json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Rambam/Seder Nezikin/Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Bava_Kamma",
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "Four fathers of damages; the Ox and the Pit and the 'Maaveh' ",
                "These 4 principles from damages, they are the damages that are to do with one's property. ",
                "And the Ox implies the legs of the Ox, as it's said, it damages what it tramples and it breaks what it breaks and ruins in the way of his walking with his legs. And the 'Maaveh' implies the tooth (of the Ox), and its damage is the result of his eating what he eats from it. It's called with this name from its action since it uproots and seeks what it eats, as it says (Obadiah 1:6): How uprooted is Esau, how sought out (Maaveh) his hidden things.  ",
                "The Ox is not like the Maaveh ",
                "Implying that it was necessary for the Torah to delineate each of these 4 damagers one by one because it is impossible to learn out one from the other through a 'kal ve chomer' (lesser to more severe exegesis), that since in each of them there is in it a principle which is not in the other, therefore comparison is not appropriate. The Legs whose damage is common is not comparable to the Tooth whose damage is not common. And it is not comparable, the Tooth, that there is in it benefit to the damage to compare to the Legs that there is not benefit in the damage. And it is not comparable, this and this, that there are in them spirit of life, to compare to the Fire that does not have in it spirit of life. And not, this and this, that on the road they go forth and damage to compare to the Pit that does not go forth on the road and damage. Thus in each and every one of them there is in it a principle which is not found in the others so it is necessary for scripture to explain each one from them that they are obligated in damages. And this is not to say that if God may his name be blessed wrote the law of pit and one from the remaining three, we wouldn't learn from them the remaining two in the way of tzaad ha shaveh (exegesis) as is alluded to, however scripture partitioned into 4 laws to establish all from them have a law apart from the other. Tooth and Legs are exempt in the public domain, Pit is exempt from vessels, Fire is exempt from concealed items and further this will all be explained. And it was not necessary to mention at all the 'father'- 'Horn' (of the ox) because there is in it a difference if it's 'Accustomed' and 'Simple' as is explained in scripture. ",
                "And we say the common principle that is in them etc... ",
                "Implying everything whose way is to do damage, it is upon you to guard it, if it damages, the damager is obligated to fulfill the payment of damage with the best of the land as we have already explained, the best of the field and land he shall pay. And this has already been explained to us in the fifth section of gittin. And these fathers have offspring that are subcategories, the Legs, if it damages with its body or its hair as it's walking. The offspring of the Tooth that it rubs against a wall for its benefit or spoils fruits for its benefit. The offspring of Fire; a stone, a knife, or a load are placed on the top of a roof and fall because of a typical wind and damage. The offspring of Pit- spit and phlegm which come out from someone. And further these laws will be explained with their principles and sub-categories."
            ],
            [
                "\"All that I am obligated to guard, I have enabled its damage etc... \"",
                "This (usage) of “hechsher” in the Mishnah is the name that falls upon instances prepared to receive a law from these laws like is explained at the beginning of (mesechta) eruvin. And it says ‘All that one is obligated to guard’ that it does not do damage to a person, that thing is prepared that whenever it damages, even if the owner is not aware, to obligate him to make payment since he did not guard it and this is the reason we say he enabled the damage, thus he enabled all of it. If he enables a part of the damage he is obligated in all the damage, as if he enabled all the damage, for example, a pit as is mentioned, is only obligated in what is appropriate for it. That a pit is obligated in damages once it is dug to 10 handbreadths, and there is not a difference whether he digs a pit of 10 handbreadths or he dug an (additional) handbreadth from a pit that was dug to 9 handbreadths to make it dug to 10, that since he has made it appropriate to damage that it is as if he dug it from the beginning, and this is why it says that ‘if he has enabled a part of the damage he is obligated to pay for all damages as he enabled all of the damage’. ",
                "After this the Tanna gives five conditions and says that a man is not obligated to pay for damages caused by his property if one of these 5 conditions is missing: The First. That it is not consecrated as holy, for example, if his ox was a sin offering or a burnt offering and it damages, he is not obligated to pay a thing, and this is the idea when we say it is not ‘meilah’, since if one benefits from consecrated property that he is obligated in a meilah sacrifice [as has been explained in mesechta meilah]. And the second. That he damages a son of the covenant, but if the ox of a Jew gores the ox of a Canaanite, the Jew does not pay anything as is explained. And the third, that those possessions which caused from them damage should be identifiable and the owner identifiable, but if one says it is your ox that damaged and the other says it was your ox that damaged and it is not known which ox of these oxen did damage or if the ox is ownerless and damages, that since it doesn’t have an identifiable owner at the time it damaged there is no owner to be obligated to pay for the damage. But if someone else acquires the ox which did damage after it damaged, it has in it as all the rules of all ownerless property (ie, the owner of the damaged ox cannot claim a lien on the damaging ox as is the case with owned property, rather anyone can acquire the damaging ox and there is no lien upon it). The fourth, that the damage was done outside the personal domain of the damager, but if the ox of Reuven entered the house of Shimon and was damaged, Shimon is not obligated in anything, as he will say to him ‘your ox was in my domain, what was it doing there?’ And if Shimon himself damaged it, eg he struck it and it was wounded or died, he is obligated to pay, as he (Reuven) will say to him- ‘you have permission to move him but you do not have permission to damage him’. The fifth, that the damage happens in an area they both are allowed to be, for example, that there was a field owned by the damagee and damager and the ox of the damager damages the field with the Tooth of the Foot, they are not obligated in anything. But if it damages with the Horn he is obligated as will be explained. And it’s explained that this is as long as it’s a place that they both own that is set aside for fruits and oxen, but if it was specifically for fruits and one of the partners went over and brought his ox in and he damaged with Tooth or Foot, he is obligated, even though they both have permission to be there. When all these conditions are complete and there is damage, the damager is obligated to complete the payment of damage with the best of the land. "
            ],
            [
                "\"Evaluations are in money and things equal to money, before a court and witnesses etc.. \"",
                "That since we brought up these instances of damage with the conditions where a man is obligated to pay for all the damages caused by his possessions, and now (the Mishnah) begins to explain how to make payment and says that evaluation of damages should be made in money, and we don’t say take out from this thing (that damaged), for example, if an ox eats fruits we do not say to the owner of the fruits to take out from the ox the portion which he ate for yourself, rather, we assess what he ate for himself in money and we force the owner of the ox to pay. ",
                "And that it says ‘an equivalence of money’ implies that since the court does not say to pay for damages for one who inherits (literally 'orphans') a liability except from land, not from that which is movable, since movable things are themselves money. And says that since they don’t confiscate except what is equivalent to money, which is land, and this law applies specifically to inheritors. However if the damager himself pays his portion that he damaged from moveable objects, the hand of the court will be removed from his land. ",
                "And that evaluation and payment will not be made except in a court of experts and not laymen. And with witnesses that are free men and jewish but not the testimony of slaves or gentiles, that it was necessary to exclude them, because it may arise in your mind to give in and be lenient in testimony for damages, because it happens a lot, and it is rare that there happens to be upon them at the time kosher witnesses, that since collisions between people and between animals mostly happen in the presence of simple people and slaves and gentiles. Therefore it lets us know that we only accept in court kosher witnesses as we say with other testimony. ",
                "And there is no distinction between men and women in damages whether she damages or gets damaged. ",
                "And what we say that the damagee and the damager share in payment allude to matters where they are obligated in half damages as will be explained that the damager pays half the damage and the damagee will lose half, and this half also will not happen except when full damages apply, implying with witnesses and a court of experts and the possessions of jews and the rest of the conditions, apart from what we said with the best of the land because this is not fitting for half damages as will be explained. "
            ],
            [
                "\"5 Simple ones and 5 Accustomed ones, an animal is not Accustomed etc... \"",
                "What is the difference between Simple and Accustomed? Etc... ",
                "It's called Simple the thing that does not damage regularly and it's not its way that there should come from it specifically damage rather it happened as happenstance. And it's called Accustomed this thing which regularly comes from it this action, always or most of the time. And goring will only be with the horn, and butting will be with whatever limb it happens to be from the limbs of the body. ",
                "The Accustomed ox that is said about it that the owner had been warned etc..  that it gores typically. ",
                "And what that it says the ox that damages in the domain of the damagee, it is the opinion of those that hold [that] even the Simple in the domain of the damaged pays the full damage and this law is akin to the law of Accustomed. And further it's explained that the law is not like this.  ",
                "And this Mishnah is lacking, and the language should be completed to say thus- There are 5 Simple from the beginning, and if warned, they are accustomed Accustomed, and Tooth and Legs are Accustomed from the outset, and there are other Accustomed ones just like them, they are the wolf etc...  ",
                "And why it was not necessary to count out all of them and say there are 11 Accustomed is since it is uncommon that it happens in a settlement, all the more so it's not seen in a city. ",
                "And the panther is the animal which is called in the Arabic language eltzva ",
                "And what that it says from the best implies from the best of his possessions and the choicest from them. Similarly it's said that the damage is assessed for them with the best fields. ",
                "And the halakah is not like R Eliezer. "
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "In which manner is it that the leg is accustomed to break in its way of walking... The main idea of this whole type of damage, that it is all damage that comes from an animal while it is doing what it's accustomed to do all the time or most of the time. This is the case that is said about it that it is normal and full damages are paid.  And that which is not normal, that there will be in it a thing that it did that was uncommon for it, or that it came through an intermediary of another action, and the animal, the one that did that deed, was not the primary catalyst, for this he's obligated in half damages and this is the half damage he's obligated in for pebbles that shoot out from under his feet. That he pays (is assessed for) the full amount of damage, as it's explained in the 8th perek of this tractate.  And the explanation of 'a bucket'- a thing that was tied to its foot or it was jumping and digs its feet into the ground.  And this the chicken does more than other birds."
