[The following laws apply with regard to] the major categories of damages and their derivatives. [If a person's property is considered] mu'ad with regard to the major category, it is considered mu'ad with regard to its derivatives. [If it is considered] tam with regard to the major category, the same law applies with regard to its derivatives. From the outset, [a person's property is considered] to be mu'ad with regard to all the major categories of damage and their derivatives, with the exception of goring and its derivatives. In that instance, [an animal is considered] tam until it has been deemed prone [to goring],1 as explained.2


אֶחָד אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין וְאֶחָד הַתּוֹלָדוֹת אִם הָיָה הָאָב מוּעָד תּוֹלְדוֹתָיו מוּעָדוֹת וְאִם הָיָה תָּם תּוֹלְדוֹתָיו כָּמוֹהוּ. וְכָל אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין וְכָל תּוֹלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מוּעָדִין הֵן מִתְּחִלָּתָן חוּץ מִקֶּרֶן וְתוֹלְדוֹתָיו שֶׁהֵן תָּמִים בַּתְּחִלָּה עַד שֶׁיּוּעֲדוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:


All the derivatives of a category of damages are governed by the same laws as the major category, with the exception of stones that are propelled by an animal while walking. This activity is considered a derivative of the category of treading,3 and one is therefore not liable for damage caused in the public domain. Nevertheless, if such stones cause damage in a person's private domain, [the owner of the animal] must pay [for the damages] from his most choice property,4 as he must pay for damages caused by treading, the major category. And yet, he is required to pay only half the amount of the damages.5


כָּל תּוֹלָדָה כְּאָב שֶׁלָּהּ חוּץ מִצְּרוֹרוֹת הַמְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֵי הַבְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁעַת הִלּוּכָהּ. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתּוֹלֶדֶת הָרֶגֶל הֵם וּפָטוּר עֲלֵיהֶן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כְּרֶגֶל וְאִם הִזִּיקוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק מְשַׁלֵּם מִן הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבִּנְכָסָיו כְּרֶגֶל שֶׁהוּא אָב אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא חֲצִי נֵזֶק:


What is implied? When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and proceeds to walk, and in doing so propels stones from under its feet that break utensils, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the amount of the damage from his most choice property. This matter is a law communicated by the Oral Tradition.6


כֵּיצַד. בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֲצַר הַנִּזָּק וְהָלְכָה וְהָיוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מְנַתְּזִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ וְשָׁבְרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק מִן הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבִּנְכָסָיו. וְדָבָר זֶה הֲלָכָה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה הִיא:


Similarly, if [an animal] was proceeding in the public domain7 and stones were propelled from under its feet into a domain belonging to someone else, and they broke utensils there, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the damages. If [an animal] treads on a utensil in a domain belonging to someone else and breaks it, and shards from the broken utensil fall on another utensil and break it, [the owner of the animal] must pay the entire [damages for the destruction of] the first utensil, and half [the damages for the destruction of] the second utensil.8


וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנִתְּזוּ צְרוֹרוֹת מִתַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ לִרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק וְשָׁבְרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק. דָּרְסָה עַל הַכְּלִי בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק וּשְׁבָרַתּוּ וְנָפַל עַל כְּלִי אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק:


If an animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked9 [the ground] and propelled stones that caused damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable. If the person whose property was damaged seized a fourth [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.10 [The rationale is that] there is a doubt regarding the matter: perhaps this is considered a deviation from the ordinary pattern and it is not a derivative of treading, for [the animal] kicked.11


הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָעֲטָה וְהִתִּיזָה צְרוֹרוֹת וְהִזִּיקוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר. וְאִם תָּפַשׂ הַנִּזָּק רְבִיעַ נֵזֶק אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. שֶׁהַדָּבָר סָפֵק הוּא שֶׁמָּא שִׁנּוּי הוּא וְאֵינוֹ תּוֹלֶדֶת רֶגֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּעֲטָה:


If the animal kicked the earth in the domain belonging to another person and stones were propelled because of its kick and caused damages, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages, for this is a deviation from the ordinary manner of propelling stones. If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.12 Even if an animal was walking in a place where it would be impossible for it not to propel stones, and it kicked [the earth] and propelled stones, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages.13 If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.


