json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Nezikin/Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma",
    "versionSource": "http://sefaria.org/",
    "versionTitle": "Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "ברטנורא על משנה בבא קמא",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Rishonim on Mishnah",
        "Bartenura",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "ארבעה אבות נזיקין – because there are for every one of these (“chief actional damages”), derivatives, we call them \"אבות\"/chief, actionable [damages].",
                "השור – this is the foot, meaning, what the animal damages with her feet while she is walking, as it is written (Exodus 22:4): “When a man lets his livestock loose [to graze in another’s land, and so allows a field or a vineyard to be grazed bare],” and teaches \"ושלח\" /”lets loose” – this is the foot and similarly he states (Isaiah 32:20): “Who let loose the feet of cattle and asses,” and it is a derivative of the foot when it (i.e., the animal) causes damage with her body while walking or in the gates while walking when utensils that were attached to the gates and [the animal] dragged them and broke them or with the saddle bag that is upon her. And this is a burden that is in large sacks, and the packing bags that are upon her or in the bell that is on her neck.",
                "והבור – whomever opens a pit in the public domain and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, if the pit was ten handbreadths deep or caused damage, if it was is less than ten handbreadths [deep], as it is written (Exodus 21:22): “When a man opens a pit [or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it],” and a derivative of a pit such as the phlegm brought out by coughing or hawking (see Talmud Bava Kamma 3b) after they were placed in the public domain and caused damage.",
                "והמבעה – this is the tooth, for the animal ate in the field of his fellow as it states (Exodus 22:4): “and so allows a field or vineyard to be grazed bare in another’s land,” and the tooth is called מבעה/damaging the crop because it sometimes is covered and sometimes uncovered/revealed, from the language (Obadiah 1:6): ”How ransacked his hoards!”/”Its hidden treasures were laid bare” (made empty, which refers to eating up – see the comment of Shmuel in Talmud Bava Kamma 3b), as we translate into Aramaic: the hidden object is revealed; and it is a derivative of the tooth, the animal scratching itself against a wall for her gratification (see Talmud Bava Kamma 3a) in the manner of animals scratching themselves, and when she broke the wall or soiled (with excrements, secretions) the fruits (by rolling in them) when she scratched herself on them for her gratification.",
                "ההבער – this is the fire/conflagration, for it went out and caused damage, as it is written (Exodus 22:5): “When a fire is started [and spreads to thorns], so that stacked, standing or growing grain is consumed.” And the derivative of fire is his rock and his knife and his burden that he placed them on the upper portion of his roof, and they fell with an ordinary wind and it caused damage that resembles fire where the wind leads it. But surely, our Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] did not consider a horn [of an animal] under the category of the chief actionable damages, because we are not speaking about other than damages which are when an animal whose owner stands forewarned (on account of three successive injuries) from their outset, meaning to say, that they pay full indemnity from their outset. But when they (the animals) are innocuous (i.e., one that did injury for the first time, or before warning had been given) it doesn’t speak of this.",
                "לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה – meaning to say, if the Merciful One had written [only] \"שור\"/the ox, we would not derive \"מבעה\"/the tooth from it. For I would have said that a foot that caused damage is an ordinary occurrence (and must be guarded against), and the Merciful One made it liable (see Talmud Bava Kamma 2b). But the tooth whose damage is not an ordinary occurrence, the Merciful One did not make it liable. But if the Merciful One [only] wrote \"שן\" /the tooth, I would have said that the damage done by a tooth is connected with a benefit (to the animal), is liable. But the \"רגל\"/foot which is not connected with a benefit (to the animal), it is not liable. But if the Merciful One had written “tooth” and “foot” and but did not write “tooth,” I would have said that “tooth” and “foot” which have in them a living spirit, meaning to say that that they come from the strength of living creatures, it is liable, but the fire which has no living spirit in it is not be made liable. But if three of them were written, but the Merciful One did not write \"בור\"/pit, I would have said that these (three) whose manner is to go and do damage, but the pit, whose manner is not to go and do damage, I would not be liable for it; because of this, it was necessary for [the Mishnah to state] all of them. And in the Gemara (Talmud Bava Kamma 5b) brings up, that if it wrote “pit” and one of these, all of the rest of them would come except for “horn,” through the points common to both, that their manner is to cause damage, and they didn’t need all of them other than because they are divided in their [specific] Halakhot, for this one has what the is not found in the other- that the “tooth” and the “foot” are exempt in the public domain, which is not the case with the “pit” and the “fire.” Scripture exempted the “pit” [from punishment] for humans and utensils, as it is written (Exodus 21:33): “[When a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it], and an ox or an ass falls into it,” that we expound, “an ox” but not a human being; “an ass,” but not utensils, which is not the case with the other chief actional damages. “Fire,” exempts what is hidden, for if there were hidden clothes in a stack of grain, the person who sets fire is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 22:5): “[so that stacked], standing [or growing gain is consumed],” just as standing grain is revealed, so also all that is revealed, and the rest of the chief actional damages did not exempt that which is hidden.",
                "הצד השוה שבהן וכו' – even I will bring all that is normal to cause damage and its protection is upon you, that if he caused damage, the one who caused damage is liable make the payment for the damages that he committed.",
                "במיטב הארץ – from the best of his possessions, from the most praiseworthy of them, if he comes to take for himself land as payment for his damage, as it is written (Exodus 22:4): “he must make restitution for the impairment (lit. “excellence”) of that field or vineyard.” But, if he comes to give him “movables,” we hold that every word \"מיטב\"/the best for if he doesn’t sell here, he will sell in another town, and he will give him all what he requires, even bran, and these words are for damages. But for someone who is a creditor, if he (i.e., the borrower) has money, we make him liable to give money, and if he lacks money, he will give movables, what ever he needs. And if he collects land, he will give him mid-range [land]. And a renter, even if the landlord lacks money, he is not able to give him his rent/wages, but rather [only] zuzim. And we obligate him to sell from his possessions until money is found and he gives it to him."
            ],
            [
                "כל שחבתי בשמירתו וכו' – everything that I became obligated to guard.",
                "הכשרתי את נזקו – if I didn’t guard it appropriately and it caused damage, I am the one who became legally rendered possible and arranged that damage, and I am liable for it such as sending his bull to a deaf-mute, imbecile or a minor, is liable, for upon him was placed the guarding of the bull and indeed, he did not guard in the appropriate manner for it.",
                "הכשרתי במקצת נזקו וכו' – even though I did not arranged it and I repaired everything, I have made myself liable for it, as if I had arranged it such as the case of digging a pit nine [handbreadths] in the public domain and another came and completed it to be ten [handbreadths] and the bull or the ass fell in there and died, the last person is liable even though he had not established other than part of the damages, it is as if he had done all the damage since that the nine [handbreadths] there is no death [penalty].",
                "נכסים שאין בהם מעילה – and upon which property I am liable to pay if I caused damage. On those possessions that lack religious sacrilege, such as property which is not sanctified to the Temple, for if I damaged properties of the Holy things dedicated to the Temple, I am not liable to pay, as it is written, (Exodus 21:35): “[When a man’s ox injures] his neighbor’s ox [and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide its price; they shall also divide the dead animal],” and not the ox that belongs to the Temple. And the same law applies to all the rest of damages.",
                "נכסים של בני ברית – that if he damages the property of the heathen, he is exempt.",
                "נכסים המיוחדים – they have special honors that if he damaged ownerless property, he is exempt.",
                "חוץ מרשות המיוחדת למזיק – in every place where his possessions damaged the property of his fellow, the one who damaged them is liable, except for the special domain of the one who damages. For if the ox of the damaged party enters the domain of the one who damages and the bull of the one who damages caused damage, he is exempt, for he (i.e., the one who theoretically caused damage) says to him (i.e., the one who suffered damage): Your bull was in my domain, what does he need, and specifically if it damaged his possessions. But the one who causes damage itself who injured his fellow, even though he (i..e, the latter) is standing in his domain is liable, for the one who was injured says to him:” assuming that that you have permission to go out and cause damage, you don’t have permission.”",
                "ורשות הניזק והמזיק – and it is a special domain to the one who suffered damage and the one who causes damage such as the courtyard of both of them. For the bull of one of them does damage in the same courtyard with a tooth and foot and is exempt, and this will be in the same courtyard that is set aside for bulls also, but if it was specially for fruit/produce but not for bulls and it damaged with is tooth and/or foot, he liable, and if it damaged with its horn in any matter, he is liable."
            ],
            [
                "שום כסף – this assessment of damages will not be other than with money, so that the Jewish court will assess how much the damage is worthy and he (i.e., the one who caused the damage) will pay him. But if the cow of Reuven damaged the tallit/garment of Shimon as it tread upon it in the domain of the who was damaged and broke it and afterwards it happened that the foot of Reuven’s cow was broken by the garment of Shimon in the public domain and it was also a pit in the public domain, we don’t say that since this one did damage and the other one did damage, this one’s damage was excluded by the damage of the other, but they assess the two damages monetarily – and the one who damaged his fellow more pays.",
                "שוה כסף – and when they come to pay the damages from the property of the orphans and they do not collect other than land that has monetary value and not from movables which are themselves money. And all movable things are considered as if it is money, for if he doesn’t sell it here, he will sell it in another town.",
                "בפני ב\"ד – for the assessment and the payment of damages do not take place other than in from of a Jewish court of experts, and not before a Jewish court of lay persons.",
                "ועל פי עדים בני חורין ובני ברית – to exclude salves and idolaters who are not fit for serving as witnesses of damages.",
                "והנשים בכלל הנזק – whether she caused damages to others or whether others caused damage to her, the claim of a man and the claim of a woman are equivalent in damages.",
                "הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין – sometimes that one who suffered damage belongs with the one who causes damages in payments of the one who suffered damage, such as if the worth of the carrion became less from the time that it died until the time that it was brought to justice, for the lessened [value] of the carrion belonged to the one who suffered damage whether it was an innocuous animal or one whose owner had been warned after it committed damage (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4), and it is found that the one who did damage does not pay him even the one-half damages that the Torah made him worthy of if the animal was innocuous, or full damages if it was a warned animal, for the one who suffered damages loses money and is attached to these damages as is the one who causes the damage."
