Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nezikin · 318 sections

1.1.1
ארבעה אבות נזיקין – because there are for every one of these (“chief actional damages”), derivatives, we call them "אבות"/chief, actionable [damages].
1.1.2
השור – this is the foot, meaning, what the animal damages with her feet while she is walking, as it is written (Exodus 22:4): “When a man lets his livestock loose [to graze in another’s land, and so allows a field or a vineyard to be grazed bare],” and teaches "ושלח" /”lets loose” – this is the foot and similarly he states (Isaiah 32:20): “Who let loose the feet of cattle and asses,” and it is a derivative of the foot when it (i.e., the animal) causes damage with its body while walking or with its hair while walking when utensils became attached to the hair and [the animal] dragged them and broke them, or with the saddle bag that is upon it. And this is a burden that is in large sacks, and the packing bags that are upon her or in the bell that is on her neck.
1.1.3
והבור – whomever opens a pit in the public domain and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, if the pit was ten handbreadths deep or caused damage, if it was is less than ten handbreadths [deep], as it is written (Exodus 21:22): “When a man opens a pit [or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it],” and a derivative of a pit such as the phlegm brought out by coughing or hawking (see Talmud Bava Kamma 3b) after they were placed in the public domain and caused damage.
1.1.4
והמבעה – this is the tooth, for the animal ate in the field of his fellow as it states (Exodus 22:4): “and so allows a field or vineyard to be grazed bare in another’s land,” and the tooth is called מבעה/damaging the crop because it sometimes is covered and sometimes uncovered/revealed, from the language (Obadiah 1:6): ”How ransacked his hoards!”/”Its hidden treasures were laid bare” (made empty, which refers to eating up – see the comment of Shmuel in Talmud Bava Kamma 3b), as we translate into Aramaic: the hidden object is revealed; and it is a derivative of the tooth, the animal scratching itself against a wall for her gratification (see Talmud Bava Kamma 3a) in the manner of animals scratching themselves, and when she broke the wall or soiled (with excrements, secretions) the fruits (by rolling in them) when she scratched herself on them for her gratification.
1.1.5
ההבער – this is the fire/conflagration, for it went out and caused damage, as it is written (Exodus 22:5): “When a fire is started [and spreads to thorns], so that stacked, standing or growing grain is consumed.” And the derivative of fire is his rock and his knife and his burden that he placed them on the upper portion of his roof, and they fell with an ordinary wind and it caused damage that resembles fire where the wind leads it. But surely, our Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] did not consider a horn [of an animal] under the category of the chief actionable damages, because we are not speaking about other than damages which are when an animal whose owner stands forewarned (on account of three successive injuries) from their outset, meaning to say, that they pay full indemnity from their outset. But when they (the animals) are innocuous (i.e., one that did injury for the first time, or before warning had been given) it doesn’t speak of this.
1.1.6
לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה – meaning to say, if the Merciful One had written [only] "שור"/the ox, we would not derive "מבעה"/the tooth from it. For I would have said that a foot that caused damage is an ordinary occurrence (and must be guarded against), and the Merciful One made it liable (see Talmud Bava Kamma 2b). But the tooth whose damage is not an ordinary occurrence, the Merciful One did not make it liable. But if the Merciful One [only] wrote "שן" /the tooth, I would have said that the damage done by a tooth is connected with a benefit (to the animal), is liable. But the "רגל"/foot which is not connected with a benefit (to the animal), it is not liable. But if the Merciful One had written “tooth” and “foot” and but did not write “tooth,” I would have said that “tooth” and “foot” which have in them a living spirit, meaning to say that that they come from the strength of living creatures, it is liable, but the fire which has no living spirit in it is not be made liable. But if three of them were written, but the Merciful One did not write "בור"/pit, I would have said that these (three) whose manner is to go and do damage, but the pit, whose manner is not to go and do damage, I would not be liable for it; because of this, it was necessary for [the Mishnah to state] all of them. And in the Gemara (Talmud Bava Kamma 5b) brings up, that if it wrote “pit” and one of these, all of the rest of them would come except for “horn,” through the points common to both, that their manner is to cause damage, and they didn’t need all of them other than because they are divided in their [specific] Halakhot, for this one has what the is not found in the other- that the “tooth” and the “foot” are exempt in the public domain, which is not the case with the “pit” and the “fire.” Scripture exempted the “pit” [from punishment] for humans and utensils, as it is written (Exodus 21:33): “[When a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it], and an ox or an ass falls into it,” that we expound, “an ox” but not a human being; “an ass,” but not utensils, which is not the case with the other chief actional damages. “Fire,” exempts what is hidden, for if there were hidden clothes in a stack of grain, the person who sets fire is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 22:5): “[so that stacked], standing [or growing gain is consumed],” just as standing grain is revealed, so also all that is revealed, and the rest of the chief actional damages did not exempt that which is hidden.