            ],
            [
                "How is the tooth accustomed to eat what is appropriate for it...  What that it says in what matters is this said returns upon what that it said it eats fruits or vegetables, but eating garments or vessels in the public domain obligates in half damages since it is the way of people to place garments or vessels in the public domain for when they are needed.  And the explanation of what that it benefits, that he pays for items which are appropriate for its portion of eating from things it's normal for the animal to eat, for example, a donkey that ate 10 liters of dates, the master pays for the donkey the value of 10 liters of barley.  And if it was the price of barley was more he pays the value of the dates alone, and like this is the way to evaluate and judge. And when it was placed in the midst of the market and turned to the side and ate, then he pays what he damaged."
            ],
            [
                "A dog or a goat jumped from a roof etc... A thin cake and sometimes that coals attach to it.  And When they are eaten in the field and they ignite the field with that coal, behold in his eating of the cake he is acting normal and he pays full damages.  And for lighting the field, it's different, and therefore he pays half damages.  (other versions translate differently- saying he pays half because it is pebbles)."
            ],
            [
                "Which is unaccustomed and which is accustomed: 'Touching' implies touching it and pulling it and it does not gore. And the halacha is like Rav Yehuda in the explanation of the accustomed ox and the halacha is like Rav Meir in the explanation of a simple ox. And all the time that the ox is accustomed to gore it does not return to its unaccustomed status until that children can play with it and it does not damage by goring."
            ],
            [
                "An ox that damages in the domain of the damager, how is this? It pushes… When it's learned out one law from another with 'lesser to severe' exegesis, It should not be that what we derive (has a penalty) is greater than what we learn from, rather it should be like it.  And this is what it says 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling'. And there is not in this a disagreement because this is from the Torah, that it says with Miriam 'and if her father spits in her face, would she not be embarrassed for 7 days', all the more so for the divine presence.  That if the father gets angry with her she separates from him for seven days, all the more so he who God may his name be blessed gets angry at, that it's appropriate that he be isolated for more days, however, the verse says to isolate for 7 days, behold, there, the law of the divine presence which is learned from the father is like the law of the father. And thus the main point of disagreement of Rav Tarfon and the sages is this, that since Rav Tarfon says at the end, what that we say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling', that when we want to obligate this thing which we learned out from another law that we did not learn out previously, and thus there will not be in it a ruling greater than the ruling from which we learned it out from.  Like that we learned that when the divine presence is angry she secludes for 7 days and this thing was not known before this, however, that when there will be by us a known law of one of these things like half damages, and after that we learn this with a lesser to more severe exegesis, if it does not add to the law and obligate to pay full damages, it will be that this exegesis is in vain and does not add a thing to our knowledge, that this half damage was known without a lesser to more severe exegesis. And in a case like this, we do not say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling' because there does not come a ruling, rather half damages are known.  And the sages say even in a case like this, we say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling' since it does not come from a ruling, rather we know it was (half) damage  [other editions remove from 'Since']. And thus I explained to you this idea that it should not rise in your mind that Rabbi Tarfon does not hold by this rule ('it's enough...') in other places since he believes like this in this place alone, that he does not hold by this as we explained.  And the halakha is like the sages."
            ],
            [
                "A man is accustomed always, whether by accident or intentional etc... Like that a person is sleeping and comes another and sleeps at his side, the second is accustomed with regard to the first.  And if the second damages the first, he's obligated (to pay damages).  And if the first damages, that he was asleep first the other who came to sleep at his side, he is exempt.  And if the two lay down together,  all who do damage from them to their friend are obligated, since they are both accustomed to each other."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "A jug is placed in the public domain... And the jug broke in the public domain and someone was slipped in the water... The general rule by us, it is not the way of people to pay attention to the road, therefore, if a person comes and trups on it, he is exempt, and we do not say to him you should have noticed where you were going. And what that it says, if the jug broke and someone slipped in the water, they're obligated, the idea is that when a person damages at the time they are falling or they break another thing- the stumbler (who dropped the jug initially) is obligated to pay what he damaged. This is the opinion of Rav Meir, that he says if someone stumbles, he is negligent, but the sages say that he was not at fault at the time of the falling and he's not obligated in anything. The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that he says the stumbler is negligent, if he intended to take the shards. Therefore he is not at fault as we explain it is as if no one ever owned the shards. And the halakah is like Rabbi Yehuda and not like Rabbi Meir."
            ],
            [
                "If someone pours water in the public doman and it damages another...... What that it says if someone hid thorns or glass or made a fence out of thorns and someone is damaged by them, he's obligated Because it's an established principle that it's not the way of people to rub against walls."
            ],
            [
                "If a man put out his chopped straw or stubble in the public domain....",
                "This that we said all who get there first is entitled to it, it is a fine.",
                "And cattle dung, even at the season of taking out of manure, if it damages, they are obligated."
            ],
            [
                "2 potmakers that were walking one after the other... This is when the faller is able to get up and he doesn't get up, rather he remains lying until the other trips over him And the halachah is like Rav Yehuda in the explanation of the accustomed ox and the halachah is like Rav Meir in the explanation of a simple ox. And therefore (he is obligated, but) if he is not able to get up and the other falls on him, he is not obligated, as we explain, if he trips it is an accident "
            ],
            [
                "This is all clear"
            ],
            [
                "Two that were going in the public domain, one was running etc... ... The idea by us is that he who is running is different and if he damages any man at the time of his running, he is obligatged Unless that time is the eve of shabbasim or the eve of holidays because people are rushing to do matters of mitzvot. And because of this, this (mishnah) is lacking, and it's appropriate to say thus, if 1 was running and 1 was walking on the eve of shabbosim or the holidays or that it was 2 were running on the other days of the year and they damage each other, they are exempt."