            ],
            [
                "חמשה תמין – that are not accustomed to cause damage, and if they do cause damage, they pay one-half the damage.",
                "וחמשה מועדין – the are accustomed to cause damage and pay full damages.",
                "לא ליגף – with the horn.",
                "ולא ליגוף – pushing the entire body and all of them are derivatives of the “horn” and they (i.e., the owners) pay half-damages. These are the five innocuous actions of animals.",
                "ושור המועד – three times to gore or to push or lie down or kick or bite these are the five actions of animals whose owners have been warned who have to pay full damages, and concerning a warned animal, each one is considered one [kind of damage].",
                "ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק – even a horn of an innocuous animal, for an owner warned about its animal pays full damages and our Mishnah brings according to the one who states that the corner of the courtyard of the one who suffers damages as he pays full damages, and even if the animal is innocuous. But the Halakha is not like this.",
                "והאדם – is considered warned from his beginning, also and pays full damages if he caused damages (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 6).",
                "[הזאב] והארי וכו'- their owners are considered as warned from their beginnings, and they are not considered as within the five kinds of damages listed above so that there are eleven animals considered as warned because these do not belong in society.",
                "ברדלס – a beast that we call in Arabic “Eltzabah.”",
                "רבי אליעזר אומר וכו' – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.",
                "מן העליה – from the best of his property, and even if the goring is not worth the measure of the damage of the “warned” animal (as it is written (Exodus 21:36): “[and its owner has failed to guard it] he must restore ox for ox”, but it is not written there “that from the body of the goring animal, he will be paid.”"
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "כיצד הרגל מועדת – meaning to say, in which manner does the foot become forewarned? And it answers to break something while it is walking. As such it is forewarned when it smashes utensils while it is walking.",
                "הבהמה מועדת – the first part [of the Mishnah] teaches chief actionable damages of the “foot” that she treaded on with her feet, and the concluding part [of the Mishnah] teaches derivates that the animal is forewarned to walk in her manner and to bread with her body and with her hair and the sliding pouch that is upon her while she is walking.",
                "",
                "או שהיו צרורות מנתזין – even though it is not a change, but rather, the way things happen, nevertheless, half-damages and not more, for this is the normative Halakha for this and we are speaking about the domain of the person who suffered the damages, but in the public domain, he is exempt [from damages] for pebbles are a derivative of the “foot” to make them exempt in the public domain.",
                "ונפל על כלי אחר – these are the first damages of the “foot” and she (i.e., its owner) pays full damages and the latter are through broken pebbles, therefore, half-damage.",
                "דליל קשור ברגלו – everything that is attacked onto the foot of the chicken is called is דליל/anything irregularly wound/entangled, and there are those who have the reading דלי/bucket.",
                "מהדס – (scratch) to dance, and there are those who interpret it as digging with its feet in the earth in the manner of chickens.",
                "משלם חצי נזק – that is entangled/irregularly wound that is pebbles are judged as pebbles on the utensils, and incisions/scratches also, such as that pebbles that were tossed and they broke the utensils."
            ],
            [
                "כיצד השן מועדת – in what manner is it “forewarned?” And it answers: to eat what is is appropriate for it.",
                "משלם חצי נזק – for it is unusual (to eat clothing or chew up utensils).",
                "בד\"א וכו' - it refers to when it eats fruits or vegetables that are in the public domain, it is exempt, for we require (Exodus 22:4): “When a man lets his livestock loose to graze in another’s land,” but if it ate clothing or utensils, even in the public domain it is liable one-half damages, for people generally put clothing and utensils in the public domain according to the hour and it is the “horn” in the domain of the person suffering damages and he is liable.",
                "משלם מה שנהנית – these are not valid payments but rather if it ate something that its value was great, we view it as if they barley, and he doesn’t pay anything other than the value of the barley at its cheapest, which is a full third less than what they are sold for in the marketplace. But, if it ate something whose worth is less than the barley, he pays the worthy of that thing that it ate at its cheapest, and if it (i.e., the animal) ate that which he damaged such as that it ate the wheat but since it did not benefit, it [the owner] is exempt [from payment].",
                "מצדד הרחבה משלם מה שהזיקה – if it (i.e., the animal) stood and at the sides of the road in a place where it is not the manner of bulls to walk there, it is not compared to the public domain, and it pays what it damages."
            ],
            [
                "מפני שהן מועדין – to jump, and we are speaking of in the domain of the one who suffered damages, for it is a derivative of the “foot.”",
                "",
                "על החררה משלם נזק שלם – for this is the “tooth” in the domain of the one who suffered damages.",
                "ועל הגדיש משלם חצי נזק – they are like pebbles, and the decided Halakha is that he should pay one-half damages."
            ],
            [
                "משיחזור בו שלשה ימים – when he sees bulls and they are not goring, they return to the innocuous state.",
                "שלשה פעמים – and even on one day (i.e., doing damage thrice on one day), but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Meir] for they are not forewarned until they testify about it for three days.",
                "ממשמשים בו – they pull at it and play with it and it doesn’t gore. And in this, the Halakha is according [to Rabbi Meir] that a forewarned bull does not return to its innocuous state until small children play with it [and it doesn’t gore]."
            ],
            [
                "נגח נגף [וכו'] – all of them are derivatives of the horn.",
                "דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון – the “horn” in the domain of the one who suffered damages that you bring from the law of the “horn” in the public domain, and as you have said regarding the horn which [the Rabbis] were stringent about it in the public domain, does it not follow logically that we should be strict with it in the domain of the one who supported the damages. It is sufficient that it (i.e., the inferred law) should be like that of the premise, like the horn in the public domain, and not be liable in the domain of the one who suffered damages other than one-half damages just as he is liable in the private domain.",
                "אני לא אדון קרן מקרן – as we stated above, but rather the “horn” from the “foot.” The place where he was stringent upon him with the “tooth” and the “foot” does it not follow logically that we should be stringent with the “horn?”",
                "דיו לבא מן הדין – for finally, if it is not the “horn” in the public domain, you will not find a side for an a-minori/a-majori. And Rabbi Tarfon, although that in general, he holds that it is enough for it is from the Torah as it is written (Numbers 12:14): “Would she not bear her shame for seven days?” All the more so for God’s presence for fourteen days, but it is enough if the inferred law be as strict as the premise, therefore, “she should be shut out of the camp for seven days” (Numbers 12:14) and no more than that. Nevertheless, here, he does not hold that it is enough for Rabbi Tarfon holds that when we state that it is enough where he didn’t refute an a-minori/a-majori such as there (i.e., Numbers 12:14) of the seven days of God’s Divine presence is not written [in the Biblical verse], the Kal V’Homer brings fourteen. The “it is enough” comes to exclude seven and to establish seven since it mentions this Kal V’Homer for these seven that has been established and it doesn’t refute it completely. But here, the half-damages are written, whether for the public domain or whether in the courtyard of the one who suffered damages, and the Kal V’aHomer comes and brings another one-half damage and makes it full damages. If he had expounded on the “it is enough” and you established ait as high-damages as at the beginning, I would raise to him the objection of the Kal V’Homer and not benefit from it at all. But the Rabbis hold that even where they raise the objection of the Kal V’Homer, we state it as “it is enough” and the Halakha is according to the Sages."
            ],
            [
                "בין ער בין ישן – if he was sleeping and another [person] came and slept at his side, and he second damaged the first, he is liable, but if he first [person] damaged the second, he is exempt [from punishment]. But if they slept together, each one of them who caused damage to his fellow is liable, because of them are considered as forewarned regarding each other.",
                "סימא את עין חבירו – even inadvertently, he is liable for damages, but not for four things (see Talmud Bava Kamma 26a-b), for [the Torah] does not declare him liable for four things other than wanton action, or something close to wanton action."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "המניח את הכד וכו' ושברה פטור – for it is not the manner of human beings to take consideration of the roads.",
                "ואם הזיק בה בעל החבית חייב – and even if he declared it ownerless, for all who declare ownerless his damages, that he didn’t have a permission from the outside to make them as if he had not made them ownerless.",
                "או שלקה בחרסיה חייב – for he holds that if he stumbled, he is negligent, but is not an accident and therefore is liable.",
                "במתכוין חייב – if he intended to take possession of its shards and [what exists] in the water after his pitcher broke, he is liable for their damages, for this is like his pit that had done damage, but if he did not intend to take possession of them since he uprooted/eradicated them he is the victim of an accident for he holds tha he stumbled over it, he is not negligent, for the shards and the water are ownerless after he had met with an accident and he did not intend to take ownership of its shards and he waer, and It is like it was never his and he is exempt from their damages."
            ],
            [
                "השופך מים ברה\"ר – even though that he is operating with permission, such as during the rainy season where it is permitted to pour water in the public domain, even so, if someone else suffered damage from them, he is liable for his damages.",
                "המצניע את הקוץ וכו' – and such as when he hit them in the public domain , and similarly, someone makes his fence out of thorns and they blossomed in the public domain. But if he squeezed them in within his own [property] and someone else was caused damage by them, he is exempt [from liability], for it is not the manner of people to rub one’s self against a wall."
            ],
            [
                "לזבלים – that the straw and stubble will decay and become manure to manure the fields and vineyards.",
                "כל הקודם בהן זכה – that the Rabbis have fined him.",
                "כל המקלקלים ברה\"ר – and even if they do it with permission such as the case at the time of removing the manure, and if they caused damage, they are liable.",
                "היה הופך את הגלל – cattle dung."
            ],
            [
                "הראשון חייב בנזקי שני – and such as the case where he was able to stand and did not stand fr he is negligent. But if he wasn’ able to sand, he is exempt, for he hold that if he stumbled, he is not negligent."
            ],
            [
                "היה בעל קורה ראשון וכו' פטור – for this one walks in an appropriate manner and the other one hurried to go."