1.1.7
הצד השוה שבהן וכו' – even I will bring all that is normal to cause damage and its protection is upon you, that if he caused damage, the one who caused damage is liable make the payment for the damages that he committed.
1.1.8
במיטב הארץ – from the best of his possessions, from the most praiseworthy of them, if he comes to take for himself land as payment for his damage, as it is written (Exodus 22:4): “he must make restitution for the impairment (lit. “excellence”) of that field or vineyard.” But, if he comes to give him “movables,” we hold that every word "מיטב"/the best for if he doesn’t sell here, he will sell in another town, and he will give him all what he requires, even bran, and these words are for damages. But for someone who is a creditor, if he (i.e., the borrower) has money, we make him liable to give money, and if he lacks money, he will give movables, what ever he needs. And if he collects land, he will give him mid-range [land]. And a renter, even if the landlord lacks money, he is not able to give him his rent/wages, but rather [only] zuzim. And we obligate him to sell from his possessions until money is found and he gives it to him.
1.2.1
כל שחבתי בשמירתו וכו' – everything that I became obligated to guard.
1.2.2
הכשרתי את נזקו – if I didn’t guard it appropriately and it caused damage, I am the one who became legally rendered possible and arranged that damage, and I am liable for it such as sending his bull to a deaf-mute, imbecile or a minor, is liable, for upon him was placed the guarding of the bull and indeed, he did not guard in the appropriate manner for it.
1.2.3
הכשרתי במקצת נזקו וכו' – even though I did not arranged it and I repaired everything, I have made myself liable for it, as if I had arranged it such as the case of digging a pit nine [handbreadths] in the public domain and another came and completed it to be ten [handbreadths] and the bull or the ass fell in there and died, the last person is liable even though he had not established other than part of the damages, it is as if he had done all the damage since that the nine [handbreadths] there is no death [penalty].
1.2.4
נכסים שאין בהם מעילה – and upon which property I am liable to pay if I caused damage. On those possessions that lack religious sacrilege, such as property which is not sanctified to the Temple, for if I damaged properties of the Holy things dedicated to the Temple, I am not liable to pay, as it is written, (Exodus 21:35): “[When a man’s ox injures] his neighbor’s ox [and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide its price; they shall also divide the dead animal],” and not the ox that belongs to the Temple. And the same law applies to all the rest of damages.
1.2.5
נכסים של בני ברית – that if he damages the property of the heathen, he is exempt.
1.2.6
נכסים המיוחדים – they have special honors that if he damaged ownerless property, he is exempt.
1.2.7
חוץ מרשות המיוחדת למזיק – in every place where his possessions damaged the property of his fellow, the one who damaged them is liable, except for the special domain of the one who damages. For if the ox of the damaged party enters the domain of the one who damages and the bull of the one who damages caused damage, he is exempt, for he (i.e., the one who theoretically caused damage) says to him (i.e., the one who suffered damage): Your bull was in my domain, what does he need, and specifically if it damaged his possessions. But the one who causes damage itself who injured his fellow, even though he (i..e, the latter) is standing in his domain is liable, for the one who was injured says to him:” assuming that that you have permission to go out and cause damage, you don’t have permission.”
1.2.8
ורשות הניזק והמזיק – and it is a special domain to the one who suffered damage and the one who causes damage such as the courtyard of both of them. For the bull of one of them does damage in the same courtyard with a tooth and foot and is exempt, and this will be in the same courtyard that is set aside for bulls also, but if it was specially for fruit/produce but not for bulls and it damaged with is tooth and/or foot, he liable, and if it damaged with its horn in any matter, he is liable.