            ],
            [
                "It lets us know that the chopper, if he damages, he is obligated, whether he is on his own property or if he is not on his own property, and whether he damages in a place where many are found, and this is a public domain, or in a place where the many are not found, and this is a private domain."
            ],
            [
                "He pays the balance, that he should evaluate how much this one is obligated for what he damaged and how much the second is obligated also, and if the damages are equivalent, this one and this one go out (with nothing)... And if the damages of one of them were more, that it was appropriate for one to pay more than what is appropriate for the other to pay, he who damaged more pays the difference. And it is not necessary to give an example because this is clear. And that the pasuk says ' if it gores a minor man or woman, like this judgement should be done to it. It's a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and the sages in the explanation of this pasuk, the sages say like the judgement of one ox to another ox so too the judgement [of an ox] to a person, meaning to say that the unaccustomed is obligated in half damages and the accustomed full damages. and this has already reached us that all agree that a man is always accustomed. And Rabbi Akiva says like this judgement refers to the accustomed cow, because the pasuk comes to speak about this matter, thus it will be in general the law of an ox that damages a man whether it is accustomed of unaccustomed And the halakhah is not like Rabbi Akiva"
            ],
            [
                "An ox is worth a manah (100 dinarim) gores an ox worth 200 (dinarim): An ox worth 200 that gores an ox worth 200:... It's a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir [when the carcass is increased in value]. And this is because the idea in our hands [is that] the carcass goes to the owner meaning to say to the damagee, and they evaluate it to him based on it's value. And this is what that it says in the pasuk 'and the dead one will be to him and he (the damager) will pay him half damages above if it was innocuous , or full damages if it was accustomed. Since what that it says Hashem (the torah) that they divide the money implying that he is obligated in only half damages. And this is what that they said the diminishment that the death causes- they split, and this is how it appears to one who examines it. And what that it's said and they should sell the live ox means to say that the innocuous pays half damage from itself like we said before, and there is not a dispute in these issues. But there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda when a carcass is worth near the (time of) death, for example, a dinar and increases it's value and It's worth before they appear in court 2 dinarim, Rabbi Yehuda says (the pasuk says) \"and also the dead they should split\" and calculate to him a dinar and a half, and pays him half damages, since the dinar it increased, they split it And Rabbi Meir says it's not for him except the dinar that it was worth at the time it died, like it's said, 'and the carcass will be to him', as if to say whatever the carcass increases in it's dead state, goes to the damage. And just like this, when the carcass is not worth anything at all at the time of death, and afterwards it becomes worth money, R. Meir says, 'it's not calculated that money, rather pay him half damages, and this is what it says that we say 'and they should sell the living ox and divide the money. And R. Yehuda says 'calculate for half of the value of the carcass since it's value is all profit since it was not worth anything at the time of death. And this is what R. Yehuda says to disagree with him, keeps 'sell the live ox' he does not keep 'and also the dead they divide'. And the halakhah is like R. Yehuda"
            ],
            [
                "Further it will be explained to you since someone who embarrasses you, and even a man is not obligated for embarrasing until there was intentention. All the more so if an ox embarrasses he is exempt.  And it's already known that the principle by us is that a man does not die and pay, and this is explained in the 3rd chapter of kesubos.  And what that it says that he blinded the eye of a slave and knocked out his tooth that he is obligated wants to imply that the slave goes out free like is explained in the pasuk.  This is the obligation he is obligated in."
            ],
            [
                "All this is explained and clear and what that it says... that one who takes (restitution) from his friend on him is the onus, if he doesn't bring proof, there is nothing to him. And even the matter he admits to him he damages is not to him, when he says an innocuous ox damaged or a small animal damaged because the principle in our hand with that he claimed wheat and he acknowledged to him barley, he is exempt even from the value of barley, but if the damagee seized the portion of what he acknowledged to him barley, he is exempt even from the value of barley, but if the damagee seized the portion what the damager acknowledged to him, he gets to keep it, and we do not take it from his hand. and so too if it came into the domain of the claimant of wheat the portion what was acknowledged to him of barley we don't take it from his hand"
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "An ox that gores 4 or 5 oxen one after the other... We already explained in (tractate) kesuvos that a gold dinar is worth 25 silver dinarim and when the damagee too possession of the ox to recover the money, and it went out from under his hand and it damaged another, the next damagee collects complete half damages and if there is extra he will return to the previous one. And R. Shimon does not disagree since he took possession of it, he becomes with this a paid watchman and he's obligated in damges. And all these laws, they are for an innocuous ox that the principle in our hands is that he pays for the body, as we've explained. But if it was accustomed, we don't need any of this because he pays full damages uncapped. And the halakah is like R. Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "An ox that is accustomed for it's species is not accustomed... We say that it was accustomed to 1 species but it's not accustomed to other species rather it is regarded as innocuous until it is accustomed. And as it says an ox that is accustomed to it's own species is not accustomed to a different species and thus the principle for all these halakos regarding an innocuous ox. And the words of R. Yehuda are correct."
            ],
            [
                "When it happens that there is a case where a jew is judged with a canaanite, the principle of law between them is: if there is merit to our case according to their laws, we go by their laws, and we say to them this is your law... and if it's better for us to go by our laws, we should judge with our laws and we say to them this is our law.  And don't wonder about this and it shouldn't be difficult in your eyes since that who does not have complete characteristics of people (implying characteristics of justice between man and his friend, which keeps together a group of people) in truth are not included in people, and what is to be said on this topic would require a speech for itself."
            ],
            [
                "An ox of a competent person that gores an ox of a deaf-mute or incompetent person.... When it becomes accustomed to gore an ox of a deaf, deranged, or minor, to damage people, at that time we appoint to them stewards. \"A stadium\"... An ox that people accustom it to do as follows: that this one sends his ox and this one sends his ox and they signal to them with a sound that they are familiar with so that they will try to over power the other ox to see which one of them will win over his friend. And this is not the nature of the ox, rather, the will of their owner. And many sinful people do this with many types of animals and birds."
            ],
            [
                "An ox that gores a person and they die, if it's accustomed, pays etc.... An ox that was accustomed to people, that many situations, from among them it gored 3 canaanites before it gored a jew."
            ],
            [
                "The idea they're saying is that he's exempt, ie exempt from the death penalty, rather he's obligated in restitution if he was accustomed to this deed.  As if to say that he is accustomed to rub against walls so that they fall on people. And also all other cases like this."
            ],
            [
                "An ox of women, an ox of orphans... (hazor s/b nizkor) It is mentioned by the Torah the word ox with regard to damages of the ox 7 times, 1 for it itself, and the other six is to include all of these things (that are listed here). And they are the ox of a women, the ox of an orphan etc... And the halakah is not like Rabbi Yehuda"
            ],
            [
                "An ox that goes out to be stoned and it's consecrated The Torah is saying the ox should be stoned, and it's flesh shall not be eaten. And since it's decreed upon it to be stoned, how is it possible to eat it? rather it's necessary to say 'it should not be eaten' to prohibit benefit."
