Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter 9

I.e., if the body ot the animal that caused the damage is not worth half the damage it caused, the remainder may be collected from its offspring. Even if for some reason the cow is not found, the entire sum may be collected from the calf [Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 399:1)].

It would appear that according to the Rambam, this applies even before the eggs are laid. Even while within the chicken, they are not considered part of its body’. the Maggid Mishneh offers a different explanation, stating that while the eggs are within the chicken, they are considered to be part of its body (Ramah, Choshen Mishpat 399:1).

This is a fundamental principle, applicable in many contexts of Jewish business law.

And thus the owner of the bull has no responsibility for the death of the calf.

Even when the owner of the ox does not know whether or not his ox caused the damage, as long as the owner of the cow cannot support his claim with witnesses, the owner of the ox is not liable [Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 399:3)].

I.e., the difference in value between a living calf and a dead one.

Implied is that when a cow is pregnant it adds weight, which increases its value.

Obviously, a lesser amount.

I.e., the owner had sold the rights to the calf to another person before it was born.

Which appears larger and is therefore worth more [Tur and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 399:5)].

Even when it ran into the rock because it was pursued, the other ox is considered to be merely an indirect cause of damage (grama), and the owner is not liable (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 400:1).

And are withholding payment only because you know that I cannot produce witnesses.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

One of this man’s oxen caused the damage, and the damage must be paid for from the body of the ox itself. If the damage was worth more than the value of the lesser ox, the owner of the damaged ox can collect only the value of the lesser ox. The rationale is that there is no proof that the damage was caused by the more valuable ox.

Payment for damage caused by an ox that is tam must be expropriated from the body of the ox. If that ox is not present, the damage cannot be collected.

This is significant when the extent of the damages exceeds the value of the smaller ox.

If there are no witnesses present at all (in contrast to the instance described in the following halachah), in both this and the second clause of this halachah the person whose ox caused the damage is not liable at all. For the obligation that he admits (that the smaller ox or the tam) caused the damage, is not the obligation claimed by the person whose ox caused the damage (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Kama 3:11). (See also Halachah 11 and notes.)

This is significant because it determines whether the person receives half the amount of the damages or the full amount.

In this instance, as opposed to an instance where there are no witnesses at all, the owner is obligated to pay the debt he admits, because of the testimony of the witnesses (Maggid Mishneh).
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 400:3) quotes the Rambam’s decision. The Tur and the Ramah, however, differ and maintain that if the person whose ox causes the damage makes a definitive claim saying that the other ox caused the damage, he is not liable at all.

I.e., if the owner of the goring ox indeed did not know which ox caused the damage, he could not be held liable for the greater amount. The person whose ox was damaged is, however, maintaining that the owner in fact does know and is concealing the matter so as not to be held liable.

As the Rambam explains, whenever a person admits a portion of a claim lodged against him, he is obligated to support his claim with an oath. He is referred to as a modeh b’miktzat (Hilchot To’en V’Nit’an 1:1).
The Ra’avad maintains that an oath is required only in a case when one ox is tam and one ox is mu’ad, for the claim against the tam can be considered to be part of the claim against the mu’ad. When, however, both oxen are tam, the two claims are considered to be unrelated and no oath is required. Rabbenu Asher goes further and considers the claims to be unrelated in both instances. See Siftei Cohen 400:5, which discusses this issue.

This difference is significant if the oxen that caused the damage are tamim, for then the payment is expropriated from the body of the ox, and it is possible that the value of the small ox that caused the damage will be less than that of the large ox that was damaged.

This difference is significant, because when an ox is mu’ad, its owner is responsible for the entire amount of the damages, while when it is tam, only half the damages are required. Needless to say, the full value of the large ox is far more than the full value of the small ox.

If, however, witnesses observed that the oxen belonging to the same owner caused the damage, but were not able to identify which one caused the damage, the owner is obligated to pay the amount he admits, as in the previous halachah (Maggid Mishneh).

Chapter 3, Halachah 10. The rationale is that with regard to the instance when one ox is mu‘ad, the defendant does not accept any liability with regard to the claim that the plaintiff makes, and the plaintiff has not made a claim regarding the sum the defendant admits liability for; therefore, the defendant is not held liable.
With regard to the instance where both of the oxen are tamim, the defendant is not liable, because payment of half the damages is considered a fine, and a person who admits culpability for a fine is not liable (Maggid Mishneh).

Even the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 400:3), who view this situation more stringently than the Rambam, accept this principle. Moreover, according to, their logic (see Choshen Mishpat 399:3), if there are no witnesses that the plaintiff seized possession of the property of the defendant, the plaintiff may keep an amount equal to his own claim.
The above applies only when the plaintiff seizes possession of the defendant’s property before taking the matter to court. If, however, he took the matter to court, and the court ruled in favor of the defendant, as the Rambam states, and then the plaintiff seizes the defendant’s property, he must return it.

Since the owner of the gored ox is granted a share in the body of the ox that gores, he is also given a share in the responsibility for its damages.

See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 401:1, which notes that generally after goring three times, an ox becomes considered mu‘ad, and from that time onward, full damages for the damage caused by the ox must be paid. This complicates the matter.

I.e., half the damages, as required when a tam gores.

I.e., since he was responsible for the ox at the time it caused the damages, he bears the entire financial responsibility.

The Rambam’s view is also shared by Rashi (Bava Kama 36b) and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 401:2). Tosafot, Rabbenu Asher and the Tur differ and maintain that the law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. Their view is quoted by the Ramah.

The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 402:1) explain that the laws mentioned in this halachah apply only when the second ox gores the first after the two oxen have been separated. If, however, directly after the first ox gores the second, the second gores it in return, the owner of the second ox is not liable for the damages. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 421:13.)

For a man is always responsible for the damages he causes.

In this and the previous clause, the intent of the Rambam’s wording requires the clarification of the examples that follow.

I.e., in the latter two instances, one determines the damages to be paid by the mu'ad and those to be paid by the tam and then subtracts one from the other. One does not subtract the amount of the damages caused and then have the owner pay half the remainder if tam, and the entire remainder if mu'ad.