בָּעֲטָה בָּאָרֶץ בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּזָּק וְהִתִּיזָה צְרוֹרוֹת מֵחֲמַת הַבְּעִיטָה וְהִזִּיקוּ שָׁם חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ נֵזֶק שֶׁזֶּה שִׁנּוּי הוּא בְּהַתָּזַת הַצְּרוֹרוֹת. וְאִם תָּפַשׂ הַנִּזָּק חֲצִי נֵזֶק אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תַּתִּיז וּבָעֲטָה וְהִתִּיזָה מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ נֵזֶק. וְאִם תָּפַשׂ הַנִּזָּק חֲצִי נֵזֶק אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ:


Whenever a person must pay full damages, the payment is considered to be a monetary obligation that he is liable to pay, as if he had borrowed [money] from his colleague. When, by contrast, a person must pay half the damages, the monetary obligation is considered a fine, with the exception of the half damages liable from stones,14 which is a halachah [transmitted by the Oral Tradition], as we have explained.15


כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם הֲרֵי הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין מָמוֹן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלְּמוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁלָּוָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכָל הַמְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק הֲרֵי הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין קְנָס חוּץ מֵחֲצִי נֵזֶק שֶׁל צְרוֹרוֹת שֶׁהוּא הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:


This is the operating principle: Whenever a person pays for the damage that he caused, it is considered a monetary obligation. Whenever he pays more or less - e.g., the double payment (for theft) or half the amount of damages - the amount that is greater or less than the principal is considered to be a fine. A fine is required only when one is obligated through the testimony of witnesses. When a person admits that he is liable for a fine, he is absolved of the obligation.16


זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק הֲרֵי זֶה מָמוֹן וְכָל הַמְשַׁלֵּם יֶתֶר אוֹ פָּחוֹת כְּגוֹן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל אוֹ חֲצִי נֵזֶק הֲרֵי הַיָּתֵר עַל הַקֶּרֶן אוֹ הַפָּחוֹת קְנָס. וְאֵין חַיָּבִין קְנָס אֶלָּא עַל פִּי עֵדִים. אֲבָל הַמּוֹדֶה בְּכָל קְנָס מִן הַקְּנָסוֹת פָּטוּר:


[The following rules apply when] a rooster sticks its head inside a glass container, crows while doing so and breaks it [as a result of the sound]. If there were spices or the like inside [the container, and the rooster] stuck its head in to eat them, [the owner] must pay full damages for the spices17 and half the damages for the container, as one pays half damages for stones [that are propelled].18 [The rationale is that this is the animal's] ordinary pattern.19 If, however, the container is empty, this is a deviation from the norm, and [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages, as in the case with other fines.20


תַּרְנְגוֹל שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט רֹאשׁוֹ לַאֲוִיר כְּלִי זְכוּכִית וְתָקַע בּוֹ וּשְׁבָרוֹ. אִם הָיוּ בְּתוֹכוֹ תַּבְלִין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט רֹאשׁוֹ כְּדֵי לְאָכְלָן. עַל הַתַּבְלִין מְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם וְעַל הַכְּלִי מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק כַּחֲצִי נֵזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת שֶׁכָּךְ הוּא דַּרְכּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה הַכְּלִי רֵיקָן הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁנֶּה וּמְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק כְּכָל הַקְּנָסוֹת:


Similarly, if a horse yelped or a donkey bellowed and utensils were broken as a result, the owner is obligated to pay only half the damages.21 Roosters are considered prone to break utensils as they proceed in their ordinary pattern. If there was a string or a strap tied to [a rooster's] legs22 and a utensil became entangled with the string and rolled and broke, [the owner] is required to pay half the damages.23When does the above apply? When the string was tied to the rooster by a person.24 If, however, the string became ensnarled around the rooster's foot, its owner is not liable.25 If that string was owned by a given person,26 rather than being ownerless, the owner of the string is liable to pay half the damages, because the string is like a moving pit.27


