שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה וְנִמְצָא עֻבָּרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נְגָחָהּ יָלְדָה, אִם מִשֶּׁנְּגָחָהּ יָלְדָה, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק לַפָּרָה וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק לַוָּלָד. וְכֵן פָּרָה שֶׁנָּגְחָה אֶת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִמְצָא וְלָדָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָגְחָה יָלְדָה, אִם מִשֶּׁנָּגְחָה יָלְדָה, מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִן הַפָּרָה וּרְבִיעַ נֶזֶק מִן הַוָּלָד: In the case of an innocuous ox that gored and killed a cow, and the cow’s fetus was found dead at its side, and it is not known whether the cow gave birth before the ox gored it and the fetus’s death is unrelated to the goring or whether it gave birth after the ox gored it and the fetus died on account of the goring, the owner of the ox pays half the cost of the damage for the cow and one-quarter of the cost of the damage for the offspring. Since it is uncertain whether the ox was responsible for the death of the fetus, in which case he would pay half the damages, its owner pays only half the amount for the fetus that he would ordinarily be required to pay, i.e., one-quarter. And likewise, there is uncertainty in the case of an innocuous cow that gored an ox, and the cow’s newborn offspring was found at its side dead or alive, and it is not known whether the cow gave birth before it gored the ox or whether the cow gave birth after it gored. When damage is caused by an innocuous animal, the liability of the owner is limited to the value of the animal that gored. Therefore, half the cost of the damage is paid from the value of the cow, as in the standard case of an innocuous animal. And if that does not suffice to pay for half the cost of the damage, one-quarter of the cost of the damage is paid from the offspring. Since it is uncertain whether the offspring was part of the cow at the time the cow gored, the owner pays only half of what he would pay if it were certain that it was part of the cow.
הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהִכְנִיס קְדֵרוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, וְשִׁבְּרָתַן בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזְּקָה בָהֶן, בַּעַל הַקְּדֵרוֹת חַיָּב. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת, בַּעַל חָצֵר חַיָּב. הִכְנִיס פֵּרוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, וַאֲכָלָתַן בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזְּקָה בָהֶן, בַּעַל הַפֵּרוֹת חַיָּב. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת, בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָּב: 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. 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.
הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, וּנְגָחוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כַלְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, פָּטוּר. נָגַח הוּא שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, חַיָּב. נָפַל לְבוֹרוֹ וְהִבְאִישׁ מֵימָיו, חַיָּב. הָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ בְנוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּפֶר. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת, בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר חַיָּב. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, בְּכֻלָּן אֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִשְׁמֹר: Similarly, if one brought his ox into the homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the homeowner’s ox gored it or the homeowner’s dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. If it gored the homeowner’s ox, the owner of the goring ox is liable. Furthermore, if the ox that he brought into the courtyard without permission fell into the owner’s pit and contaminated its water, the owner of the ox is liable to pay compensation for despoiling the water. If the homeowner’s father or son were inside the pit at the time the ox fell and the person died as a result, the owner of the ox pays the ransom. But if he brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The homeowner is not liable in any of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, unless he explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them.
שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, פָּטוּר מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. וְאָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת, שָׁמִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה כַּמָּה הִיא יָפָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה מִשֶּׁיָּלָדָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִם כֵּן, מִשֶּׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת, מַשְׁבַּחַת. אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין, וְנוֹתֵן לַבַּעַל. וְאִם אֵין לָהּ בַּעַל, נוֹתֵן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת, פָּטוּר: In the case of an ox that was intending to gore another ox but struck a pregnant woman, and her offspring, i.e., the fetuses, emerged due to miscarriage, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. But in the case of a person who was intending to injure another but struck a pregnant woman instead, and her offspring emerged due to miscarriage, he pays compensation for miscarried offspring. How does he pay compensation for miscarried offspring, i.e., how is their value assessed? The court appraises the value of the woman by calculating how much she would be worth if sold as a maidservant before giving birth, and how much she would be worth after giving birth. He then pays the difference in value to the woman’s husband. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If so, the consequences would be absurd, as when a woman gives birth her value increases. Rather, the court appraises how much the offspring are worth, and the one liable for the damage gives that amount to the husband. And if she does not have a husband, e.g., her husband died, he gives the money to his heirs. If the pregnant woman was a Canaanite maidservant and then she was emancipated, or a convert, and she was married to an emancipated Canaanite slave or to a convert who died without any heirs, the one who caused the damage is exempt from pay-ing compensation for miscarried offspring. This is because this payment is made specifically to the husband, not to the woman.
הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אוֹ בִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר, חַיָּב. הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת, חַיָּב. אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר, שִׁיחַ וּמְעָרָה, חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין, חַיָּב. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹר, מַה בּוֹר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהָמִית, עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהָמִית, עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. הָיוּ פְחוּתִין מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזַּק בּוֹ, חַיָּב: One who digs part of a pit on private property and opens its entrance in the public domain, or digs a pit in the public domain and opens its entrance on private property, or digs a pit on private property and opens its entrance on another person’s private property, is liable for damage caused by the pit in each case. In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it, he is liable. The halakha is the same for one who digs either a pit; a ditch, which is narrow and long; or a cave, which is rectangular and roofed; trenches and water channels. In all these cases he is liable. If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured in it, not killed, he is liable to pay damages.
בּוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין, עָבַר עָלָיו הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כִסָּהוּ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא כִסָּהוּ, הַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּב. כִּסָּהוּ הָרִאשׁוֹן, וּבָא הַשֵּׁנִי וּמְצָאוֹ מְגֻלֶּה וְלֹא כִסָּהוּ, הַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּב. כִּסָּהוּ כָרָאוּי, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. לֹא כִסָּהוּ כָרָאוּי, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת, חַיָּב. נָפַל לְפָנָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָּה, חַיָּב. לְאַחֲרָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָּה, פָּטוּר. נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ, חֲמוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִתְקָרְעוּ, חַיָּב עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וּפָטוּר עַל הַכֵּלִים. נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, חַיָּב. בֵּן אוֹ בַת, עֶבֶד אוֹ אָמָה, פָּטוּר: If a pit belonging to two partners was uncovered and the first partner passed by it and did not cover it, and then the second passed by it and did not cover it, the second is liable for any damage caused by means of the pit. The mishna lists several halakhot that pertain to damage classified as Pit: In the case of a pit that the first person who passed by covered after using it, and then the second came to use it and found it uncovered after the cover fell off or was damaged, and he did not cover it, the second one is liable for damage caused by the pit. If the owner covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. If he did not cover the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable. If a man was digging or widening a pit, and an ox passing by fell forward into it in fright due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt. If an ox and its accoutrements, i.e., the vessels it was carrying, fell into the pit and the vessels were broken, or if a donkey and its accoutrements fell in and the accoutrements were torn, the owner of the pit is liable for damage to the animal caused by the pit, but he is exempt from liability for damage caused to the vessels, by Torah edict. If an ox that was impaired by being deaf, or an ox that was an imbecile, or an ox that was very young fell into the pit, he is liable. If a boy or a girl, a Canaanite slave or a Canaanite maidservant fell in, he is exempt, since there is a Torah edict that the digger of a pit is liable only for damage caused to an animal.
אֶחָד שׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל בְּהֵמָה לִנְפִילַת הַבּוֹר, וּלְהַפְרָשַׁת הַר סִינַי, וּלְתַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְלַהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵדָה, לִפְרִיקָה, לַחֲסִימָה, לְכִלְאַיִם, וּלְשַׁבָּת. וְכֵן חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר. אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהֹוֶה: The halakha is the same whether concerning an ox or whether concerning any other animal with regard to liability for falling into a pit, and with regard to keeping its distance from Mount Sinai at the time of the receiving of the Torah, when it was forbidden for any animal to ascend the mountain, and with regard to the payment of double the principal by a thief, and with regard to the mitzva of returning a lost item, and with regard to unloading its burden, and with regard to the prohibition of muzzling it while threshing, and with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, and with regard to the prohibition against its working on Shabbat. And similarly, undomesticated animals and birds are subject to the same halakhot as domesticated animals. If so, why are all of the above halakhot stated in the Torah only in reference to an ox or a donkey? Rather, the reason is that the verse speaks of a common scenario, from which the other cases may be derived.