            ],
            [
                "חד רץ ואחד מהלך וכו' – Our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: one is running and the other is walking on the Eve of the Sabbath or the Eve of Jewish holy days or that both of them were running in the rest of the days of he year, both of them are exempt, for on the eves of the Sabbath and Jewish holy days, the one who ran is running with permission for he is going to perform a Mitzvah in order to prepare for the needs of the Sabbath or the Jewish holy day, and because of this, he is exempt. But on the rest of the days of the year, when both of them are running and both of them are strange, both of them are exempt [from liabilities caused to one another]."
            ],
            [
                "המבקע – wood",
                "והזיק ברשות היחיד – of others.",
                "ברשות היחיד – his own.",
                "והזיק ברשות היחיד – of others, ",
                "חייב – he is liable [for damages caused] and even though he did it in his domain for many are not found there since we would say that he should have taken deliberation. Even as such, he is liable."
            ],
            [
                "במותר חצי נזק – they estimate what the damages of this one are greater than the damage of that one, and in that surplus, the person who caused greater damage pays the one-half assessment.",
                "מועד בתם משלם במותר – meaning to say, if he (i.e., the forewarned animal) damaged the innocuous animal to a greater extent than what the innocuous animal did.",
                "אדם בתם משלם במותר נזק שלם – for a person is forever forewarned.",
                "ותם באדם – he (i.e., the owner of the innocuous animal) pays the surplus of one-half damages, as it is written (Exodus 21:31): “So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, [the owner] shall be dealt with according to the same rule.” Just as the judgment of an ox harming another ox, so too the judgement of an ox harming a human being. Just as an ox goring an ox – [the owner of] the innocuous ox who gored another ox pays half-damages, so too, with an ox which goes a person – [the owner of] the innocuous ox pays one-half damages and the [owner of the] forewarned ox pays full damages.",
                "ר\"ע אומר אף תם שחבל באדם משלם במותר נזק שלם – as he expounds “[shall be dealt with according to] the same rule” for a law that this verse removes from it. For it speaks about a forewarned ox. And this is what the Biblical verse said “\"כמשפט הזה /the same rule – refer to the forewarned ox that [its owner] pays full damages. [The words] \"יעשה לו\" /shall be dealt with – means for every ox that gores a person, even if it is an innocuous ox. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva."
            ],
            [
                "וכן הלכה – certainly it is the Halakha that he gives him a Maneh which is one-half the damages, but this ox is not mentioned in the Torah , for you have fulfilled and sold the living ox, etc. And there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the profit of the carrion, such as at the time of death, it was not worthy anything, but it increased in value afterwards and it was worthy of being fed to dogs or to be sold to a heathen. Rabbi Meir holds that there is raise in the value of the carrion of the ox that had suffered damages, and the one (i.e., the owner of the ox) who did the damage didn’t give anything other than providing one-half of his damage, and that is identical with that which Rabbi Meir said regarding this, as it states (Exodus 21:35): “[When a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies,] they shall sell the live ox and divide its price,” meaning to say, that he (i.e., the owner of the ox that did the damage) gives him half his damages from the monetary value of the living ox, and he doesn’t deduct for himself anything on account of the increase in value that the carrion gained. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that the one-half of the increased value of the carrion that caused damages and when [the owner of] the ox that caused damages pays to [the owner of] the ox that suffered damages his one-half damage, he deducts for himself one-half the increase in value of the carrion (according to the condition of the animal) from the time of [its] death until the time of their appearance in court (see Talmud Bava Kamma 34a), and that is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda stated to Rabbi Meir: You have fulfilled the Biblical verse in that you have sold the living animal, but you have not fulfilled [the Biblical mandate] (Exodus 21:35): “they shall also divide the dead animal,” for he has to divide the increase In value of the dead carrion and the [owner of the] one who did damage must give him [the owner of the one whose ox died] one-half. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ],
            [
                "שורו שבייש פטור – as it is written (Leviticus 24:19): “If anyone [maims] his fellow, [as he has done so shall it be done to him],” and not “an ox to its fellow.” Alternatively, the one causing an indignity is not liable other than when he causes an indignity/puts to shame with intention, but an ox does not “intend” to cause an indignity/put to shame to anyone.",
                "שורו שסימא את עין עבדו פטור – the slave does not become a free person by means of this [act].",
                "והוא שסימא את עין עבדו חייב – [as it states] (Exodus 21:26): “[When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it,] he shall let him go free on account of his eye.”",
                "שור שחבל באביו ובאמו חייב – with the payment of their damages.",
                "הוא שחבל באביו ובאמו פטור – [exempt] from payment, for a person does not die and pay [damages].",
                "שורו שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת חייב – one-half damages since it is different/strange."
            ],
            [
                "בסלע לקה – it rubbed itself against a rock and was damaged.",
                "היו שנים רודפין אחר א' – two oxen [belonging to] two people are pursuing/running after the ox of another person.",
                "שניהם פטורים – since both pushed it aside.",
                "שניהם חייבים – In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 36a) it explains our Mishnah as for example that both of them (i.e., the oxen) are innocuous for the [owner of the] innocuous ox does not pay other than from his own funds. But when both are present, the first one pays the [owner of the] damaged ox one-half damages between the two of them. But where both are not present, one can say to him: Go bring proof that this ox caused you damage and I will pay you.",
                "גדול הזיק – that there is in his body the equivalent of half-damages.",
                "קטן הזיק – and you will take the worth of the small ox, and the excess one-half of your damages, you will lose.",
                "קאן הזיק את הגדול – and even though that half of the damages of he larger ox is greater, you will not take other than my small one. And half of his damages of the small one is yours. Take from the large one, and all of this is “he who seeks reparation from his fellow must produce evidence,” as we have taught in our Mishnah. But if he did not bring proof, he has nothing and even the value of he innocuous [ox, and even if the [owner of the] small ox who admitted to him, he lacks, for the person who makes a claim on his fellow for wheat and admits to him regarding barley is exempt even from the monetary value of the barley. But if the [owner of the ox] who suffered damage grabbed a measure of what the [owner of the] ox who caused the damages admitted to him, we don’t take it from him."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "שור שנגח ד' וה' - and in all of them it (i.e., the ox) was innocuous and that it pays from his own funds.",
                "ישלם – he (i.e., the owner) pays one-half of the damages caused, and to the last one [who suffered damage is paid] first. In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 36b), it establishes that our Mishnah deals with a the one who suffered damage grabbed hold of the ox causing damage to collect from him and became for him a paid bailee. But when it left under his hand and caused damage, the first one (i.e., the owner of the ox that was damaged) is liable for his damages. Therefore, the last [owner of an ox which suffered damage] is compensated one-half of his damages from the full amount.",
                "ואם יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפניו – this is what he said: if there is surplus of his damages [caused] he should restore to the [owner of the ox who suffered damage] that was prior to him as, for example, that the half-damages of the first was a Maneh (100 zuz) and the half damages of the last was fifty and the ox was worth two-hundred. From the outset, when the ox gored the ox of the he first [owner] which was damaged, that half of his damages was a Maneh, the [owner of] the ox who was damaged received a Maneh, and the owners [received] a Maneh , when they captured the injured ox and it gored while under their control, the owners do not lose a Maneh that they had for it (i.e., the ox), for he was not guarding them, [properly] other than on the damaged ox which he had captured, and when it damaged a second [ox], and half of those damages was fifty, the [owner of the] first damaged ox lost from his Maneh – fifty , and he gives it to the [owner of the] second damaged [ox] and the surplus up until a Maneh he returns to him, and the owners take their own Maneh.",
                "ר\"ש אומר וכו' – Rabbi Shimon holds that owners are partners and the [owner of] the ox that suffered damage and the ox that damaged and both are liable in its damages. How? An ox worth two hundred that gored etc.",
                "ושלפניו – that [ox] which was damaged first, he (i.e., the owner) takes fifty zuz and the owners [of the ox] who damaged take fifty zuz, for the [owner of the] one damaged first has the half [damages], therefore, he pays one-half the compensation of his damage.",
                "חזר ונגח שור שוה מאתים – the [owner of the] last one takes a half Maneh from every one – for he is paid out of his own pocket and it is found that the one before him that was his one-half, he pays from his portion one-half a Maneh and takes the last one. ",
                "But the two first [owners] – the first owner [whose ox] was damaged and the owners, for each one of them had a quarter, each one of them pays one-quarter of his damages.",
                "דינר זהב – which is twenty-five silver dinars."
            ],
            [
                "הועד לקטנים – to calves.",
                "אמרו לפני ר' יהודה – his students asked of him. ",
                "Forewarned for Sabbaths – because he (i.e., the animal) is idle from work and it became overbearing; alternatively, because it sees human beings in their nice Shabbat clothing, they are considered in its eyes as known but he does not recognize them. ",
                "But he is not forewarned on weekdays, what is the law regarding this?",
                "משיחזור בו שלשה שבתות – (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4). After it (i.e., the owner of the ox) was forewarned for Sabbaths, they brought before him (i.e., the animal) oxen on three Sabbaths and it did not gore, it returned to its being innocuous, and if it returned to being innocuous and it gored, it (i.e., the owner) only pays one-half damages."
            ],
            [
                "שור של ישראל שנגח שור של עובד כוכבים פטור – as it is written (Habbakuk 3:6): “When He stands, He makes the earth shake; When He glances, He makes nations tremble.” He saw the seven commandments that were commanded to the Sons of Noah. Since they did not fulfill them, He (i.e., God) stood and He released their money to Israel, and it states (Deuteronomy 33:2): “He appeared from Mount Paran [and approached from Ribeboth-kodesh},” He (i.e., God) revealed the money of the idolaters and permitted it [to the Jewish people]. “From Mount Paran”: from the time that he went around from one to the other offering the idolaters the Torah and they did not accept it."
