2ב׳
1 א

כֵּיצַד הָרֶגֶל מוּעֶדֶת. לְשַׁבֵּר בְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיְתָה מְבַעֶטֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ וְשִׁבְּרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי וְשִׁבְּרַתּוֹ, וְנָפַל עַל כְּלִי וּשְׁבָרוֹ, עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים מוּעָדִין לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּן וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיָה דְלִיל קָשׁוּר בְּרַגְלָיו, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְהַדֵּס וּמְשַׁבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק:

In which cases is a foot [considered] warned about breaking caused by normal walking? An animal is [considered] warned to walk normally and to break [things]. If it kicks or pebbles are scattered from under its feet and and it breaks vessels, [the owner] pays half the damage. If it stepped on a vessel and broke it, and [then] it fell on a vessel and broke it, for the first [vessel] he pays full damage, and for the last [vessel] he pays half the damage. Chickens are [considered] warned to walk normally and to break. If a bucket was tied to its foot, or if it hopped and broke vessels, he pays half the damage.

2 ב

כֵּיצַד הַשֵּׁן מוּעֶדֶת. לֶאֱכֹל אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ. הַבְּהֵמָה מוּעֶדֶת לֶאֱכֹל פֵּרוֹת וִירָקוֹת. אָכְלָה כְסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, פָּטוּר. אִם נֶהֱנֵית, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. אָכְלָה מִתּוֹךְ הָרְחָבָה, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. מִצִּדֵּי הָרְחָבָה, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה. מִפֶּתַח הַחֲנוּת, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. מִתּוֹךְ הַחֲנוּת, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה:

In what way is the category of "tooth" presumed to be dangerous? It is expected to eat what is fit for it. An animal is presumed to eat fruits and vegetables. If it eats clothing or utensils [various items], the owner must pay half the damages. In what context is this true? - in the domain of the damaged. However, if it happened in the public domain, the owner would be exempt; except, that is, for the amount of money the owner has now saved in feed cost for the animal, which he should pay back to the damaged party. When is this true? - If the animal ate in the middle of the street, then only that which the owner saved in food-costs need be paid back. But if the animal ate from the side of the street, then the owner must pay full damages. If the animal ate from the entrance of a store, then only that which the owner saved in food-costs need be paid back. But if the animal ate from the store itself, then the owner must pay full damages.

3 ג

הַכֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁקָּפְצוּ מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג וְשִׁבְּרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מוּעָדִין. הַכֶּלֶב שֶׁנָּטַל חֲרָרָה וְהָלַךְ לַגָּדִישׁ, אָכַל הַחֲרָרָה וְהִדְלִיק הַגָּדִישׁ, עַל הַחֲרָרָה מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הַגָּדִישׁ מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק:

If a dog or a goat jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels, [the owner] pays full damages because they are Muad. If a dog took a cake (ie. with hot coals sticking to it), went to a pile of grain, and he ate the cake and the grain caught on fire, [the owner] is required to pay full damages for the cake and half the damage for the grain.

4 ד

אֵיזֶה הוּא תָם, וְאֵיזֶה הוּא מוּעָד. מוּעָד, כֹּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים. וְתָם, מִשֶּׁיַּחֲזֹר בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד, שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בוֹ שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְתָם, כֹּל שֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵחַ:

What animal is considered "tam" (presumed - innocent), and what animal is considered "muad" (presumed - damaging)? An animal becomes "muad" once witnesses testify that it gored for three days, and it returns to "tam" after it goes three days without goring - these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says, an animal becomes "muad" once witnesses testify that it gored three separate times. It returns to its "tam" state once children have played with it and it doesn't gore them.

5 ה

שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק כֵּיצַד. נָגַח, נָגַף, נָשַׁךְ, רָבַץ, בָּעַט, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וּמַה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהֵקֵל עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר, הֶחְמִיר עֲלֵיהֶם בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, מְקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְמִיר עַל הַקֶּרֶן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, לְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק לְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן, מַה בִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אַף בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק חֲצִי נֶזֶק. אָמַר לָהֶם, אֲנִי לֹא אָדוּן קֶרֶן מִקֶּרֶן, אֲנִי אָדוּן קֶרֶן מֵרֶגֶל. וּמַה בִמְקוֹם שֶׁהֵקֵל עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, הֶחְמִיר בַּקֶּרֶן, מְקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְמִיר עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל, בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּחְמִיר בַּקֶּרֶן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן, מַה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חֲצִי נֶזֶק, אַף בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק חֲצִי נֶזֶק:

How is the penalty assessed for an ox that damages while on the private domain of the damaged party? If the ox gores, pushes, bites, crouches, [or] kicks (all these are later classified as similar to "horn", i.e., damage caused through unusual behavior) -- in the public domain, he [the owner] pays half damages. In the domain of the damaged party, Rabbi Tarfon says [the owner pays] full damages, while The Sages say, [the owner pays] half-damages. Rabbi Tarfon said to them [using a fortiori reasoning], in a case where we are lenient with respect to "tooth" and "leg" [damages caused by normal behavior] in the public domain, where he [the owner] is completely exempt, we are strict regarding the private domain of the damaged party, [requiring the owner] to pay full damages. In a case where we are strict with "horn" damage [damage from unusual behavior, as described above] in the public domain, [requiring the owner] to pay half-damages, isn't it logical [a fortiori] that we should be strict with him in the domain of the injured party to pay full damages? They [The Sages] said to him [Rabbi Tarfon], it is enough that a law derived from an a fortiori argument be established similar to the case from which the inference is drawn [i.e., the derived principle cannot be more strict than the base case]. Just as in the public domain [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damages, so too in the domain of the damaged party [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damage. He [Rabbi Tarfon] said to them [The Sages], I will not derive "horn" [damage] from "horn" damage, I will derive "horn" damage from "leg" damage. In a case where we are lenient with respect to "tooth" and "leg" [damages caused by normal behavior] in the public domain [where the owner is exempt], we are strict with regard to "horn" damage [where the owner pays half-damages]. [By a fortiori reasoning] in the case where we are strict with regard to "tooth" and "leg", [namely] in the domain of the damaged party, isn't it logical that we should be strict[er] with regard to "horn" [and require payment of full damages]? They [The Sages] said to him [R Tarfon], it is enough that a law derived from an a fortiori argument be established similar to the case from which the inference is drawn. Just as in the public domain [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damages, so too in the domain of the damaged party [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damage.

6 ו

אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג, בֵּין מֵזִיד, בֵּין עֵר, בֵּין יָשֵׁן. סִמֵּא אֶת עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ וְשִׁבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם:

A human being is always considered a habitual damager, whether [he or she damages] accidentally, or purposefully, while awake, or while asleep. If he blinded the eye of his friend or broke his vessels, he pays full damages.