather than determining how much money the owner would request in exchange for allowing the hand of his slave to be cut off. And similarly, you also find this principle in a case of one who causes damage to part of another’s field. The court appraises not the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, but the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area.
א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ואי דינא הוא ליכחוש מזיק Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The main reason invoked by Rava is that otherwise you will be found to have ultimately weakened the one liable for damage. But if this is the halakha of assessing the damage, then let the one liable for damage be weakened by losing money.
משום דאמר ליה פרה מעברתא אזיקתך פרה מעברתא שיימנא לך Rav Ashi answered: This is because the one liable for damage can say to him: I caused damage to you through injuring a pregnant cow, and so I am assessing the value of a pregnant cow for you. Therefore, it is not correct to evaluate separately the damage to the cow and the damage to the offspring.
פשיטא פרה דחד וולד דחד פיטמא לבעל פרה נפחא מאי רב פפא אמר לבעל פרה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר חולקין והלכתא חולקין: The Gemara raises a question: It is obvious that in a case where the cow belonged to one person and the offspring belonged to another that the compensation for the cow’s loss of fat is paid to the owner of the cow. The additional value that the cow had due to the fact that it was fatter due to the pregnancy is paid to the owner of the cow. The question is: What is the halakha concerning the cow’s bulk? There is an increase in value of a pregnant cow that it is attributed to its improved appearance, which results from its carrying a fetus. Who is considered the injured party with regard to that sum? Rav Pappa said: This too belongs to the owner of the cow, whereas Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: They divide the restitution. And the halakha is that they divide the restitution.
מתני׳ הקדר שהכניס קדרותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ושברה בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הקדרות חייב ואם הכניס ברשות בעל החצר חייב MISHNA: In the case of a potter who brought his pots into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the homeowner’s animal broke the pots, the homeowner is exempt. If the owner’s animal was injured by the pots, the owner of the pots is liable. But if the potter brought them inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable if his animal caused damage to the pots.
הכניס פירותיו לחצר בעה"ב שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הפירות חייב ואם הכניס ברשות בעל החצר חייב Similarly, if someone brought his produce into the homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the homeowner’s animal ate them, the homeowner is exempt. If his animal was injured by them, e.g., if it slipped on them, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought his produce inside with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused by his animal to them.
הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא Similarly, if one brought his ox into the homeowner’s courtyard without