            ],
            [
                "ושל חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח שור של פקח פטור – for we don’t appoint an administrator/guardian for an innocuous ox to collect [damages] from his estate for they are movables, and we stated in the first chapter (Tractate Bava Kamma 14b) an equivalent amount of money teaches that the Jewish court does not need anything other than property from which debts may eventually be collected and we establish this for orphans.",
                "מעמידין להן אפוטרופוסים וכו' – if they (i.e., oxen) are known to be gorers, we appoint for them a guardian/administrator and not to pay one-half damage other than for forewarned oxen, for if it gores again, they pay from the most valuable property and they collect the damages from the land of orphans.",
                "חוזר לתמותו – for he (i.e., Rabbi Meir) holds that if it (i.e., the animal) left the domain of his masters an entered into the domain of other masters, he returns to his [former status] of innocuousness, for a different domain changes the law of its being “forewarned.”",
                "שור האיצטדין – that is designated for goring and they (i.e., the oxen) are instructed in this."
            ],
            [
                "מועד משלם כופר – and even though that in the first that he (i.e., the ox) gored, we kill it, we find him [now] to be forewarned, as in the example of one that killed three idolaters; alternatively, that it killed three Israelites, it is considered “torn” (as by another animal), for something that is “torn”, we don’t kill it as a man put to death is considered as dead; alternatively, someone who is [sentenced to be] killed and flees to the lake after they testified against him.",
                "וכן בבן וכן בבת – small male child and small female child, he is liable for stoning and ransom like for adults."
            ],
            [
                "שור שהיה מתחכך בכותל וכו' – is exempt from the death penalty, but if if was forewarned, as in the case that it was forewarned to rub itself against walls and to knock them over on humans, and it rubbed itself against the wall for its pleasure and it fell on a human being and he died, the ox is exempt from the death penalty but the owners pay the ransom. The ox is exempt from the death penalty, as it is written (Exodus 21:29): “[If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and is owner, though warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a man or a woman -] the ox shall be stoned, and its owner, too, shall be put to death.” As it is with the death of the owners, so too with the death of the ox. Just as the owners are not liable if they killed a person, until they killed him with intent, so too, the ox is not liable until it kills with intent. And the owners pay ransom, as it is written (Exodus 21:30): “If ransom is laid upon him, [he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life],” for the Torah could have stated"
            ],
            [
                "ושור היתומים – that lack an administrator/guardian.",
                "ושור האפוטרופוס – it is the ox of orphans, but it is upon the guardian/administrator to guard it.",
                "הרי אלו חייבין – for seven “oxen” are written in the portion of goring a person (i.e., Exodus 21;28-30), one for itself and [the other] six for these six oxen.",
                "שור הקדש שור הגר שמת ואין לו יורשים. פטורים מן שמיתה – even if it gored and afterwards was dedicated to the Temple; it gored and afterwards the proselyte died, Rabbi Yehuda would declare it exempt [from the death penalty – as they have no owners). But thee Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ],
            [
                "ואם שחטו אסור – [if he slaughtered it, he is prohibited from] eating it, as it is written (Exodus 21:28): “The ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, [but the owner of the ox is not to be punished].”From the plain meaning of the verse, it implies, as it is stated, “the ox shall be stoned” – don’t I know that it is considered as carrion and carrion is forbidden to be eaten? What then is to be learned here for the verse to say “and its flesh shall not be eaten”- but rather to say to you, that if he advanced to kill it after judgement had been passed upon it, it is forbidden.",
                "הקדישו בעליו מוקדש – and we learn from this that if he derived benefit from it, he has committed religious sacrilege."
            ],
            [
                "ונעל בפניו כראוי – [locked it up before him] with a door that can withstand an ordinary wind, and that is identical with a lesser guarding.",
                "ומועד פטור – from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him, but the side of that it should die stands in his place, and he (i.e., the owner) pays half-damages like an innocuous ox, as it is written (Exodus 21:29): “[and its owner, though warned,] has failed to guard it,” regarding a forewarned ox. But if he had guarded it/watched it a little bit, he is exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning to him.",
                "רבי אליעזר אומר – there is no guarding for a forewarned ox other than a knife,",
                "עד שישחטנו – until he slaughters it. But there three disputes in this matter. For Rabbi Meir, with lesser guarding, he is liable and with more prominent [guarding], he is exempt. For Rabbi Yehuda, with lesser guarding, he is also exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him. But he is liable on the side of “it shall die” that is in it, until he guards him with a more prominent level of guarding. And to Rabbi Eliezer, even with a more prominent guarding, he is also liable. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. But however, it is ab initio, a Mitzvah to slaughter the forewarned ox in order to remove the damages."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "שור שנגח את הפרה – who was pregnant.",
                "ונמצא עוברת בצדה – that died.",
                "ואין ידוע אם עד שלא נגח ילדה – and did not die because of the goring.",
                "אם משנגחה – and because of the goring aborted the fetus.",
                "ורביע נזק – for an innocuous ox is liable for half damages and this offspring lies in doubt and we divide it. And our Mishnah is according to Sumachos who stated that money that is lies in doubt, we divide the money. But the Sages state that this is a great principle in law (see, for example, Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11 above): “He who seeks reparation from his fellow must produce evidence (i.e., upon him is the burden of proof).” But the Halakha is according to the Sages. And even if the [owner of the] animal who suffered damages asserts a certainty (i.e., literally, “sure”) and the [owner of the] animal who caused the damages says “perhaps” (i.e., a possibility), “he who seeks reparation form his fellow must produce evidence.”",
                "וכן פרה שנגחה את השור וכו'- if the cow is found, it is according to the innocuous [animal whose owner] pays one-half damages from his estate, but if the cow is not found, he pays one-firth damages from the offspring, for if he had known that prior to [the cow] giving birth it had gored, he would pay all of the half-damages from the offspring, for she was pregnant and had gored and her fetus was gored, but if it was after she gave birth that she gored, he would not pay from the offspring anything, for the offspring did not gore. But the [owner of the] innocuous animal pays other than from his estate. But now that there is a doubt, they divide it and from the one-half damages that he has to pay, he pays one quarter damages from the offspring."
            ],
            [
                "ואם הוזקה בהם בעל הפירות חייב – and these words refer to when the animal slips and stumbles/falls through them. But if she (i.e., the animal) ate from them until she died , the owner of the produce is exempt [from indemnity] because she should not have eaten them."
            ],
            [
                "היה אביו או בנו – of the owner of the house were in it (i.e., the cistern) and the same law applies for the rest of the people, but [the Mishnah] took a usual incident.",
                "משלם את הכופר – as for example, the [owner of the] animal had been forewarned to cause himself to fall upon on people in cisterns and currently saw herbs in the pit and caused itself to fall into the cistern to eat the herbs and killed a person, that the [owner of the] ox is exempt from the death penalty, for it killed without intention. But the owners [of the ox] pay the ransom, for it includes the ransom even if the animal killed without intention, as we have stated above.",
                "רבי אומר וכו' – And the Halakha is according to Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi]. Therefore, if [the owner of] the animal led his ox [into the courtyard] with the permission of the owner of house, in an undefined manner, and he didn’t accept upon himself to guard [the animal], the owner of the house is exempt, for he did not accept upon himself watching/proper care. And the one who brings it (i.e., the animal) in is also exempt [from liability] because he brought it (i.e., the animal) in with permission."
            ],
            [
                "שור שהיה מתכוון לחבירו וכו' – since our Mishnah had to teach the “concluding” (actually, the next phrase) part [of the Mishnah] that a person who intended [to strike] his fellow, the first part [of the Mishnah] teaches also regarding an ox that intends [to gore] its fellow [ox], for even if it had intended [to gore] a woman , the [owner of the] ox is exempt from the payment [for the value of] the offspring, for he is not liable for the payment [for the value of] offspring other than of a human being alone.",
                "א\"כ משהאשה יולדת משבחת – if so, that this is what we assess just as you said, it is found that he doesn’t give you anything for from when the woman gives birth, her worth is enhanced for her monetary value is less to be sold prior to her giving birth when she is in danger of dying in the pain of childbirth.",
                "היתה שפחה ונשתחררה – meaning to say, when she was freed, she was married to a convert or to a manumitted slave or a female convert is married to one of them , and the husband (who was a freed slave or a convert) passes away, [the owner of the one who caused the damages] is exempt, for the individual who takes possession of the property of the convert who died and he has no heirs has merited, and this comes prior to acquiring what is in his hands. And the same law applies also to an Israelite woman who married a convert, and the convert died, he is exempt, for the value of the offspring goes to the husband, but because an undefined freed woman slave or a female convert are married to a male convert or to a freed slave, for this reason, [the Mishnah] took the language of a maidservant and a female convert."
            ],
            [
                "ברשות היחיד ופתו לרשות היחיד אחרת – even though there is not side of a public domain here, he is liable, and only as long as he had made his domain ownerless where the mouth of the cistern is within it.",
                "אחד החופר בור – it is made round.",
                "שיח – long and narrow [trench].",
                "מערה – square and covered temporarily but it has an opening.",
                "חריצין – wide and squared like a cavern, but they are not its source.",
                "נעיצין – short from the bottom and wide from the top.",
                "מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית י' טפחים – for an undefined cistern is ten handbreadths high."
            ],
            [
                "השני חייב – when he (i.e., the first of the partners passed to him while he was walking the cover to cover it and the second one didn’t cover it.",
                "כסתו כראוי ונפל לתוכה – such as the case of where the cover became worm-eaten/decayed.",
                "נפל לפניו מקול הכרייה חייב – he was digging in the pit and the ox heard the sound of a hammer and was frightened and fell into the pit and died, he [the owner of the pit] is liable and even though that since it was because of indirect effect of the sound of the digging that it fell, we could say that the liability of the pit goes away from it and throws [instead] on the negligence regarding the sound of the digging but this is a mere indirect cause and he is exempt. Nevertheless, he is liable since the damage was found inside the pit.",
                "לאחריו מקול הכרייה פטור – if the ox stumbled/fell from the sound of the digging on the edge of the pit and fell backwards outside of the pit and died, he (i.e., the owner of the pit) is exempt [from liability], for the damage was not found in the pit and the sound of the digging was a mere indirect cause and he is exempt.",
                "ונשתברו. ונתקרעו – with the ox’s utensil belongs the breaking of the yoke and the plough. Regarding the donkey’s utensil belongs the tearing of the package of clothing and the pack saddle/cushion that is on its back.",
                "ופטור על הכלים – as it is written (Exodus 21:33): “and an ox or a donkey falls into it.” An ox, but not a human being; a donkey but not utensils. ",
                "An ox (I.e., its owner) who is deaf-mute, or is an imbecile or is a minor, is liable for it if it fell into the pit. But an ox (i.e., its owner) which can hear is not liable for it, for he needs to investigate/deliberate and continue."