וְכֵן סוּס שֶׁצָּנַף וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁנָּעַר וְשָׁבַר אֶת הַכֵּלִים מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק. הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין מוּעָדִין לְהַלֵּךְ כְּדַרְכָּן וּלְשַׁבֵּר. הָיָה חוּט אוֹ רְצוּעָה קָשׁוּר בְּרַגְלֵיהֶן וְנִסְתַּבֵּךְ כְּלִי בְּאוֹתוֹ הַחוּט וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל וְנִשְׁבַּר מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ אָדָם. אֲבָל אִם נִקְשַׁר עַל רַגְלֵיהֶם מֵאֵלָיו בַּעַל הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין פָּטוּר. וְאִם הָיוּ לַחוּט בְּעָלִים וְלֹא הָיָה הַחוּט הֶפְקֵר בַּעַל הַחוּט חַיָּב חֲצִי נֵזֶק שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא כְּבוֹר הַמִּתְגַּלְגֵּל:


If the owner of the string hid the string, and the roosters trod on it and took it out, and then it became ensnarled around their feet, and as a result utensils were broken, the owner of the string is also freed of liability,28 for [the damage] was beyond his control.29


הִצְנִיעַ בַּעַל הַחוּט אֶת הַחוּט וְהַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים דָּרְסוּ עָלָיו וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ וְנִקְשַׁר בְּרַגְלֵיהֶן וְשָׁבְרוּ בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים אַף בַּעַל הַחוּט פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּס הוּא:


[The following rules apply when] roosters flew from place to place and broke utensils. If they broke the utensils with their wings, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.30 If the utensils were broken by the wind generated by [the roosters'] wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.31


תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מַפְרִיחִין מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְשָׁבְרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. אִם בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם שָׁבְרוּ מְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם וְאִם בָּרוּחַ שֶׁבְּכַנְפֵיהֶם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק:


[If roosters] were digging32 at dough or at produce and soiled it or pecked at it, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.33 If they caused damages with the dust or stones that they raised with their feet or with their wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.34


הָיוּ מְהַדְּסִין עַל גַּבֵּי עִסָּה אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי פֵּרוֹת וְטִנְּפוּ אוֹ נִקְּרוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. הִזִּיקוּ בְּעָפָר אוֹ בִּצְרוֹרוֹת שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ בְּכַנְפֵיהֶן אוֹ בְּרַגְלֵיהֶן מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֵזֶק:


If [roosters] were pecking at a rope [that held a bucket], the rope tore, and the bucket broke, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. [This applies when] the bucket rolled until it fell and broke because of them.35 If there was food on the rope, and the rope tore while they were eating, they are liable to pay the entire amount of the damage to the rope as well.36


הָיוּ מְחַטְּטִין בְּחֶבֶל וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנִשְׁבַּר הַדְּלִי מְשַׁלְּמִין נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּתְגַּלְגֵּל הַדְּלִי מֵחֲמָתָן עַד שֶׁנָּפַל וְנִשְׁבַּר. וְאִם הָיָה עַל הַחֶבֶל אֹכֶל וּבָעֵת אֲכִילָתָן פְּסָקוּהוּ מְשַׁלֵּם גַּם עַל הַחֶבֶל נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם:


When a dog or a goat jumps from a roof downward and breaks utensils, [the owner] is liable for the entire damages, because they are prone to this.37 Similarly, if they fell and caused damages, [their owner is liable], because the fact that they climbed to the roof is considered negligence.38 [Therefore,] even if they fell because of forces beyond [the owner's] control, [he is liable], because whenever a person is negligent at the outset, and damage subsequently occurs because of forces beyond his control, he is liable.39


הַכֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁקָּפְצוּ מֵרֹאשׁ הַגַּג מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה וְשָׁבְרוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוּעָדִים הֵן לְדָבָר זֶה. וְכֵן אִם נָפְלוּ וְהִזִּיקוּ. שֶׁעֲלִיָּתָן לְרֹאשׁ הַגַּג פְּשִׁיעָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּפִילָתָן אֹנֶס כָּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאֹנֶס חַיָּב:


If [the animals] jump upward [and cause damage], [the owner] is liable for half.40 This applies when a goat climbs upward or a dog jumps. If, however, a dog climbed upward and a goat leaps, whether upward or downward, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.41 Similarly, if a rooster jumps either upward or downward, [the owner] is liable to pay for the entire amount of the damage.