            ],
            [
                "Tied up with it's reigns or closed the door appropriately The word 'reigns' (moserah) is the rope or something similar that we tie it up with. And the halakah is like Rabbi Yehudah but is obligated to slaughter so that it removes the possibility to damage."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "An ox that gores a cow and a fetus was found at it's side: This mishanh is according to the opinion of Sumchos, who he says money that lies in doubt you divide. And if it would become clear to us that after it miscarried this fetus, that it was gored, we would not obligate for the fetus anything. And similarly if it became revealed to us it was gored while it was pregnant, and it miscarried, he will be obligated half damages even for the fetus. And since there's a doubt he pays a fourth of the value of the fetus, that is a half of a half, and this is in the case of a innocuous. And if it was accustomed he pays complete damages for the cow and half damages for the fetus. And thus that when a cow gores an ox and is found it's fetus at it's side, if the (goring) cow is found, you take the half damage from the body of the cow, just like usual. And if the cow was lost and not found, and yet the fetus is found, we pay from the fetus a quarter of the damages since that if it became revealed to us while it was still in it's womb when it gored the law would have been that they pay half damages from the fetus, because this principle has been explained- a pregnanant cow, it and the fetus gores. And since it is a doubt you pay a quarter as has been explained. And the halakah is not like Sumchos in all of this discussion, rather like the Rabbis who say one who takes out from his friend upon him is the onus. And even if the damagee says 'I am positive' (you owe money) and the (alleged) damager says 'I don't know', we do not take from him anything except with proof."
            ],
            [
                "A potter that brings his pots into a courtyard of a homeowner etc... What it is saying with the fruits, that if it (the animal) was damaged from them... means to say if (the animal) stumbled on them, but if it happened to him damage from eating them, he is not obligated in anything in any matter. That the owner of the fruits did not accept upon himself the guarding of the animal of the house owner and it was not to him that it shouldn't eat."
            ],
            [
                "A person brought in an ox to a courtyard of a homeowner without permission etc...",
                "this is the case where that ox was 'accustomed' to fall on people in pits, therefore he's obligated to pay the ransom, specifically when he makes himself fall there because of food that he saw in the pit, and therefore the ox is not obligated to be killed.  And the halakah is like Rebbi that he says that the owner of the house is not obligated in anything if he did not accept upon himself to guard it, and similarly the owner of the ox is not obligated in anything since he had permission to enter."
            ],
            [
                "An ox that was intending for his friend and struck etc....",
                "Because it wants to discuss that if a man is intending (to strike) his friend, it says an ox who intends (to strike) his friend, and there's no difference whether the ox intended for an ox and struck a woman or he intended to the woman herself, he is not obligated the value of the fetus since the torah does not obligate in this, rather a man only.  And what that it says with a convert, that he is exempt for the fetus, does not mean to say that when she converted that she was already pregnant, as this is clear to us, rather it means to say that she got [pregnant] [SUBSTITUTE: attacked] in the life of (her husband) the convert and the convert died or she miscarried after the death of the convert, because the principle in our hand is when there is a husband, the torah endowed it to him, when there is not it is not endowed to him.  Therefore he is not obligated in the value of the fetus when there is not to this convert heirs, meaning to say 'sons' that were born in the jewish religion and their conceiving was when they were jewish.  And we already know the words of Rabban Shimeon ben Gamliel, is it true that when a woman for whom she gives birth (her husband), she increases (in value)- and she does not have any portion in the increase of value at all?  And this is what Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel says, yes, the value of the fetuses are to the husband but the value of (the woman, caused by the) fetus is divided.  And the Sages say the increase from the pregnancy is to the husband.  Therefore the first tanna evaluates the increase (of the woman) and the value (of the fetus) and gives everything to the husband.  And in this the gemora explains the words of the first tanna and says how we evaluate the value of the fetus, we evaluate the woman how much she was worth etc...  And the halakah is not like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel."
            ],
            [
                "If someone digs a pit in a private domain and opens it in a public domain...He digs a pit in the public domain and an ox falls into it.",
                "All this is clear and does not need to be explained."
            ],
            [
                "A pit of 2 partners and the first one passed by etc... The first one covers it and the second comes and finds it uncovered etc....",
                "[The ox] falls forward from the sound of the digging that it will trip by the edge of the pit because of the sound of the digging that the digger digs in the ground of the pit and [the ox] falls into the midst of the pit and thus the owner of the pit is obligated.  However if it falls backwards and the case is that it had already passed the pit and it tripped [on it's edge] and returned backwards and fell back onto the pit, he is exempt, except if he falls into the pit and then he is obligated in whichever of the two scenarios that it will be.  ",
                "And the torah says 'he falls there an ox or a donkey' and we receive in the explanation of this passage 'an ox' and not a person, 'a donkey' and not vessels.  And he will not also be obligated for the animal except when it will be a deaf mute or a deranged or a child, but an ox that is an adult and intelligent is not obligated for this at all because he [the owner of the pit] is able to tell him it needs to look and go."
            ],
            [
                "Whether an ox or whether any animal that falls in a pit etc...",
                "All this is clear and it does need explanation.  However what it says 'diverse kinds' that this alludes to what it says 'you should not plow with an ox and with a donkey together'.  And it says any 2 types of animal are thus, you can not plow with them, and not to pull them together and this rabbinic.  However from the torah it is not forbidden to plow to pull and lead except a clean animal and an unclean only.  Similar to an ox and a donkey. And already explained this in the eighth chapter of tractate 'mixtures'."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "One who brings sheep into a pen and locked (a gate) in front of it appropriately etc...",
                "Appropriately, this is that he will put in the place that he brought (them) in there a door that will not cause to fall because of a common wind.  And what that it says 'the bandits brought it out' is not to say they took out the animals with their hands, because this is clear.  Rather it implies when they were the cause for their exit.  For example they stood before them until they backed off from them to another side and they try to lose them and it is as if they took them out with their hands."
            ],
            [
                "if he left it in the sun (typo in sefaria ... be chama not behema) or if he gave it to a deaf mute, an imbecile, or a child ....",
                "It is the way of shepards that there is to them helpers under their hand, they will give over to them flocks of sheep to guard them.  And it says also that when the main shepard gives over to the other shepards who are under his hand, they enter in his place and when it damages, he will be obligated in the damage- the second shepard which is under the main shepard, and not the first shepard that is the main shepard.  And we do not say in this case a guardian who gives over to a guardian is obligated, because the customs of shepards is as such.  ",
                "And the topic of it falling, for example, he trips on a stone or a tree and falls, but that when it pushed some of the sheep to some others and they fall and damage, he pays what they damaged, that this was the cause of the damage...  that when he passed them all at one time and their way is that some push others, and it would have been appropriate to pass them one by one.",
                "We have already explained in the second chapter how it is the law of what we said that it pays what it benefited from.  And the idea of the evaluation for that which it damaged in this way.  And it is that we will know the amount of the field, we say how much is the value of the plantings of a 60 cubits field from these vegetables or these fruits.  And once we know that value, after this we will say how much is the value () of this portion from the field that has in it 60 cubits of this type of seed, and this cubit that the animil ate which sprouted from the group of 60 cubits and we know what is the difference between the two evaluations and he will pay the damages.  And similarly whatever amount the animal eats will be evaluated in 60 parts like that (ie if he ate 1 pound we evaluate as a field with 60 pounds), and this is the principle which we said 'in that field' (in the mishnah) means to say if he ate a Seah it will be evaluated with 60 Seahs in that (type of) field.  And there is an allusion to what is said by God (in the torah) \"and it will eat in the field of another\" and we learn based on a tradition that it teaches we evaluate as a portion of a different field.  And this law is in order to  make a compromise between the damagee and the damager, because if we were to say, \"how much is the value of a an amah that he ate of sprouted fruit\" He would obligagted in a lot of money, and if we said also how much this field is worth with this seed as such and such Seahs(ie the actual field- which is generally much larger than 60 Seahs).  And we'll say afterwards how much is it worth after it was eaten from it 1 cubit it comes out that it will be the difference between the 2 amounts- a very small amount- because there is not an amount to the purchaser that is 1 cubit in a thousand is not comparable to the amount of 1 in 60 cubits.  And thus they calculated this as a 60th, just like most amounts by us are a 60th as is explained in tractate Chulin. ",
                "And Rebbe Shimon says that this law is concerning fruits that needs the field to complete ripening.  And this is why we evaluate as part of the filed as we have explained.  However complete fruit their law is as if they are detached, and they will not be evaluated except for the amount what it ate alone.  And the law is like Rebbe Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "One who stacks in the midst of a field of his friend without permission etc....",
                "Since we have said the guardian of the field in a valley and to any person they can stack in the midst of the field, and he gives him permission... Behold it is as if he has accepted upon himself to guard it.  And therefore the guard will be obligated.  And even though he did not tell him 'I will guard it'... However the owner of a house we have explained that he is not obligated until he accepts upon himself to guard it."