            ],
            [
                "אחד שור ואחד כל בהמה לנפילת הבור – as it is written (Exodus 21:34): “[The one responsible for the pit must make restitution.] He shall pay the price to the owner, [but he shall keep the dead animal],” anything that has owners.",
                "ולהפרשת הר סיני – as it is written (Exodus 19:13): “[No hand shall touch him, but he shall be either stoned or shot;] beast or man he shall not live;” and wildlife is included in animals, if also to include birds.",
                "לתשלומי כפל – as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “In all charges of misappropriation” – anything where there is negligence.",
                "להשבת אבידה – “and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses” (Deuteronomy 22:3).",
                "לפריקה – (Exodus 23:5): “and would refrain from raising it.” Even though it Is written (Exodus 23:5): “When you see the ass of your enemy [lying under its burden],” all animals are included for we derive \"חמור\" \"חמור\" – from Shabbat, as it states (Deuteronomy 5:14): “your ox, your ass, or any of your cattle.”",
                "לחסימה – “You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4). We derive \"שור\" \"שור\" through a Gezerah Shavah (i.e., analogy) from Shabbat.",
                "לכלאים – the (forbidden) coupling of heterogenous animals, even though it is written (Leviticus 19:19): “You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind.” This is also wildlife and birds included, for we derive \"בהמה\" \"בהמה from Shabbat. And the same law applies to all two kinds of cattle, wildlife and birds. But, however, regarding the legal decision of the Halakha from the Torah, he is not liable other than someone who ploughs or leads with the two species [of same kind of animal] where one is ritually impure and the other is ritually pure, similar to an ox and an ass, but the Sages stated that [it means] any two species whether they are both ritually impure or whether they are ritually pure.",
                "לשבת – as it is written (Deuteronomy 5:14): “your ox, or your ass, or any of your cattle.” But wildlife is within the category of cattle and every extension of scope/amplification is to include birds.",
                "שדבר הכתוב בהווה – a thing that regularly happens."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "הכונס. פטור – for he guarded it and what could he have done?",
                "הוציאוה לסטים – even though he did not actually take it out, but rather that they stood before it until she left – it is as if they removed it with their hands and they are liable."
            ],
            [
                "הניחה בחמה – the sun hurts her and it is not sufficient for her closing properly for it is in a door where she is able to stand only in an ordinary wind.",
                "",
                "נפלה לגינה – as in the case when she slipped and fell in by accident. But if her “friends” pushed her and caused her to abort [her fetus] he (i.e., the owner) pays what she damaged for she was negligent in it and he should have passed through one at a time.",
                "מה שנהנית – according to her pleasure and not according to her damage.",
                "שמין בית סאה באותה שדה – we do not estimate the garden bed alone because the damage causes loss when we estimate it according to its value, and the All-Merciful stated (Exodus 22:4): “[When a man lets his livestock loose] to graze in another’s land,” and we expound that it teaches that we estimate it on top of another field, but we estimate a Bet-Seah ( 2500 square cubits or 50 cubits square) in that field how much it was worth before the garden bed was eaten from how much it is worth now. But now, he does not pay all of its monetary value, for whomever purchases a Bet Seah when it is with its grain does not despise it for the loss of one garden bed for it is a small amount.",
                "ר' שמעון אומר אכלה פירות גמורים – for already they ripened fully – she (i.e., the owner of the animal) pays all the damages. But where we estimate on account of a field where it had not yet fully where it had not fully ripened. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "ואם הדגיש ברשות בעל השדה חייב – In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 59b), it establishes it in a valley, for everyone together are accustomed to make it in one garden bed. This is his heap of sheaves and that is the other’s heap of sheaves and they appoint a guard. And since the guard state that he will go up and make a heap of sheaves, it is as if he said: “I will go up and guard yours.” But with the rest of the people, even if he made a heap of sheaves with permission, the owner of the field is not liable until he accepts upon himself protection/guardianship."
            ],
            [
                "בא אחר וליבה – he blew on the fire and it rose into a large flame like (Exodus 3:2): “[An angel of the LORD appeared to him] in a blazing fire” and there are those who have the reading \"נבה\" – from the decree (Isaiah 57:19): “heartening comforting words: [ it shall be well, Well with the far and the near – said the LORD-and I will heal them].” When a person speaks and moves his lips, and wind escapes.",
                "",
                "או דרך הרבים – sixteen cubits like the banners [of the tribes] in the wilderness.",
                "ר\"ש אומר הכל לפי הדליקה – according to the height of the fire and the size of the barley when the large fire jumps from afar. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "המדליק את הגדיש – he kindled it within his own [property] and it went and consumed that of his fellow.",
                "ר' יהודה אומר ישלם כל מה שבתוכו – that Rabbi Yehuda obligates on hidden damage in the fire, for he does not have (i.e., hold) the expounded teaching on \"או הקמה\"/or the standing grain (see Exodus 22:5). Just as the standing grain is uncovered, even all that is uncovered.",
                "וחכ\"א אינו משלם אלא גדיש וכו' - they have (i.e., “hold by” this expounded teaching of \"או הקמה\" and exempt on all damages that are hidden in the fire, but they estimate the place of the utensils as if it is a heap of grain. And he pays the heap of grain like the measure of the body of the utensils and when we stated the end [of our Mishnah]: “And the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda” – when he sets fire to a large building, that he pays for all that is inside it. And it is proven in the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 61b) that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagreed also with one who kindles a fire in [the property] of his fellow, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that if he lights a fire in that of his fellow, he pays for everything that is within it, and even for a money-bag (or a purse hanging from the neck). But the Rabbis hold that utensils that one ordinarily hides in a heap of sheaves such as threshing sledges (i.e., an implement with grooves and indentations) and the utensils of cattle he pays for; utensils that one customarily does not hid in a heap of sheaves, he does not pay. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.",
                "היה גדי כפות לו חייב – for living creatures are also included in \"או הקמה\"/or standing grain. And because of the case that he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer only, he cannot be exempted. That he is not liable for death on the slave, for since he was not tied up, he could have fled and would exempt about him from the death penalty and from payments. But if he was a slave tied up, he would be exempt even on the kid and on the heap of sheaves, but he would liable for the death penalty on the slave – for he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer only. But concerning the kid, it makes ono difference whether it was tied up or not tied up, for since it (i.e. the Mishnah) took the language of the slave, it took the language of the kid as well.",
                "במדליק את הבירה – when he kindles within that of his fellow and it is as if he destroys with his hands, and even so, the reason because it is the manner of people to leave their utensils in their houses, but a heap of sheaves, where it is not the manner of people to leave it other than like a threshing sledge (i.e., an implement with grooves or indentations) or the instruments for cattle. Even though I will kindle with that of my fellow, he doesn’t pay, according to the Sages other than things that it is customary to hide in a heap of sheaves."
            ],
            [
                "גץ – a spark of fire.",
                "רבי יהודה אומר בנר חנוכה פטור – since he is engage in the performance of a Mitzvah. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "מרובה. דבר שיש בו רוח חיים ובדבר שאין בו רוח חיים – as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “[In all charges of misappropriation – pertaining to an ox, an ass,] a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, [whereof one party alleges, ‘This is it’ – the case of both parties shall come before God: he whom God declares guilty] shall pay double to the other.”",
                "אין הגונב אחר הגנב – as it is written (Exodus 22:6): “and they are stolen from the man’s house,” and not “from the house of the thief.”"
            ],
            [
                "גנב על פי שנים – meaning to say that two testify against him that he stole.",
                "גנב ומכר בשבת – but he slaughtered which is punishable by stoning, he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer only.",
                "וטבח ביום הכפורים – for his wanton violation is not punishable other than through extirpation, and such as the case where they (i.e., the witnesses) didn’t warn him and they ae not whipped for we hold that all who are liable for flogging are those who act inadvertently, but are liable for payment, but those who are liable for the death penalty at the hands of the Jewish court , even inadvertently, are exempt from payment.",
                "וטבח ומכר ואחר כך מת אביו – but if his father died and afterwards, he slaughtered [the animal], it (i.e., the Mishnah] taught at the conclusion that he is exempt, because he is slaughtering what is his and selling what is his, for he inherited his father.",
                "בשני אלו – with an animal torn by wild beasts and with non-holy produce eaten in the Temple courtyard, for Rabbi Shimon holds that slaughter that is not worthy is not called slaughtering, but for medicinal purposes and for dogs, it is an appropriate slaughter, and if he wants he can eat from it."
            ],
            [
                "האחרונים משלמים שלשה – for an ox, and for example, the latter witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses first ,for if the witnesses for the theft had been found to be scheming first, the testimony of the slaughter is voided , for perhaps the owners had sold it to him, and if they are refuted why do they pay?",
                "בטלה עדות שניה – and he pays double because of the first testimony (i.e., that he is a thief), and they are exempt, for the witnesses do not pay money until both sets are found to be scheming witnesses.",
                "בטלה כל העדות – and he is exempt and they are exempt [from payment] and even if they retracted and the latter witnesses were found to be scheming afterwards, they do not pay as their testimony was voided already and they were contradicted. Since he did not steal, he did not slaughter [in the meanwhile] they are not liable. But regarding “you were with us” that the whole body of their testimony was removed and all the more so, if the first wo witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the second [set of witnesses] is voided. But at the time that they had not been found to be scheming other than one [of them], the testimony of both is voided but when both of them had been proven to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the first set, other than paying of double indemnity."
            ],
            [
                "על פי עד אחד – even though it is a simple mater, for one does not pay four or five times the amount (i.e., if he not only stole, but also sold the animal or slaughtered it – see Exodus 21:37) on the testimony of one witness. Sure this comes to teach us that testifying by one’s own admission is similar to testimony by one witness. Just as one witnesses, if he brings another witness after wars, they combine in public to make liable. By his own testimony also, if he brings witnesses after his admission, they make him liable, for admitting to a fine and afterwards witnesses came, he is liable. And these words [concern] someone who says: “ I didn’t steal,” and witnesses came and said that he stole and afterwards he retracted and said: “I slaughtered or I sold,” and witnesses came afterwards that he slaughtered or sold, he is liable, for when he says, “I slaughtered or I sold,” he does not make himself liable for anything for he knows that a person who admits to a fine is exempt. We we don’t have here an admission of nothing. But when he says: “I sole” and witnesses came [and testified} that he stole, he obligated himself to pay the principle, however, through his admission, therefore, it is a complete admission and he is exempt from double indemnity, even though afterwards witnesses came [and testified].",
                "ומת אביו – and he inherited him and would not be a slaughter completely illicit.",
                "גנב והקדיש – when he slaughtered it was for the Temple that he slaughtered and not for the owners.",
                "ר\"ש אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותם (See Tractate Megillah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 and Tracate Kinnim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 – both at the end of the respective Mishnayot.) Rabbi Shimon is not referring to the matter of the first Tanna/teacher, nor does he dispute him regarding someone who stole and dedicated the animal to the Temple and afterwards slaughtered and/or sold it. But we understand Rabbi Shimon teaching the Rabbis in another place and saying that a person who seals something dedicated to the Temple from the house of its owners is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 22:6): “if they are stolen from the man’s house” and not “from the house of something dedicated to the Temple.” And on this, Rabbi Shimon refers and states “that a person if he stole consecrated animals for which he [who had consecrated them] is responsible is liable,” for we call him, “if they are stolen from the man’s house”, and since the owner is responsible for them, he is liable. But when he slaughters, it the master’s that he slaughters, and in consecrated animals where he is responsible for the, Rabbi Shimon also does not obligate him for the payment of four times (for a sheep) the amount or five times (for an ox) the amount other than when he slaughtered them innocently inside for the sake of the owners, but when the blood is spilled, if those who have bodily defects slaughtered them outside, even though they had not been redeemed, he held that anything about to be redeemed is considered as fully redeemed. And it is an appropriate slaughter, but if pure people had slaughtered them outside [the Temple] it is considered an unworthy slaughtering, and we understand that according to Rabbi Shimon who said that a slaughter that is not fit is not called a slaughtering, and he is not liable for the payment of four and five times the amount either. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו – a thief who sold the entire ox except for a small amount of it, from the things that remain with him in the slaughter he is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 21:37): “[When a man steals an ox or a sheep,] and slaughters it or sells it “ -until he sells all of the things that remain from the slaughter, excluding if some of its shorn wool/fleece, etc. and he is not exempted from this.",
                "הנוחר – tears it open from its nostrils until its heart.",
                "והמעקר – uproots the windpipe and gullet is exempt, and even according to the Rabbis who state that a ritual slaughtering ha is not appropriate is called a ritual slaughtering, but this is not a ritual slaughtering at all."
            ],
            [
                "היה מושכו ויוצא – he is exempt from the twofold restitution.",
                "הגביהו – even in the domain of its owners for lifting up acquires in every place (see also, Tractate Kiddushin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4).",
                "נתנו – he stole it for a Kohen for five Selah of the Redemption of his First-Born son.",
                "היה מושכו – the Kohen or the creditor or the guard and it died in the domain of the owners.",
                "פטור – the thief [is exempt] from none of it."
            ],
            [
                "אין מגדלין בהמה דקה בארץ ישראל – because the settling of the land of Israel which causes the loss of the seeds.",
                "אבל מגדלין בסוריא – lands that [King] David conquered but are not called conquest, and we don’t take into consideration of it for settlement, but if they causes loss to other fields, he has to pay it back.",
                "אין מגדלין תרנגולין בירושלים מפני קדשים – for they eat there, and it is the manner of chickens to gnaw at the trash, and perhaps would bring a bone [like the size of a piece of barley] from the unclean reptile and would ritually defile that holy things.",
                "ולא – Kohanim should not raise chickens throughout all of the Land of Israel.",
                "מפני הטהרות – for he Kohanim eat priest’s due and need to preserve it in ritual purity.",
                "חזירים – the reason is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 81b) when the Kings of the Hasmoneans split with each other, it was customary each day that those who were outside would bring up to them daily [burnt] offerings to those who were inside. One day, they brought up to them a swine, and since it reached o the half-way point of the wall, the swine pressed its nails against the wall and all of the Land of Israel shook four hundred parasang by four hundred parasang. At that hour, they said: cursed be the tower of the swine.",
                "את הכלב – because it bites and it barks and causes a woman to abort [her fetus] from her fear of it.",
                "נשבים – traps so that doves who are part of the settlement will not be seized.",
                "שלשים ריס – four miles."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "החובל. וכמה הוא יפה – for if he needed to, he would sell himself as a Hebrew slave. But the one who damages him causes him the loss of this money.",
                "כיוצא בזה – according to what he enjoys, the greatness of his trouble and pain.",
                "צמחין – white pustules.",
                "שבת – all the days of the illness, we see him as if he is watchman of cucumbers and provide his salary of each day. For behold he is not fit for another labor even without illness for his hand is cut off or his leg and he has already been given their value.",
                "הכל לפי המבייש – an unimportant man who was put to shame, his insult is greater.",
                "והמתבייש – according to his importance is his shame [greater]. And each of these five things are derived from Biblical verses. Damages/נזק, as it is written (Exodus 21:24): “eye for eye” – and that does not mean to say an actual eye, as it is written (Numbers 35:31): “You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer.” For the life of a murderer you don’t take a ransom, but you do take a ransom for the heads of his limbs, for if he blinded he eye of his fellow, we give him the value of the eye, and that is “eye for an eye.” Pain/צער – we derive from (Exodus 21:25): “wound for wound.”. For it is an additional verse making him liable for the pain and even in the place of damage. And you should not say, behold he acquired his hand, and he now must cut it off. But we say that he should have cut it off with a drug, and this one severed it with iron and caused him pain. Therefore, he pays for the pain [that he caused]. ריפוי ושבת /healing and idleness/sitting. (Exodus 21:19): “Except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure,” and specifically if the illness comes on account of the wound. But if the hill person was negligent regarding himself and transgressed the words of the physician, the one who did damage is not liable for idleness and healing for we require on account of negligence. בשת/insult or indignity – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:12): “You shall cut off her hand; [show no pity] – it is money. And the law of the Torah is that one cannot judge aa single law in the world other than judges who are ordained in the Land of Israel, as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “the case of both parties shall come before God.” And they [who judge] are not called \"אלהים\"/God, other than those who are ordained in the Land of Israel. But loans, business transactions, agreements by which one’s landed estate is mortgaged in the form of a sale from date (independent of he loan to consummated afterwards so that at a certain date the creditor can claim the property, even if sold in the meantime, by referring to the priority of his purchase (i.e., deeds of transfer), admissions and denials, we adjudicate them outside the Land [of Israel] as if they (i.e., the judges) are representatives of the Jewish court of the Land of Israel and their agency we make use of. And this alone in a found matter where there is a [potential] loss of money [and similarly] an animal that damaged with the tooth or the foot and they are forewarned, or if a man caused damage to an animal. But an animal that caused damage to a person, or a person to another person, we don’t judge hem outside the Land [of Israel] at all. Rather, we excommunicate the person who wounds or the one who causes damage, until he go up with his fellow litigant to the Land of Israel or that he will provide, through the path of compromise, something close to what appears in the eyes of the judge. But a limited matter, they don’t render a decision upon. And the same law applies to fines that written in the Torah and in all of them is Talmudic learning: We don’t collect them – the judges of the Diaspora, but rather we excommunicate whomever is liable for them as we have explained."
            ],
            [
                "ושור אינו משלם אלא נזק – as it is written (Leviticus 24:19): “If anyone [maims] his fellow, [as he has done so shall it be done to him,” and not an ox for its fellow.",
                "ופטור מדמי ולדות – as it is written (Exodus 21:22): “When men fight” - men and not oxen."
            ],
            [
                "החובל בחבירו ביה\"כ חייב – even though that in the entire Torah , a person who violates a transgression for which he is liable for flogging and payment, he is flogged but does not pay. Here, he pays and is not flogged. For in the commentary, the Torah widened the scope of the law concerning a person who strikes his fellow for payment and not for stripes, from what is written (Deuteronomy 19:21): “hand for hand,” which is money since it is written (Leviticus 24:19): “as he has done so shall it be done to him.” Why does it say “hand for hand?” But rather to include a person who strikes his fellow on Yom Kippur that pays and does not get flogged.",
                "רבי יהודה אומר אין לעבדים בושת – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:11): “If two men get into a fight with each other,” for whom that he has brotherhood, excluding a slave who lacks brotherhood. Ut the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ],
            [
                "עבד ואשה שחבלו באחרים פטורים – for they lack what to pay.",
                "נתגרשה האשה ונשתחרר העבד – and they acquired property, they are liable to pay. For at the beginning, they are liable, but they lack what to pay as the usufruct of the wife is mortgaged to her husband for its fruits and for inheritance."
            ],
            [
                "מפני שהוא נדון בנפשו – for even though he is disgraced, he is repaired regarding his Creator, since his wrath has been appeased and his anger has been put to rest through [his act]."