1.3.1
שום כסף – this assessment of damages will not be other than with money, so that the Jewish court will assess how much the damage is worthy and he (i.e., the one who caused the damage) will pay him. But if the cow of Reuven damaged the tallit/garment of Shimon as it tread upon it in the domain of the who was damaged and broke it and afterwards it happened that the foot of Reuven’s cow was broken by the garment of Shimon in the public domain and it was also a pit in the public domain, we don’t say that since this one did damage and the other one did damage, this one’s damage was excluded by the damage of the other, but they assess the two damages monetarily – and the one who damaged his fellow more pays.
1.3.2
שוה כסף – and when they come to pay the damages from the property of the orphans and they do not collect other than land that has monetary value and not from movables which are themselves money. And all movable things are considered as if it is money, for if he doesn’t sell it here, he will sell it in another town.
1.3.3
בפני ב"ד – for the assessment and the payment of damages do not take place other than in from of a Jewish court of experts, and not before a Jewish court of lay persons.
1.3.4
ועל פי עדים בני חורין ובני ברית – to exclude salves and idolaters who are not fit for serving as witnesses of damages.
1.3.5
והנשים בכלל הנזק – whether she caused damages to others or whether others caused damage to her, the claim of a man and the claim of a woman are equivalent in damages.
1.3.6
הניזק והמזיק בתשלומין – sometimes that one who suffered damage belongs with the one who causes damages in payments of the one who suffered damage, such as if the worth of the carrion became less from the time that it died until the time that it was brought to justice, for the lessened [value] of the carrion belonged to the one who suffered damage whether it was an innocuous animal or one whose owner had been warned after it committed damage (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4), and it is found that the one who did damage does not pay him even the one-half damages that the Torah made him worthy of if the animal was innocuous, or full damages if it was a warned animal, for the one who suffered damages loses money and is attached to these damages as is the one who causes the damage.
1.4.1
חמשה תמין – that are not accustomed to cause damage, and if they do cause damage, they pay one-half the damage.
1.4.2
וחמשה מועדין – the are accustomed to cause damage and pay full damages.
1.4.3
לא ליגף – with the horn.
1.4.4
ולא ליגוף – pushing the entire body and all of them are derivatives of the “horn” and they (i.e., the owners) pay half-damages. These are the five innocuous actions of animals.
1.4.5
ושור המועד – three times to gore or to push or lie down or kick or bite these are the five actions of animals whose owners have been warned who have to pay full damages, and concerning a warned animal, each one is considered one [kind of damage].
1.4.6
ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק – even a horn of an innocuous animal, for an owner warned about its animal pays full damages and our Mishnah brings according to the one who states that the corner of the courtyard of the one who suffers damages as he pays full damages, and even if the animal is innocuous. But the Halakha is not like this.
1.4.7
והאדם – is considered warned from his beginning, also and pays full damages if he caused damages (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 6).
1.4.8
[הזאב] והארי וכו'- their owners are considered as warned from their beginnings, and they are not considered as within the five kinds of damages listed above so that there are eleven animals considered as warned because these do not belong in society.
1.4.9
ברדלס – a beast that we call in Arabic “Eltzabah.”
1.4.10
רבי אליעזר אומר וכו' – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
1.4.11
מן העליה – from the best of his property, and even if the goring is not worth the measure of the damage of the “warned” animal (as it is written (Exodus 21:36): “[and its owner has failed to guard it] he must restore ox for ox”, but it is not written there “that from the body of the goring animal, he will be paid.”
2.1.1
כיצד הרגל מועדת – meaning to say, in which manner does the foot become forewarned? And it answers to break something while it is walking. As such it is forewarned when it smashes utensils while it is walking.
2.1.2
הבהמה מועדת – the first part [of the Mishnah] teaches chief actionable damages of the “foot” that she treaded on with her feet, and the concluding part [of the Mishnah] teaches derivates that the animal is forewarned to walk in her manner and to bread with her body and with her hair and the sliding pouch that is upon her while she is walking.
2.1.4
או שהיו צרורות מנתזין – even though it is not a change, but rather, the way things happen, nevertheless, half-damages and not more, for this is the normative Halakha for this and we are speaking about the domain of the person who suffered the damages, but in the public domain, he is exempt [from damages] for pebbles are a derivative of the “foot” to make them exempt in the public domain.
2.1.5
ונפל על כלי אחר – these are the first damages of the “foot” and she (i.e., its owner) pays full damages and the latter are through broken pebbles, therefore, half-damage.
2.1.6
דליל קשור ברגלו – everything that is attacked onto the foot of the chicken is called is דליל/anything irregularly wound/entangled, and there are those who have the reading דלי/bucket.
2.1.7
מהדס – (scratch) to dance, and there are those who interpret it as digging with its feet in the earth in the manner of chickens.
2.1.8
משלם חצי נזק – that is entangled/irregularly wound that is pebbles are judged as pebbles on the utensils, and incisions/scratches also, such as that pebbles that were tossed and they broke the utensils.
2.2.1
כיצד השן מועדת – in what manner is it “forewarned?” And it answers: to eat what is is appropriate for it.
2.2.2
משלם חצי נזק – for it is unusual (to eat clothing or chew up utensils).
2.2.3
בד"א וכו' - it refers to when it eats fruits or vegetables that are in the public domain, it is exempt, for we require (Exodus 22:4): “When a man lets his livestock loose to graze in another’s land,” but if it ate clothing or utensils, even in the public domain it is liable one-half damages, for people generally put clothing and utensils in the public domain according to the hour and it is the “horn” in the domain of the person suffering damages and he is liable.
2.2.4
משלם מה שנהנית – these are not valid payments but rather if it ate something that its value was great, we view it as if they barley, and he doesn’t pay anything other than the value of the barley at its cheapest, which is a full third less than what they are sold for in the marketplace. But, if it ate something whose worth is less than the barley, he pays the worthy of that thing that it ate at its cheapest, and if it (i.e., the animal) ate that which he damaged such as that it ate the wheat but since it did not benefit, it [the owner] is exempt [from payment].
2.2.5
מצדד הרחבה משלם מה שהזיקה – if it (i.e., the animal) stood and at the sides of the road in a place where it is not the manner of bulls to walk there, it is not compared to the public domain, and it pays what it damages.
2.3.1
מפני שהן מועדין – to jump, and we are speaking of in the domain of the one who suffered damages, for it is a derivative of the “foot.”
2.3.3
על החררה משלם נזק שלם – for this is the “tooth” in the domain of the one who suffered damages.
2.3.4
ועל הגדיש משלם חצי נזק – they are like pebbles, and the decided Halakha is that he should pay one-half damages.
2.4.1
משיחזור בו שלשה ימים – when he sees bulls and they are not goring, they return to the innocuous state.
2.4.2
שלשה פעמים – and even on one day (i.e., doing damage thrice on one day), but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Meir] for they are not forewarned until they testify about it for three days.
2.4.3
ממשמשים בו – they pull at it and play with it and it doesn’t gore. And in this, the Halakha is according [to Rabbi Meir] that a forewarned bull does not return to its innocuous state until small children play with it [and it doesn’t gore].
2.5.1
נגח נגף [וכו'] – all of them are derivatives of the horn.
2.5.2
דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון – the “horn” in the domain of the one who suffered damages that you bring from the law of the “horn” in the public domain, and as you have said regarding the horn which [the Rabbis] were stringent about it in the public domain, does it not follow logically that we should be strict with it in the domain of the one who supported the damages. It is sufficient that it (i.e., the inferred law) should be like that of the premise, like the horn in the public domain, and not be liable in the domain of the one who suffered damages other than one-half damages just as he is liable in the private domain.
2.5.3
אני לא אדון קרן מקרן – as we stated above, but rather the “horn” from the “foot.” The place where he was stringent upon him with the “tooth” and the “foot” does it not follow logically that we should be stringent with the “horn?”
2.5.4
דיו לבא מן הדין – for finally, if it is not the “horn” in the public domain, you will not find a side for an a-minori/a-majori. And Rabbi Tarfon, although that in general, he holds that it is enough for it is from the Torah as it is written (Numbers 12:14): “Would she not bear her shame for seven days?” All the more so for God’s presence for fourteen days, but it is enough if the inferred law be as strict as the premise, therefore, “she should be shut out of the camp for seven days” (Numbers 12:14) and no more than that. Nevertheless, here, he does not hold that it is enough for Rabbi Tarfon holds that when we state that it is enough where he didn’t refute an a-minori/a-majori such as there (i.e., Numbers 12:14) of the seven days of God’s Divine presence is not written [in the Biblical verse], the Kal V’Homer brings fourteen. The “it is enough” comes to exclude seven and to establish seven since it mentions this Kal V’Homer for these seven that has been established and it doesn’t refute it completely. But here, the half-damages are written, whether for the public domain or whether in the courtyard of the one who suffered damages, and the Kal V’aHomer comes and brings another one-half damage and makes it full damages. If he had expounded on the “it is enough” and you established ait as high-damages as at the beginning, I would raise to him the objection of the Kal V’Homer and not benefit from it at all. But the Rabbis hold that even where they raise the objection of the Kal V’Homer, we state it as “it is enough” and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
2.6.1
בין ער בין ישן – if he was sleeping and another [person] came and slept at his side, and he second damaged the first, he is liable, but if he first [person] damaged the second, he is exempt [from punishment]. But if they slept together, each one of them who caused damage to his fellow is liable, because of them are considered as forewarned regarding each other.
2.6.2
סימא את עין חבירו – even inadvertently, he is liable for damages, but not for four things (see Talmud Bava Kamma 26a-b), for [the Torah] does not declare him liable for four things other than wanton action, or something close to wanton action.
3.1.1
המניח את הכד וכו' ושברה פטור – for it is not the manner of human beings to take consideration of the roads.
3.1.2
ואם הזיק בה בעל החבית חייב – and even if he declared it ownerless, for all who declare ownerless his damages, that he didn’t have a permission from the outside to make them as if he had not made them ownerless.
3.1.3
או שלקה בחרסיה חייב – for he holds that if he stumbled, he is negligent, but is not an accident and therefore is liable.
3.1.4
במתכוין חייב – if he intended to take possession of its shards and [what exists] in the water after his pitcher broke, he is liable for their damages, for this is like his pit that had done damage, but if he did not intend to take possession of them since he uprooted/eradicated them he is the victim of an accident for he holds tha he stumbled over it, he is not negligent, for the shards and the water are ownerless after he had met with an accident and he did not intend to take ownership of its shards and he waer, and It is like it was never his and he is exempt from their damages.
3.2.1
השופך מים ברה"ר – even though that he is operating with permission, such as during the rainy season where it is permitted to pour water in the public domain, even so, if someone else suffered damage from them, he is liable for his damages.
3.2.2
המצניע את הקוץ וכו' – and such as when he hit them in the public domain , and similarly, someone makes his fence out of thorns and they blossomed in the public domain. But if he squeezed them in within his own [property] and someone else was caused damage by them, he is exempt [from liability], for it is not the manner of people to rub one’s self against a wall.
3.3.1
לזבלים – that the straw and stubble will decay and become manure to manure the fields and vineyards.
3.3.2
כל הקודם בהן זכה – that the Rabbis have fined him.
3.3.3
כל המקלקלים ברה"ר – and even if they do it with permission such as the case at the time of removing the manure, and if they caused damage, they are liable.
3.3.4
היה הופך את הגלל – cattle dung.
3.4.1
הראשון חייב בנזקי שני – and such as the case where he was able to stand for he is negligent. But if he wasn’t able to stand, he is exempt, for he holds that if he stumbled, he is not negligent.
3.5.1
היה בעל קורה ראשון וכו' פטור – for this one walks in an appropriate manner and the other one hurried to go.