            ],
            [
                "One who sends a fire in the hand deaf mute, an deranged person, or a child etc...  One who sends a fire and it consumes trees or stones etc....  a fire passes a fence higher than 4 cubits etc... One who kindles in the midst of his own domain, until how much the fire burns etc....",
                "What that it says, Rebbe Shimon says \"Its all according to the kindling\" means to imply we observe the size of the fire that he burned and we estimate how much is the end what it is able to go out.  And we say in the way of a example, if it was possible in the majority of cases that it will kindle from it's flame until a distance of 20 cubits, and all that it consumes within the 20 cubits, he is obligated, if it consumes outside his domain.  And if it continued outside the 20 cubits of the kindling at a greater distance, he is exempt, because it's a thing outside the known measurement (that a fire can travel), as if it passed a river or a fence higher than 4 cubits.  And the halakah is like Rebbe Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "One who lights a stack of grain and there were vessels and they burned etc...",
                "That he lights in his own domain and it went, and it consumed in the domain of his friend; in this example the sages say he only pays for the tack but not the vessels.  However we evaluate the place (displacement) of those vessels as if they were full of grain.  But if he kindled a stack of his friend he pays for vessels that are inside of it.  And only vessels that are normal to place in the stack, for example a plow or a winnower[look up].  But aside from these types of vessels he is not obligated except for the amount of the body from the grain as we mentioned.  And if he lit the tower, the owner of the house swears on what was inside of it a Torah oath and the one who lights it will pay all the owner of the house swears on it.  And only the evaluation that there is to him the amount he says he lost inside the fire.  And the halakah is not like Rav Yehudah."
            ],
            [
                "A spark that emerges from under the hammer and damages, is liable, etc...",
                "And the halakah is not like Rebbe Yehudah"
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "It's more broad principles of payemnt of 'double' than principles of payment etc...",
                "They said in Sifra 'On anything of negligence' is a generality, 'on an ox and on a donkey and on a sheep and on a garment' is a specification, 'on all lost items' returns and generalizes; a generalization and a specification and a generalization, you don't judge this except that which is like the specification. [see here for more https://outorah.org/p/6471/]  Just as the specifications, as is explained, is a thing that is moveable, and they are inherently worth money, [this applies] also to anything moveable and worth money.  This excludes land that is not moveable, it excludes slaves, as there is an (biblical) association to land.  It excludes contracts that even though they are moveable, they are not inherently worth money.  And from this law it is clear to you that payment of double is made with living things and with non living things."
            ],
            [
                "He steals on the basis of 2 and slaughters or sells on their word (testimony of witnesses) or on the basis of 2 (others) etc..That when he slaughters with his own hand on Yom Kippur he is not obligated to pay 4 or 5 fold because because he's obligated in spiritual excision and furthermore, it will be explained to you in tractate 'Lashes', That all who are obligated in spiritual excision get lashes.  And it's a set rule by us that a person does not get killed [and/or get lashes] and pay, however he is obligated to pay 4 or 5 fold when he gives to another person to slaughter for him on Yom Kippur.  And similar to this if another slaughters for him on Shabbat or for idol worship, he's obligated to pay because the rule in our hand is that there's no difference between that he slaughters it himself or another slaughters for him, regarding payment.  And the evidence to this is what the Torah says 'or he sold it' and we learn through a tradition 'or' is to include a messenger (slaughter or sell it).And when he steals from his father and slaughters it or sells it he pays 4 or 5 fold to his brothers and calculates for them their portion in this.  And we already explained in the second chapter of 'Consecrations' that secular meat that was slaughtered in the temple grounds is forbidden to gain benefit from, however because this prohibition is rabbinic, one who slaughters secular meat inside (the temple) is obligated to pay 4 or 5 fold according to the Rabbis. And the halakah is not like Rebbi Shimon.",
                "He steals on the basis of 2 and slaughters or sells on the basis of 2...",
                "It is known to us in this law that his admission that he sold or slaughtered it is similar to testimony of a single witness about him in this... just as the testimony of a single witness, if comes a second and testifies the testimony is confirmed and he's obligated in the payment of 4 or 5 fold, and similarly that he admits that he slaughtered or sold, if witnesses come after this and testify that he slaughtered or sold it, he pays, and we do not say 'one who aknowledges a fine is exempt, and that since he admitted when there were not witnesses there he is exempt', rather the whole time that witnesses come, he's obligated.  And this is when he denies the actual theft before the witnesses of the theft come, and after the witnesses of the theft come he admitted to the theft and the sale or slaughter.  But if he admits to the actual theft before witnesses come he is exempt from paying the 4 or 5 fold even if witnesses of the slaughter or sale come after this."
            ],
            [],
            [
                "He steals on the basis of 2 and slaughters or sells on the basis of 1 etc... [and it is also like this in the printing of Napoli] He steals and slaughters in shabbat, he steals and slaughters for idolatry etc....",
                "The disagreement between Rav Shimon and the Rabbis is it is not in whom that stole and consecrated, rather it is in whom steals something that is consecrated and slaughters it or sells... The rabbis say it was stolen from the \"house of the man\" (as the torah says) and not from the temple.  And Rav Shimon says consecrated items that he is obligated in their responsibility the possession of the owners they are, and therefore 'it is stolen from the house of the man' we can read into the situation.  And it has thus ben explained in the first (perek) of Megilah that 'Nedavos' you are not obligated in their responsibility and it is when he says behold this is a burnt offering or a peace offering.  And Rav Shimon does not obligate one to pay 4 or 5 fold for one who steals a consecrated animal that he is obligated in it's responsibility and slaughtered unless he slaughters it in the temple courtyard for the sake of the owner or if it is a blemished animal and it is slaughtered outside he courtyard, because anything standing to be redeemed it is as if it is redeemed.  And the law of a blemished animal is that they should be redeemed as is explained in it's place.  However if you slaughter these outside and they are complete without blemish you are not obligated at all because it is slaughtered invalidly.  And the opinion of Rav Shimon is already known that he exempts to one that slaughters secular meat in the temple courtyard because he slaughtered in an invalid way.  And the halakah is not like Rebbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "Sells except from one one hundreth from it etc...",
                "He steals in the domain of the owner and slaughters and sells it outside etc...  ",
                "All this is clear."
            ],
            [
                "he was leading it and leaving and it dies in the domain of the owner etc...",
                "This is teaching us with this halakah 2 principles, number 1, that the thief is not called a thief until he brings that thing which was stolen to his domain and he acquires it in one of the ways of acquiring moveable objects.  At it's already preceded us their explanation in the first (chapter) of kiddushin.  And the second, that the 4 guardians do not acquire the thing given to them to guard relevant to that he would be obligated in it's guarding, and each one from them are obligated the laws specified for them, as has been explained.  If he does not acquire the objects in one of the ways that objects are acquired in buying and selling, as has been explained in the first (chapter) of kiddushin.  And this is what they said, that the made a rule that you pull (an animal) with guardsmen just like that it was instituted you pull with purchasers.  And guard this rule because it is a great principle and it helps with rulings."
            ],
            [
                "One may not raise a small domesticated animal in the land of Israel.",
                "One may not raise small domesticated animals in the land of Israel because they graze on crops.  And Syria, these are the lands that David conquered, and we have already explained their topics in the sixth (chapter) of (tractate) uncertain produce. And what it says that one should not raise pigs this is the law for all of the things that are forbidden to eat, however it spoke about pigs because it is known that they are possible to raise similar to cattle and sheep.  And we don't spread out traps- traps or nets to capture with them doves, unless one distances them from a settlement, meaning to say the settlement of a city, 4 mil (~3 miles) which is 30 ris, and this to distance themselves from theft, that he should not capture doves of the inhabitants of the city.  And (the mishnah) forbids us to not raise dogs because they damage."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "One who wounds his friend is obligated to pay 5 etc:  One who embarrasses a naked person, who embarrasses etc...",
                "When he cuts off his hand or his foot he is obligated in the 5 punishments, but when he does to him 1 of these damages or 2 from these, for example, that he embarrasses him only, he is not obligated except for embarrassment.  And similarly if it's only pain he's not obligated except for pain.  As is said as an example that he burns him with a skewer on his fingernail and all this one should examine.  And if he passes over, the victim, on the words of the doctor, and was added to his illness or another injury happens because of this, the damager is not obligated for any of this new illness, because the patient neglected himself. And know that it is very important principle from the principles of our religion, that you don't collect fines in Babylonia and all the other lands outside of the land of Israel only.  Because that he blessed be he said \"before the judges\" and we do not have judges that heir name is called [true] judges except for judges with ordination in the land of Israel.  And this is explained in Sanhedrin.  All judges in the world it is as if they stand in the place of judges in the land of Israel, and even so they do not fill their place except in matters of general things people do, in order that they should not lose the rights of people.  For example loans, buying, selling, acquiring, admissions, and denials.   And when an animal damages with the tooth or the foot that they are accustomed to this, as is explained, and similarly when a person damages an animal.  However an animal to a person or a person to a person, and all fines, they do not pay anything, except with the court in the land of Israel, because these are things that from them they don't happen except for a little bit, and from these things you do not lose a lot of money.  And it is appropriate to do when someone wounds his friend that it should be evaluated in all that he would be obligated, from time off work, and embarrassment, doctor bills, pain, and the fines, and they should add together everything and the one who wounds will pay at one time and will be absolved, if it was that the court case was in the land of Israel. And if it was outside the land we excommunicate the one who wounds until he gives what he obligated to pay on the basis of mutual agreement or go up with the other person to the land of Israel and when he gives what he is obligated to pay to him we release his excommunication, and even if the one who wounds is not happy with this.  It is appropriate to mention here that the half damages that an innocuous ox pays is considered a fine and we do not collect this outside of Israel except according to what is mentioned.  However half damages with stones that was mentioned already in the second chapter from this tractate and it is that when rocks shoot out from his [the animals] feet and it breaks vessels he pays half damages from the entire damage [not limited to the value of the animal], that this is law and not fines and we can collect it outside of Israel and only if it was in the domain of the person who was damaged.  However in the public domain he is not liable for any damage of the foot as it is explained there.  And full damages are not a fine and is collected outside the land of Israel except an ox that is accustomed alone because the idea in our hand there are not 'accustomed' oxen in in Babylonia [because there is no Sanhedrin]."
            ],
            [
                "This is a stringency with man compared to ox that the man etc... ",
                "They said this stringency with min compared to ox there is in it a reliance on the topic which is already in the third chapter of this tractate, that an ox that embarrasses is not obligated, and we already explained in the 5th chapter also that the ox is exempt from fetuses."
            ],
            [
                "He strikes his father or mother and did not cause...",
                "We already explained that from the main rules that are in our hand, a man does not get lashes and pay, rather that if a man does something that obligates him in lashes and payment, he gets lashes and does not pay.  With the exception of one who wounds his friend on the day of atonement only, that he pays and does not receive lashes, because the passage is clear, with one who wounds that he should pay no matter what.  And that is what it means when it says 'a hand for a hand'.  And the explanation that comes from this, that it is something given from hand to hand, and what is it?.. money.  Since after that it says that as he did should be done to him, that it did not need to say 'hand to hand'.  And this is idea that the torah clearly included, one who wounds his friend (is obligated) in payment.  And the laws is not like Rebbi Yehudah."
            ],
            [
                "A deaf person, an imbecile, or a child encountering them is disadvantageous.",
                "All this is clear.  And there is to the judge to afflict them so as to remove their damages from among people."
            ],
            [
                "One who strikes his father or mother and causes to them a bruise...",
                "We've already explained in chapter 14 of tractate Shabbat that one who wounds will not be obligated with his life except when he intends to take the blood which spurts from the wound that he uses it for what we wants.  However if he intends to cause pain and damage only, he is ruining and is exempt from the obligations of Shabbat.  And this is with one who wounds livestock or wild animals but one who wounds his friend, he is obligated to be stoned because his anger is mitigated and his spirit was softened when he damaged the one he is fighting with, thus it was remedied, like it explains one who rips in anger and over one who died that he is obligated because it calms down his mind with this action, even though it is an act of ruining. And therefore he is exempt from everything regarding the damages.  And you should know this and not make a mistake in it."
            ],
            [
                "One who slaps his companion gives to him a selah rabbi Yehudah says...",
                "One who slaps his companion, this is one who strikes his companion with the palm of his hand closed, on the back of his neck.  'He slaps'- That he hit him with the palm of his hand on his face.  With the back of his hand he hits him- with the back of the hand, this is more embarrassing.  He pulls his ear- that he hurts his ear as if it was stung.  And what that it says 'everything is according to their honor' means to say the explanation is these amounts that are mentioned these are the maximum, what they would give to an important person.  And if it was a lesser person, they will lessen for him from these amounts.  And they don't give money except for based on his importance.  And Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this and says that all of Israel is equal in these laws.  And from the main rules of judgement that the court should note extend the time of cases of damages, however Rabbi Akiva gave time with embarrassment alone.  And the law is not like Rabbi Akiva when he makes everyone equal and t not like he law is not like Rabbi Yehuda.  And all of these are fines and the law is in the land of Israel as has been explained."
            ],
            [
                "Even though he gives him [money] he is not forgiven until...",
                "They said there is a 'yes' that is like a 'no', and it is this person that said to him regarding damage to his body on condition to be exempt.  As is known that a person is not forgiving in something like this, and therefore he's obligated."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "One who steals wood and makes it into vessels, wool and makes it into clothes... ",
                "It says, 'this is the principle, All robbers pay according to the time of stealing' to teach that whoever steals a small animal and it grows with him he acquired it with the change. And if he slaughters it  or he sells it after it grew, that which is his- he is slaughtering and it's his that which he sells.  And he is not obligated in 4 or 5 fold payment."
            ],
            [
                "One who steals an animal and it got old, slaves and they got old etc....",
                "When they rotted a few of the vegetables, we say to him behold what is yours is before you.  And if they rotted entirely he pays as the time of stealing.  And a coin that becomes invalidated that it is not passable in the country, but it is passable in another country. And the law is like Rabbi Meir."
            ],
            [
                "One who gives to a craftsman to fix and they are damaged he is obligated to pay.",
                "There is no difference whether he gives to a craftsman vessels that are complete to fix them and he ruined it or he gives to a craftsman wood or iron to make from them a vessel, and they will make it, and they will complete their work, and afterwards he will damage it, he will pay the value of the vessel in both cases."
            ],
            [
                "He gives wool to a dyer and in the pot it was burnt...",
                "Ugly, meaning it's appearance is bad.  And this is what we say by way of example, this one's color is red but it's appears bad and is not befitting for what he wants it for.  And the topic of profit and expenses, as it says by way of example,  if the garment was worth a dinar, and after the dying it was worth a dinar and a half, and he invested in it a quarter (dinar) you only pay him a quarter of a dinar.  And if he invested in it 3/4 of a dinar, he gives half (a dinar), that it went up in value.  And all this is not contingent on the will of the owner of the garment, rather even if the owner of the garment says to him since you transgressed on what I said, give me what my garment was worth at the beginning, and you take the garment, he is not able to say this.  Because we have said that if the profit is more than the investment, or if the investment is more than the profit, it is an institution for everyone together. And the halakah is like Rebbi Yehudah. "
            ],
            [
                "One who steals from his friend something equivalent to a 'pruta' and swears concerning it...",
                "It is acceptable for a person to give the stolen object to the court in his city and he brings a guilt offering and it atones for him.  And that money remains in the hands of the court until the owner comes or sends someone to the court and they will do what is good in their eyes."
            ],
            [
                "He gives to him the principle but does not give to him the fifth etc...",
                "And even if it was stolen was in tact, since it was not remaining on it from the principle except less than the value of a pruta it is not necessary to go after him.  And we do not say it's possible that piece which is currently less than a pruta became more valuable, and he'd return the value of a pruta."
            ],
            [
                "He gives to his counterpart and swears concerning the fifth etc...Until the principle becomes reduced to less than the amount of a pruta.  How so, he steals 4 zuzim and he owes 5, he gives 4 and swears on the 1 zuz, he is obligated in the zuz and a quarter. He gives the zuz and swears on the quarter, he's obligated in a quarter of a quarter of a zuz and it's weight is is that of a carob seed. He gives the quarter of a quarter and swears on [the carob seed hes obligated the carob seed and a fourth of a carob seed, he gives the carob seed and swears on] the quarter of the carob seed he is only obligated in the quarter of a carob seed alone since it is worth less than a pruta.  It is so that he is obligated in this as it says in scripture \"an additional fifth he adds on it\", and we received in explanation of this, it teaches us that we add a fifth on the fifth, and thus all who are obligated in a fifth the same law applies.  Because we explained \"an additional fifth on it\" to be increasing fifths in this manner as has been explained.",
                "Where is my deposit, he said to him 'it's lost'.  I place an oath upon you etc...  The addition of fifth, A person is not obligated in it, except with his admission.  One is not obligated if based on witnesses, as it says and he will sin and be guilty etc... Indeed this will be does repentance on his own."
            ],
            [
                "Where is my deposit, he says to him it was stolen and I administer an oath...",
                "He pays the double payment, it is a fine.  And from our principles a man does not pay a fine based on his own admission.  And this has already been explained in the 3rd chapter of 'Kesuvos'."
            ],
            [
                "He steals from his father, and swears concerning it, and he dies etc...",
                "The Torah says he will return the stolen object etc... and therefore one who steals does not have a remedy until the stolen object leaves from his hand or the person who was stolen from forgives him, and this is when the stolen object is still with him, it didn't change and was not acquired with any change as it was written before.  ",
                "And therefore when the father dies and the stolen object is still in his hand and the father does not forgive him, In all cases the stolen item needs to leave from his hand.  And if he has a paternal brother he should give him what he stole or give the stolen object to his own sons, in a way that the stolen object will leave his hand. And if was not by him a brother from his father and not sons or if he didn't return the stolen object to his sons, that he gives those things for a debt or for his wife's kesuvah or for charity.  And all this when he lets it be known and says this is the stolen object from my father. He should not give this in the way that it is his own money, and this is because the stolen object is leaving from his hand."
            ],
            [
                "He says to his son this is consecrated against you benefitting from me...",
                "All of this is explained in what preceded, and he also needs to explain to who he gives the money to, that he will say to them, that his father swore upon it that he would not benefit from the money, therefore he's giving it to them so that his body will not benefit from the money that he left over.  And it should not be difficult in your eyes that he paid his obligations from the money which he was forbidden to benefit from, because it's possible as is explained in the fourth chapter of 'Oaths' and there we explain it."
            ],
            [
                "Someone steals for a convert, and swears to him, and he dies, Behold he pays...",
                "You already know that a when a convert dies and does not leave children as a jew, he does not have any heirs and whoever is first to his property is entitled to it.  And concerning the convert that died without heirs, it says \"and if a man does not have a redeemer...\", but to a born jew it is not possible that there will not be to him a redeemer, since it is a tradition in our hands [that it will not be destroyed a tribe from Israel] therefore a man who is from his tribe will inherit him.  And you already know that in any place that it's said 'gift' it implies a burnt offering as a gift, and we already explained this in tractate shekalim.  And the laws of burnt offerings as a gift are explained to you (add in--in tractate temurah).",
                "(add in-- And it's already explained) that in this passage which is brought as a proof for this law that 'asham' refers to the principle that he is returning, as to say the stolen item intact or it's value."