            ],
            [
                "התוקע לחבירו – who attaches his fingers in the palm of his hand and strikes him with a fist (see Talmud Bava Kamma 90a about other possible meanings – like slapping his neighbor on the ear or shouting into his ear).",
                "נותן לו סלע – the monetary value of his embarrassment. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda who holds that he gives him a Maneh.",
                "סטרו – that he struck him with the palm of his hand on his cheek, and there is greater indignity.",
                "צרם – pulled. Another language: he cut/damaged.",
                "הכל לפי כבודו – all of these monies that were mentioned in the Mishnah are not other than for the most honored. But for a despised person, we lessen it for him.",
                "אמר רבי עקיבא וכו' – Rabbi Akiva disputes with the first Tanna/teacher as he holds that whether the person is honored or despised, they are equivalent for the laws of these fines. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.",
                "ונתן לו זמן – and these words are for indignity when it doesn’t cause loss of money, we give him time. But for damages that cause him loss of money, we don’t give him time.",
                "שימר – he waited until he saw here standing at the entrance of her courtyard.",
                "ובו כאיסר שמן – oil that is purchased for an Issar.",
                "לזו אני נותן ארבע מאות זוז – for on an Issar’s worth of oil she disregarded herself to reveal her head and she shows that she is not strict about indignity/embarrassment."
            ],
            [
                "על מנת לפטור חייב – if the one who wounds would ask the one wounded, on condition to exempt me , you say, “blind my eye,” and the wounded responded “yes,” for it is not the manner of human beings to pardon on the pain of their bodies, but if a person says to his fellow: “break my pitcher,” and the one doing damage asked: “on condition that you will exempt me you state this,” even though the one who suffered damage responded to him negatively, this “no” is like a “yes”, and it is as if he said to: “but didn’t I not say to you on condition that I would be exempt?” And therefore, he is exempt, for such is the manner of human beings to pardon on monetary damages."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "הגוזל. משלם כשעת הגזילה – the cost of wood and/or wool and he is not liable to return to him utensils, for they were acquired through the change.",
                "דמי רחל העומדת ליגזז – and the surplus that is worth more than the offspring and the sheering [of wool]. It is his (i.e., belongs to him) as he acquired it through the change.",
                "זה הכלל – to include [someone] who stole a lamb and which grew to be a ram, a calf and it became an ox and he slaughtered it or sold it that he is exempt from paying four (sheep for the sheep) or five (oxen for the ox – see Exodus 21:37), for since a change had occurred while in his hand, he acquired it. For something that is his, he can slaughter or sell it."
            ],
            [
                "בעבדים אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך – for they are like land and exist in the domain of their master. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.",
                "",
                "",
                "מטבע ונפסל – it is not in circulation in that country, but it is in circulation in another country.",
                "ונעבדה בה עבירה – it was copulated in an unnatural way or was used for [idolatrous] purposes, it is ritually unfit for a sacrifice.",
                "שנפסלה למזבח – with a blemish that is not recognized such as a veiled or withered spots in the eye (i.e., cataracts)."
            ],
            [
                "נתן לאומנין לתקן – he gave them wood to make a tool, and after the tool had been made, he ruined it, he (i.e., the artisan) is liable to pay the cost of the tool and not the cost of the wood alone.",
                "נתן לחרש – now it comes to inform us that if he gave the made tool/utensil to the artisan to fix and he ruined it, he is liable to pay the cost of the tool/utensil. And the Mishnah taught the last clause to reveal [more] about the first clause [of the Mishnah], so that you should not say that the first clause is speaking of a formed tool/utensil.",
                "שידה – a wooden wagon that is made to give transport for women."
            ],
            [
                "והקדיחתו יורה – that the dye burned it and caused it to bubble too much.",
                "נותן לו דמי צמרו – and here, there is no improvement at all, for behold it was burned completely and one doesn’t have to say if it improved more.",
                "צבאו כאור – like dark/ugly, for they dyed it with the worthless matter/refuse of the dye and damaged it on purpose, therefore, according to everyone, he is at a disadvantage.",
                "ואם השבח – that the wool grew in value,",
                "יתר על היציאה – greater than the outlay of the wool, he gives to the dyer the outlay but not the entire wages and receives his wool. And the cost of his wool, we don’t say that we give it to him for he caused the wool to receive its increased value , for it was through the wool that he made a condition with him the dyer and there’re is no change that was acquired.",
                "לצבוע לו אדום וכו' – it is an acquisition through a change for Rabbi Meir, that he should not give other than the [cost] of the wool, or that he should give him his salary in full and take the wool.",
                "רבי יהודה אומר וכו' – they fined him for that he changed it so that he is a disadvantage and that he should not benefit from improvement . And the reward also he should not take, but rather the outlay, but if the outlay is greater than the improvement, he should give him the improvement that was made. But if he wants, he may give him his complete salary, for if the improvement is greater than the salary, he should give him his salary. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ],
            [
                "נשבע לו – [the thief swore] on the lie [that the had not stolen it] and then admitted to it.",
                "יוליכנו אחריו אפילו למדי – for he has no atonement until he returns it himself to the person he stole it from, for concerning taking an oath on a lie, it is written (Leviticus 5:24): “He shall pay it to its owner [when he realizes his guilt].”",
                "לא יתן לא לבנו – of the person who had been stolen from, for he has no restitution until it reaches his (i.e., the person stolen from) hand.",
                "לשליח ב\"ד – it is an enactment that was made by the Rabbis because of (see Tractate Gittin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 5) the measure for the benefit of repentant sinners that they would not be liable to this one to spend a Maneh while setting out on the road.",
                "ואם מת – the one who was stolen from."
            ],
            [
                "חוץ מפחות ומשוה פרוטה וכו' – and we don’t take into consideration lest it became more valuable and he will retract on the value of a penny, and even one who steals in a discernable manner, it is not necessary to chase after him [to return it]."
            ],
            [
                "ונשבע לו על החומש – a second oath that he had given him [the money] but he admitted that they had not given him [that money].",
                "ה\"ז משלם חומש על חומש – a fifth of a fifth for the first fifth became the principal.",
                "עד שיתמעט וכו' – for he retracted and gave him the first one-fifth and took an oath [falsely] on the second fifth, and admitted [that he had lied] and pays that fifth and the fifth of the second fifth, and similarly forever, as it states (Leviticus 5:24): “and add a fifth part to it.” The Torah increased the fifths a great deal for one principal.",
                "תשומת יד – a loan",
                "עשק את עמיתו – the wages of a hired man.",
                "משלם קרן – for there is no one-fifth and a guilt offering other than if he admitted as it is written concerning the theft of a convert (Numbers 5:7)“he shall confess the wrong that he has done, etc.” [and] (Numbers 5:8): “If a man has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, the amount repaid shall go to the LORD for the priest – in addition to the ram of expiation with which expiation is made on his behalf.”"
            ],
            [
                "תשלומי כפל – if he (i.e. the person who was the deposit holder who stole the deposit) admitted on his own, he does not pay the two-fold restitution , as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “he whom God declares guilt [shall pay double to the other],” excluding one who accuses himself (see Talmud Bava Kamma 84b)."
            ],
            [
                "הרי זה משלם קרן וחומש לבניו או לאחיו – if he has no children, and even though an inheritance fell before him of that one (i.e., who stole from his father and he lied about it), it is required to arrange a return [of the funds] and it should not be detained with him even corresponding to his portion, as it is written (Leviticus 5:23): “[when one has thus sinned and, realizing his guilt, [would restore that which he got through robbery [or fraud, or the deposit entrusted to him, or the lost thing that he had found],” there is no remedy until he removes that which he stole from under his hand and only as long as it the actual stolen object and not something acquired through changing it.",
                "אין לו – [he lacks] enough property that he can renounce his share.",
                "",
                "לוה – [borrow] from others and return the stolen object to his brothers to fulfill the commandment of returning [lost or stolen objects].",
                "ובעלי החוב – that the thief borrowed from them.",
                "באים ונפרעים – from this stolen object the part that the thief has a part in, and if there is no heir to his father other than him, he himself gives the stolen object to the creditor in payment of the obligation and he must announce to him and tell him that this is the stolen thing of [my] father, or he gives it in this manner as part of the Ketubah/marriage contract to his wife or to the charity box, and in all of them, he must admit that this was the stolen object of his father’s."
            ],
            [
                "ואם אין לו – [if he lacks] what he will eat, he borrows and eats, and the creditors come and recover the loan from his part of the estate. And it is not considered benefit that he pays off his debt with those money, for behold it is taught in the Mishnah in the Tractate Nedarim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2 (Talmud Nedarim 33a) that one who has taken a vow of receiving benefit from his fellow, pays off his debt to him."
            ],
            [
                "שנאמר ואם אין לאיש גואל – for there is no man in Israel that lacks redeemers above until Jacob our Father, other than this proselyte who dies and has no inheritors.",
                "ומת – the thief.",
                "הכסף ינתן לבניו – of the thief, for they already became worthy of them from the death of the proselyte, But now, there is no further atonement since he (i.e., the convert) died.",
                "והאשם ירעה – according to the law of the guilt offering whose owners have died, for we hold that where for a sin-offering, it (i.e., the animal) died, with a guilt offering, it must pasture [until it acquires a blemish, thus becoming unfit for sacrifice – and then it is sold, and its money shall fall to the Temple treasury as a donation].",
                "עד שיסתאב – until a blemish falls upon it.",
                "ויפלו דמיו לנדבה – for the summer-time of the altar to purchase from them burnt offerings."