3.6.1
חד רץ ואחד מהלך וכו' – Our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: one is running and the other is walking on the Eve of the Sabbath or the Eve of Jewish holy days or that both of them were running in the rest of the days of he year, both of them are exempt, for on the eves of the Sabbath and Jewish holy days, the one who ran is running with permission for he is going to perform a Mitzvah in order to prepare for the needs of the Sabbath or the Jewish holy day, and because of this, he is exempt. But on the rest of the days of the year, when both of them are running and both of them are strange, both of them are exempt [from liabilities caused to one another].
3.7.1
המבקע – wood
3.7.2
והזיק ברשות היחיד – of others.
3.7.3
ברשות היחיד – his own.
3.7.4
והזיק ברשות היחיד – of others,
3.7.5
חייב – he is liable [for damages caused] and even though he did it in his domain for many are not found there since we would say that he should have taken deliberation. Even as such, he is liable.
3.8.1
במותר חצי נזק – they estimate what the damages of this one are greater than the damage of that one, and in that surplus, the person who caused greater damage pays the one-half assessment.
3.8.2
מועד בתם משלם במותר – meaning to say, if he (i.e., the forewarned animal) damaged the innocuous animal to a greater extent than what the innocuous animal did.
3.8.3
אדם בתם משלם במותר נזק שלם – for a person is forever forewarned.
3.8.4
ותם באדם – he (i.e., the owner of the innocuous animal) pays the surplus of one-half damages, as it is written (Exodus 21:31): “So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, [the owner] shall be dealt with according to the same rule.” Just as the judgment of an ox harming another ox, so too the judgement of an ox harming a human being. Just as an ox goring an ox – [the owner of] the innocuous ox who gored another ox pays half-damages, so too, with an ox which goes a person – [the owner of] the innocuous ox pays one-half damages and the [owner of the] forewarned ox pays full damages.
3.8.5
ר"ע אומר אף תם שחבל באדם משלם במותר נזק שלם – as he expounds “[shall be dealt with according to] the same rule” for a law that this verse removes from it. For it speaks about a forewarned ox. And this is what the Biblical verse said “"כמשפט הזה /the same rule – refer to the forewarned ox that [its owner] pays full damages. [The words] "יעשה לו" /shall be dealt with – means for every ox that gores a person, even if it is an innocuous ox. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.
3.9.1
וכן הלכה – certainly it is the Halakha that he gives him a Maneh which is one-half the damages, but this ox is not mentioned in the Torah , for you have fulfilled and sold the living ox, etc. And there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the profit of the carrion, such as at the time of death, it was not worthy anything, but it increased in value afterwards and it was worthy of being fed to dogs or to be sold to a heathen. Rabbi Meir holds that there is raise in the value of the carrion of the ox that had suffered damages, and the one (i.e., the owner of the ox) who did the damage didn’t give anything other than providing one-half of his damage, and that is identical with that which Rabbi Meir said regarding this, as it states (Exodus 21:35): “[When a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies,] they shall sell the live ox and divide its price,” meaning to say, that he (i.e., the owner of the ox that did the damage) gives him half his damages from the monetary value of the living ox, and he doesn’t deduct for himself anything on account of the increase in value that the carrion gained. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that the one-half of the increased value of the carrion that caused damages and when [the owner of] the ox that caused damages pays to [the owner of] the ox that suffered damages his one-half damage, he deducts for himself one-half the increase in value of the carrion (according to the condition of the animal) from the time of [its] death until the time of their appearance in court (see Talmud Bava Kamma 34a), and that is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda stated to Rabbi Meir: You have fulfilled the Biblical verse in that you have sold the living animal, but you have not fulfilled [the Biblical mandate] (Exodus 21:35): “they shall also divide the dead animal,” for he has to divide the increase In value of the dead carrion and the [owner of the] one who did damage must give him [the owner of the one whose ox died] one-half. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
3.10.1
שורו שבייש פטור – as it is written (Leviticus 24:19): “If anyone [maims] his fellow, [as he has done so shall it be done to him],” and not “an ox to its fellow.” Alternatively, the one causing an indignity is not liable other than when he causes an indignity/puts to shame with intention, but an ox does not “intend” to cause an indignity/put to shame to anyone.
3.10.2
שורו שסימא את עין עבדו פטור – the slave does not become a free person by means of this [act].
3.10.3
והוא שסימא את עין עבדו חייב – [as it states] (Exodus 21:26): “[When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it,] he shall let him go free on account of his eye.”