            ],
            [
                "He gives the money to the people of the watch and dies the heirs cannot etc...",
                "We already explained in the final chapter of [tractate] succah, that the priestly watches are 24 watches.  And they would serve one after another.  Every watch is one week.  And from the group of the watches include 'Joiarib' and 'Jedaiah'.  And it (the mishnah) brought them in the way of an analogy and when he gave the money to Joiarib and the guilt offering to Jedaiah and the watch was the watch of Jedaiah, in this Rabbi Yehudah and the sages disagree... Rabbi Yehudah says the watch of Joiarib transgressed when they took the money, since there is not to their watch anything at all since it's not his week.  Therefore he returns the money with the guilt offering and returns the money to Jedaih that to them is the watch.  And the sages say the watch of Jedaih transgressed when they took the guilt offering without taking the money.  As it is appropriate to give the money before the guilt offering.  Therefore the guilt offering should be taken from them and given to Joiarib that took the money at the beginning as is appropriate.  And he (Joiarib) should offer the guilt offering when it will be his watch.  And because these principles are true and known the author of the mishnah says to us in this mishnah, when he gave the money to Joiarib and the guilt offering to Jedaiah and it was the watch of Jedaiah, if the law is like the sages that say the guilt offering goes out to Joiarib, as we explained, and this is clear, and there is no doubt.  And if the law is like Rabbi Yehudah that he says the money should return to Jedaiah, if the guilt offering is extant the children of Jedaiah will offer it.  And if not, that the watch of Jedaiah jumped and offered the guilt offering before he takes the money from Joiarib, the children of Jedaiah merit in the skin of the guilt offering but the meat is not appropriate to eat because it is invalid and he has to go back and bring another guilt offering to Joiarib who has in his hand the money and he (Joiairib) will offer it in his watch. And that what the holy rabbi taught in this mishnah who is obligated according to Rabbi Yehudah when the sons of Jedaiah sacrificed the offering. And thus says the braisa, in this law when it was the watch of Joiarib and was done what that we said, Rebbi said that according to Rabbi Yehudah if the children of Joiarib if they preceded and sacrificed the offering, he will return and he should bring another sacrifice, and the children of Jedaiah will sacrifice it, and the other will merit with what is in their hand.  And this is the principle which we learnt in this mishnah and the law is like the sages.  And there is an allusion that it is appropriate to give the money before the sacrifice, that which is said by a burnt offering, \"that which he'll atone with it\"... and we received an explanation of this that the word 'guilt (asham)' is referring to money.  And this is what they said the word 'guilt (asham)' refers to the principle.  And we already explained in the law (mishnah) that is prior to this that the Torah calls the money 'guilt (asham)' in it's saying he will atone with it and that is a future tense verb.  It wants to say they already began the atonement when he gave the money and it will finish his atonement and will not remain on him a sin with his offering.  And it is a ram of guilt offering as it says, \"And the priest will atone for him with the ram of guilt offering\" And we received with this the ram of the guilt offering is essential and the fifth is not essential.  And it is already explained that the 'guilt (asham)' refers to the money, and the explanation is that it is essential to the atonement. "
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "One who steals and feeds his children or he leaves to them an inheritance etc...  we do not exchange coins from the trunk of collectors etc...",
                "This Mishnah is built on 2 principles, the first, moveable items to a debtor are not claimed.  The second, one who borrows at their word does not collect from inheritors.  And these 2 principles, the halakah is not like them, rather from the principles that we judge on them now is moveable items to a debtor are claimed, [and] a lender on word of mouth can collect from inheritors.  And what is appropriate upon the thief to pay has the status of a loan made word of mouth.  Therefore if one steals and feeds his children, they are obligated to pay in whatever the situation will be; the owner despaired or he did not despair, whether he left over real estate or moveable items from his possessions he should take whatever was stolen.  And if the father left over nothing, if the owner despaired they are not obligated to pay, and if they ate what they ate before [the owner] despaired they are obligated to pay.  ",
                "And if the collector was gentile or the collector was Jewish but does not have boundaries rather the king has given him permission to add to the customs whatever amount he wants to the set amount that has been set to him from the king, this makes him a thief with all of this.  It is not appropriate to break anything [coins] from what there is in front of him from the money, because he is assumed to be thief.  And that money is all stolen.  And similarly he should not take charity from the collector from the money which is in front of.  However if he breaks from the money that there is to him in his house or he took money for charity when he was in the market and there was not box before him, this is permitted.  And this is the reason for what [the Mishnah] says 'from his house or from the market', and similarly one should not break money with what is before a charity collector because of suspicion that they not suspect him that it is from the possessions of charity that there is upon him an obligation when someone sees him that he gave money and he did not see him give larger money.  ",
                "And it's already explained to you from the Mishnah's words that there will be a Jewish collector and he does not add to it what the king set and does not make it lower, he is not a thief because it's from our principles that the law of the land is the law."
            ],
            [
                "If tax collectors took his donkey and gave to him another donkey etc...",
                "A woman and a child are not believed in this law, except that when they are conversing innocently (without realizing they are giving testimony) just like we explained with gentiles regarding testimony about a woman in tractate Yevamos. And 'a swarm' is called a congregation of bees which gather around their queen just as this is publisized and known.  And the halakah is not like Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanon son of Berokah."
            ],
            [
                "One who recognizes his vessels and his scrolls in the posession of another and went out for him etc...",
                "This is the law when it will be that this man is not known to sell these things.  That he claims about them that they were stolen from him, and it went out for him a rumor of theft in the city.  And it's not neccesary to explain that it's required that 2 witnesses testify that these vessels were his.  And that these scrolls were his.  Because this is clear.  However if it is his way to sell his vessels and scrolls they would not judge for him this ruling, except if people stayed over the night with him and he found in the morning his wall is broken through and those men that stayed over at his house went out through that hole, and his vessles and his scrolls are in their hands at that time, they will judge for him this ruling as we wrote.  ",
                "And we explained this many times that in all places that they say in the mishnah 'an oath' it is referring to a biblical level oath."
            ],
            [
                "This one comes with a barrel of wine and this one comes with his jug of honey etc...",
                "If it told us the law concerning the barrel of wine only, we would say for example this, that he explains to him (I expect to be reimbursed for my wine), he (the owner of the honey) gives to him the value of his wine, but with his donkey and his friends donkey he doesn't do an action with his hands, no (even if he stipulates to be compensated for the lesser donkey, the other still does not need to pay).  And if it told us the law of a donkey and his friends donkey we would say in this case there is not anything except his wages since he did not stipulate to him, because he did not do an action with his hands, however with his wine and his friends honey even if he doesn't stipulate, he gives the value of his wine because he dealt with the gathering of the honey with his hands.  Therefore it informs us that the law with both actions is one, and we do not say in this I was fooling with you, because that for him he left his money and dealt with his to gather what he lost.  And therefore if he stipulates to him, he gives him the value of his donkey and the value of his wine."
            ],
            [
                "One who steals a field from his friend and thugs took it...",
                "It teaches us with this halakah that if it will be a natural plague, broad or not broad just like it was wiped away by a river or flooded or fell on it hail stones.. This ruling is the law of a regional disaster, and he is not able to say to him this evil came for your sins, and as if you are the cause, in order that he'd be obligated to pay, however he says to him yours is before you."
            ],
            [
                "Someone who robs from his friend or that borrowed from him or deposited with him etc...",
                "This is an institution [for the benefit] of the owner of the money,  thus, if the owner of the money said to that who has in his hand [the money], give to me what I have by you here in the desert, there is to him to pay his money."
            ],
            [
                "He says to his friend, I robbed you, you lent me, you deposited with me etc...",
                "He is obligated to pay when his friend makes a definite claim.  And he says you robbed me or I lent you... however if his friend is also unsure and says I don't know if I lent you or if I didn't lend you and he says you definitely lent me but I don't know if I returned to you or if I didn't return it, he is not obligated to pay.  However if he wants to be certain with heaven he gives to according to what he aknowledged he borrowed.  And what that it says he is exempt that even if his friend makes a definite claim and he says I don't know.. he is exempt and not obligated except to make a heses (rabbinic) oath that he does not know in truth if the he owes the money."
            ],
            [
                "One who steals a sheep from a flock and returns it to him and it dies or it is stolen etc...",
                "They said, \"If he counts a sheep and it is complete, he is exempt from paying\".  And this is on the first case and this is when he stole it and the owner of the sheep knew that it was stolen from him.  However if the owner did not know about it being stolen and not about it being returned he (the thief) is not exempted, unless he returns and the owner knows that it is returned.  Because this sheep learned another way aside from the way of the [his] flock, and therefore he needs to inform the owners so that he will watch it as much as they are able; and then he will be exempt from his responsibility."
            ],
            [
                "One may not purchase from shepards wool and milk and kids etc...",
                "These are things that it is cautioning us to not purchase because they may are assumed to be stolen goods in their hands."
            ],
            [
                "Threads (muchin) that the launderer removes, behold these are his...",
                "It's already explained in (mesechta) shabbos that the 'muchin' are small pieces of wool that we fill with them blankets and pillows and things like that.  And 'the coves' this is the one who whitens the wool.  And 'the sorek' this is the one who combs it and spins it.  And the amount long enough to sew, this is about the length of a needle.  And the 'adze' is a tool of the carpenter that he smooths with it, and things like that.  And the ax is the carpenters tool that he prepares the wood with it.  And 'the nesores' is the shavings of the wood when you prepare the wood, to make from it tablets."
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "Sefaria Community Translation",
            "https://www.sefaria.org"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "רמב\"ם על משנה בבא קמא",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Rishonim on Mishnah",
        "Rambam",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah",
        "Comment"
    ]
}