            ],
            [
                "לאנשי משמר ומת – before he would bring the sacrifice, for the heirs of the robber are not able to take out of the hands of the Kohanim after they have taken possession of it already.",
                "ליהויריב – he is the first division of the twenty-four Temple divisions of duty of the priests that are in the Temple and of Jedaiah after him.",
                "נתן – the thief gave the money to Jehoiarib in his division of duty and afterwards gave the guilt offering to Jedaiah in his division of duty, he has fulfilled his obligation, as it is explained further, that when he brings his stolen object, even before he brought his guilt offering sacrifice, he fulfilled his religious duty, and this division of duty merited in his [restoration of the stolen object] and that one [in his bringing of the guilt-offering sacrifice]. But, if he gave his guilt offering to Jehoiarib when he brought his guilt offering first and only afterwards brought his stolen object and gave it to the division of duty after that one, if the guilt offering exists – that it was not [yet] sacrificed by the sons of Jehoiarib, the sons of of Jedaiah will sacrifice it and his stolen object and his guilt offering will go to Jedaiah, and if his guilt offering does not exist, he has not fulfilled his guilt offering that he gave to Jehoiarib, since he had not given back his stolen object, and he will have to go back and bring another guilt-offering.",
                "נתן את הקרן – to the Priests.",
                "אין החומש מעכב – from offering the guilt-offering as a sacrifice if he had already given it and at the end gave the [the stolen object]."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "הגוזל ומאכיל. והניח לפניהם – or he left [as an inheritance the stolen goods] the theft exists.",
                "פטורים לשלם – if they consumed it after the death of their father and there is nothing discernible left, they are exempt from paying. For they had stolen nothing, and movables are not mortgaged to the creditor, but if they had not consumed it and there was something discernable left, they are obligated to return it (i.e., the stolen goods).",
                "אם היה דבר שיש בו אחריות – meaning to say, if their father left them mortgaged property (or property which may be resorted to in case of non-payment), they are obligated to repay [what was stolen] even though they had already consumed it. This is how our Mishnah is reconciled in the Gemara (Talmud Bava Kamma 111b). But regarding the Halakhic decision, He who steals and feeds his children, whether they consumed it before despair [of the original owner ever recouping what was stolen from him] or whether they consumed it after despair [of the owner] they are obligated to pay back from the monies that their father left them, whether from mortgaged property or whether from that which cannot be resorted to (i.e., movables) and today, movables are mortgaged to the creditor But if the thief did not leave anything [for his children], if the children consumed the stolen goods before despair [of the original owner of ever recouping them], they are obligated to return it from their own [estate]. But if it is after despair [of the original owner] that they consumed it, they are not obligated to pay back from their own [estates] other than if their father had left it for them.",
                "אין פורטין – do not exchange Selas for Perutot (i.e., pennies).",
                "מתיבת המוכסין – to take Perutot (i.e. pennies) from treasury [of the publicans] where they place the monies of the taxes.",
                "ולא מכיס של [גבאים] -the king’s collectors who collect capitation taxes and taxes from crops and other famer’s produces delivered in kind because they are from theft, and especially the heathen custom -collectors or the Israelite custom-collector/publican who is not limited by legal stipulations (see Talmud Bava Kamma 113a), who takes whatever he wants. But an Israelite publican who was appointed even by a heathen king and takes a fixed stipulation according to the law of the kingdom is not under the presumption of being a thief, and one may exchange coins from his treasury and not only this but also, it is forbidden to fell from his taxes, for the law of the land is the law/דינא דמלכותא דינא.",
                "מתוך ביתו – from the tax collector who is presumed to be a thief.",
                "או מן השוק – if he has monies in his house or in the market which are not from the tax treasury box, and if a person is liable some pennies to the tax collector from the tax of one-half Dinar and he doesn’t have the Perutot/pennies, one gives him a silver Dinar and he receives from the Perutot equivalent to half its value and even though he gives it to him from the tax treasury box because it is like he rescuing him from his hand."
            ],
            [
                "הרי אלו שלו – for undefined the owners have despaired immediately, and this one acquired it through despair [of the original owner] and the change of domain.",
                "אם נתיאשו הבעלים – for we learned that regarding despair, when they say, Woe is Me for the loss of money, but not if it is not defined. The first section of the Mishnah [deals with] when the robbers took his clothing, that is undefined, that the owners resign their possession – we are speaking of Jewish thieves, for since the Jewish laws state: bring witnesses, bring proof, for when the robbers take it they (i.e., the owners) despair, but the concluding section of the Mishnah deals with heathen robbers for heathen judges judge with haughtiness and physical might, and when they state an opinion, it is without witnesses and without proof and those who suffered theft from them do not despair. But because of this, if we hear about this, it surely refers to despair, but, undefined, it is not.",
                "נחיל של דבורים – a collection [of bees] gathered together with their sovereign.",
                "לא יקוץ את השוכה – the bees settled upon the bough of his fellow and was afraid to take one at a time so that they should not flee, he should not cut the branch entirely, and even on condition of giving the money.",
                "רבי ישמעאל וכו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yishmael."
            ],
            [
                "המכיר כליו וספריו וכו' – Our Mishnah [deals] with a person who is not used to selling his utensils, for since a report of a theft had לוקח gone forth in the city, and there are witnesses that these were his utensils and books, we don’t suspect that perhaps he actually sold them.",
                "נשבע לוקח כמה נתן ויטול – and he should return to him his utensils, and we are speaking about the time before despair."
            ],
            [
                "אין לו אלא שכרו – payment for the utensil and payment for the labor (of preserving the other’s honey).",
                "שטף נהר חמורו – it is necessary to teach two segments of our Mishnah, for it (i.e., the Mishnah) had taught [only] the first part, I would think that it is there when he specifies, that they give him the cost of everything, because that which is in his hands, he loses when he spills his wine by his own hands for him. But in the concluding part [of the Mishnah] that of itself, I would say that he has nothing other than his salary/pay , but if we were to teach only the concluding section [of the Mishnah], here when it is undefined, he would have nothing other than his salary/payment of itself, but there (in the first part of the Mishnah dealing with a jar of wine and pitcher of honey) when it is in their hands, I would say, even when undefined, he should give him the cost of everything, Hence it is necessary [to teach both]."
            ],
            [
                "נטלוה מסיקין – violent men stole it from the thief. The Aramaic translation of [מסיקין] the shrieking of locusts (possibly cricket – see Talmud Bava Kamma 116b), for the locust is a thief, which eats other’s fields.",
                "אם מכח מדינה היא – which took by force the fields of others with this."
            ],
            [
                "על מנת לצאת במדבר – not that he should say to him explicitly: “on condition that you go out into the wilderness, and you should repay me”, for this is a simple matter. But even if his fellow said to him: “Let me make this deposit with you, for I am going out in the wilderness.” But the other said to him, “and I also want to go out to the wilderness”, and now, if he wants to restore it to him in the wilderness, he can return it to him."
            ],
            [
                "האומר לחבירו גזלתיך וכו' - and for example, that his fellow claims evidently/with certainty that you stole from me, and he says, it is true that I stole from you. But if he doesn’t know if I returned it to you, he is liable to pay. But if his fellow claims that perhaps you stole from me or I lent you, and he (i.e., the other) states, it is true truthfully, I stole from you or you let me, but he doesn’t know if he restored it (i.e., the lent object), he is exempt from the laws of mankind, and if he wants to fulfill according to the [Laws of] heaven, he should pay him.",
                "איני יודע אם גזלתיך וכו' – he is exempt from paying. But however, he should take an oath that he doesn’t know that he is liable to him, for pleading ignorance or offering a possible alternative is not preferable to a certainty, But alternatively, if he would make a claim to him that he doesn’t have in his hand anything, he would have him take the equitable oath. (This is applied, if one who is sued for a debt, denies the latter entirely, in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the claim. It being presumed that nobody will go to law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant. See Talmud Shevuot 40b)."
            ],
            [
                "חייב באחריותו – for once he stole it, it exists in his domain, and the restoration that he made is not a restoration (without notifying the owner of such).",
                "ואם לא ידעו בו וכו' – This is how our Mishnah is reconciled, he is responsible for it, whether he counted them or not. When is this case? When they (i.e., the owners) did not know of its theft and its restoration. But if they knew of the theft and counted the sheep and found it (i.e., the number) to be complete, he is exempt from paying. And this is its explanation: if the lamb died or was stolen after the thief returned it, the thief is responsible for it – whether the owners had counted the sheep and it is complete, or whether they had not counted the sheep. When is this the case? When the owners did not know about the theft of the lamb, for any of the sheep that regularly go outside, he must be careful with it even more, and this is the case, for since the owners did not know about its theft or that it was accustomed to leave, and they were not careful with it. The thief is liable to pay as the sheep were lost because of his indirect effect. But, if the owners knew about the theft of the lamb, and afterwards counted the sheep and found it to be complete, as the stolen lamb had been returned. If so, they already know that there is one sheep that regularly leaves outside, and they have to be careful with it. But if they were not careful, they would lose, and the thief is exempt from having to pay."
            ],
            [
                "אין לוקחין מן הרועים – for one can say that perhaps they (i.e., the shepherds) stole – we found that of the owner that was handed over to them.",
                "צמר ביהודה ופשתן בגליל – it is the labor of women, and they themselves make it and sell it, with the knowledge of their owners.",
                "ועגלים הרוים בשרון – the name of a place (i.e. Sharon) where they raise calves and they are theirs."
            ],
            [
                "מוכין שהכובס מוציא – from the white matter of the wool, he removes from the wool a small thing through rinsing with cold water.",
                "הרי אלו שלו – for the [house] holder is not stringent, but if he had been stringent, he did not mind that it should be exactly as he wanted it (i.e., he had no legal objection).",
                "ושהמורק מוציא – He who combs the wool and hatchels it, what he removes is an important matter, and they are regularly strict.",
                "הכובס נוטל שלשה חוטים – it is the manner of wool garments to leave at the end of their weaving three threads from a different kind. And the washer/launderer takes them and harmonizes the garment and beautifies it. But if there are black threads woven into a white garment, the washer is permitted to take everything because the black in a white [garment] puts it to shame the most.",
                "החייט ששייר מן החוט כדי לתפור בו – which is as long as the needle.",
                "והמטלית שהיא שלש על שלש – we have the reading חייט/tailor who evened his stitches and trimmed from it a small patch three fingers by three fingers, he is liable to return it to the owner of the garment.",
                "מעצד – a utensil/tool that a carpenter uses to smooth the face of the board and the chips that he removes are thin.",
                "כשיל – a hatchet/spade that removes the large chips.",
                "אצל בעל הבית – as a day [paid] laborer.",
                "אף הנסורת – extremely thin [sawdust] that is under the borer which are very thin belong to the owner of the house."
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah",
        "Comment"
    ]
}