Mishnayos

(1) [There are] four categories of damages: The ox, the pit, the grazer, and the fire. The [characteristics] of the ox are not similar to the [characteristics] of the grazer. And the [characteristics] of the grazer are not similar to the [characteristics] of the ox. Nor are either of these, which have a living spirit, similar to the fire, which has no living spirit. Nor are any of these, which move and do damage, similar to the pit, which does not move and does damage. What is common among them is that they do damage, and the responsibility for their supervision is upon you. And when they do damage, the damager must pay from the best of the land.

(2) Once I have accepted the duty of care for a thing, I have prepared the way for its causation of damage. Once I have partially prepared the way for its causation of damage, I have accepted monetary liability for damages as if I had prepared the way for the entity of its causation of damage. In cases of things that cause damage to properties not covered by sacrilege laws, properties which belong to members of the Covenant, owned properties, and properties located outside the private domain of the defendant or the shared private domain of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant must pay the monetary judgement for damages from the best land.

(3) Assessment of monetary liability and monetary equivalence takes place before a constituted court and with the agreement of witnesses who are free men and members of the covenant. And women are equal with regard to damages. And the plaintiff and the defendant may share in the proceeds of sale.

(4) Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger. What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and guardian).

(1) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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