3.10.4
שור שחבל באביו ובאמו חייב – with the payment of their damages.
3.10.5
הוא שחבל באביו ובאמו פטור – [exempt] from payment, for a person does not die and pay [damages].
3.10.6
שורו שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת חייב – one-half damages since it is different/strange.
3.11.1
בסלע לקה – it rubbed itself against a rock and was damaged.
3.11.2
היו שנים רודפין אחר א' – two oxen [belonging to] two people are pursuing/running after the ox of another person.
3.11.3
שניהם פטורים – since both pushed it aside.
3.11.4
שניהם חייבים – In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 36a) it explains our Mishnah as for example that both of them (i.e., the oxen) are innocuous for the [owner of the] innocuous ox does not pay other than from his own funds. But when both are present, the first one pays the [owner of the] damaged ox one-half damages between the two of them. But where both are not present, one can say to him: Go bring proof that this ox caused you damage and I will pay you.
3.11.5
גדול הזיק – that there is in his body the equivalent of half-damages.
3.11.6
קטן הזיק – and you will take the worth of the small ox, and the excess one-half of your damages, you will lose.
3.11.7
קאן הזיק את הגדול – and even though that half of the damages of he larger ox is greater, you will not take other than my small one. And half of his damages of the small one is yours. Take from the large one, and all of this is “he who seeks reparation from his fellow must produce evidence,” as we have taught in our Mishnah. But if he did not bring proof, he has nothing and even the value of he innocuous [ox, and even if the [owner of the] small ox who admitted to him, he lacks, for the person who makes a claim on his fellow for wheat and admits to him regarding barley is exempt even from the monetary value of the barley. But if the [owner of the ox] who suffered damage grabbed a measure of what the [owner of the] ox who caused the damages admitted to him, we don’t take it from him.
4.1.1
שור שנגח ד' וה' - and in all of them it (i.e., the ox) was innocuous and that it pays from his own funds.
4.1.2
ישלם – he (i.e., the owner) pays one-half of the damages caused, and to the last one [who suffered damage is paid] first. In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 36b), it establishes that our Mishnah deals with a the one who suffered damage grabbed hold of the ox causing damage to collect from him and became for him a paid bailee. But when it left under his hand and caused damage, the first one (i.e., the owner of the ox that was damaged) is liable for his damages. Therefore, the last [owner of an ox which suffered damage] is compensated one-half of his damages from the full amount.
4.1.3
ואם יש בו מותר יחזיר לשלפניו – this is what he said: if there is surplus of his damages [caused] he should restore to the [owner of the ox who suffered damage] that was prior to him as, for example, that the half-damages of the first was a Maneh (100 zuz) and the half damages of the last was fifty and the ox was worth two-hundred. From the outset, when the ox gored the ox of the he first [owner] which was damaged, that half of his damages was a Maneh, the [owner of] the ox who was damaged received a Maneh, and the owners [received] a Maneh , when they captured the injured ox and it gored while under their control, the owners do not lose a Maneh that they had for it (i.e., the ox), for he was not guarding them, [properly] other than on the damaged ox which he had captured, and when it damaged a second [ox], and half of those damages was fifty, the [owner of the] first damaged ox lost from his Maneh – fifty , and he gives it to the [owner of the] second damaged [ox] and the surplus up until a Maneh he returns to him, and the owners take their own Maneh.
4.1.4
ר"ש אומר וכו' – Rabbi Shimon holds that owners are partners and the [owner of] the ox that suffered damage and the ox that damaged and both are liable in its damages. How? An ox worth two hundred that gored etc.
4.1.5
ושלפניו – that [ox] which was damaged first, he (i.e., the owner) takes fifty zuz and the owners [of the ox] who damaged take fifty zuz, for the [owner of the] one damaged first has the half [damages], therefore, he pays one-half the compensation of his damage.
4.1.6
חזר ונגח שור שוה מאתים – the [owner of the] last one takes a half Maneh from every one – for he is paid out of his own pocket and it is found that the one before him that was his one-half, he pays from his portion one-half a Maneh and takes the last one.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.