קָפְצוּ מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי נֵזֶק. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ הַגְּדִי וְנִסְרַךְ וְקָפַץ הַכֶּלֶב. אֲבָל נִסְרַךְ הַכֶּלֶב וְדִלֵּג הַגְּדִי בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה בֵּין מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה חַיָּבִין נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. וְכֵן תַּרְנְגוֹל שֶׁדִּלֵּג בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה בֵּין מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה מְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם:


[The following laws apply when] a dog takes a cake [from a fire where it is cooking, a coal is stuck to the cake], and [the dog] takes [the cake] to a grain heap. If it places [the cake] down on the grain heap, eats the cake and kindles the grain heap, [the owner] is liable to pay the full damages for the cake and the place where it placed the cake [in the grain heap].42 For the remainder of the grain heap, he is required to pay only half the damages.43 If [the dog] dragged the cake all over the grain heap, burning it as it proceeded, [the owner] is liable to pay the entire damages for the cake. For the place of the coals,44 [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages,45 and for the remainder of the grain heap he is not liable at all.46


כֶּלֶב שֶׁנָּטַל אֶת הַחֲרָרָה וְהָלַךְ לוֹ לַגָּדִישׁ. אִם הִנִּיחָהּ בַּגָּדִישׁ וְאָכַל אֶת הַחֲרָרָה וְהִדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ עַל הַחֲרָרָה וְעַל מְקוֹם הַחֲרָרָה מְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם וְעַל שְׁאָר הַגָּדִישׁ חֲצִי נֵזֶק. וְאִם הָיָה מְגָרֵר אֶת הַחֲרָרָה עַל הַגָּדִישׁ וְהוֹלֵךְ וְשׂוֹרֵף מְשַׁלֵּם עַל הַחֲרָרָה נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם וְעַל מְקוֹם הַגֶּחָלִים חֲצִי נֵזֶק וְעַל שְׁאָר הַגָּדִישׁ פָּטוּר:


When does the above apply? When the owner of the coal guarded his fire and closed the door, and yet the dog dug underneath [until it could enter and] take the cake from the fire.47 If, however, he did not guard his fire, the owner of the fire is liable for the burning of the grain heap,48 and the owner of the dog is liable for the cake and the place where it was placed.49


בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁשָּׁמַר בַּעַל הַגַּחֶלֶת אֶת אִשּׁוֹ וְסָתַם הַדֶּלֶת וּבָא הַכֶּלֶב וְחָתַר וְנָטַל אֶת הַחֲרָרָה מֵעַל הָאֵשׁ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא שָׁמַר אִשּׁוֹ בַּעַל הָאֵשׁ חַיָּב עַל שְׂרֵפַת הַגָּדִישׁ וּבַעַל הַכֶּלֶב חַיָּב עַל אֲכִילַת הַחֲרָרָה וְעַל מְקוֹמָהּ:


When a person sets a dog belonging to a colleague on a [third] individual, he is not held liable by mortal courts;50 the laws of heaven, however, obligate him to pay.51 The owner of the dog is liable to pay half the damages.52 Since he knows that if his dog is set upon [a person] maliciously he will bite him, he should not have allowed [his dog to be left to do this]. If [a person] set a dog [belonging to a colleague] to bite the person himself, the owner of the dog is not liable. For when there is already a deviation from the norm,53 and a person brings about a further deviation,54 [the owner] is not liable.


הַמְשַׁסֶּה כַּלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בַּחֲבֵרוֹ פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם וְחַיָּב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם וּבַעַל הַכֶּלֶב חַיָּב חֲצִי נֵזֶק שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם שִׁסָּה אֶת כַּלְבּוֹ לְהַזִּיק נוֹשֵׁךְ לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ. וְאִם שִׁסָּהוּ בְּעַצְמוֹ בַּעַל הַכֶּלֶב פָּטוּר שֶׁכָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה וּבָא אַחֵר וְשִׁנָּה בּוֹ פָּטוּר:


When there are two cows in the public domain, one lying down and one walking, if the one walking kicks the one lying down, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.55 Even though it would be the ordinary practice for [the cow] to tread on the cow that is lying down, it is not its ordinary practice to kick it.56


שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אַחַת רְבוּצָה וְאַחַת מְהַלֶּכֶת וּבָעֲטָה מְהַלֶּכֶת. בִּרְבוּצָה חַיָּב חֲצִי נֵזֶק שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּרְכָּהּ לְהַלֵּךְ עָלֶיהָ אֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לִבְעֹט בָּהּ: