Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/390

Paragraph 1- Leg-damage is the primary category of “and he sends his animals” that is written in the Torah, and it refers to an animal walking with its legs that damages something while walking, and it is something the animal would typically do and derives no benefit from. Anything comparable to this is a subcategory and would have the same laws as the primary. How so? If, for example, the animal damages while walking with its body, its hair, the saddlebag that is on it, the halter in its mouth, the bell around its neck or the load on it, or if chickens were flying from place to place and damaged vessels with their wings of it they were jumping on dough or fruits and soiled them or made holes in them, and the same would apply for any item attached to the animal’s body, such as a calf pulling a wagon and it pulls the wagon over vessels and breaks them, these are all subcategories of leg-damage and the law would be the same as the primary.

Paragraph 2- If the animal swung its tail a great amount that it would not typically do, and it damaged in the public domain, or if it swung its genitals in the public domain and damaged, the owner would be exempt. If the victim seized from the owner, he can collect half the damage from what he seized, because it is unclear whether this is a subcategory of horn-damage in which the owner is liable in the public domain or if it is a subcategory of leg-damage in which the owner would be exempt in the public domain. There are those who say that in any case of uncertain law, seizure would not be effective. Thus, even if the victim were to seize, we would remove from him. According to the Rosh that a swinging tail is not an uncertain case, the owner would certainly be exempt.

Paragraph 3- All subcategories are like its primary category except for pebbles that shoot out from underneath an animal’s legs while it is walking, in that although it is a subcategory of leg-damage and he would be exempt from damage in the public domain and if the damage occurred in the victim’s domain, he would pay from his best properties like leg-damage, he still only has to pay for half the damage. How so? If an animal entered the victim’s courtyard and pebbles shot out from underneath the animal and broke the vessels, the owner would pay half the damage from his best properties. This law is a law that was told to Moshe at Sinai.

Paragraph 4- Similarly, if the animal was travelling in the public domain, and pebbles shot out from underneath its legs into the victim’s domain and it broke vessels, the owner would pay for half the damage. The same applies to chickens who were jumping and brought up dirt or pebbles and broke it. The same would apply to a pig that was digging through the garbage and shot out pebbles and damaged, and the owner would pay for half the damages.

Paragraph 5- If the animal stepped on a vessel in the victim’s domain and broke it, and the vessel fell on another vessel and broke it, the owner would pay for the full damage of the first vessel and half the damage for the second. There are those who say the same would apply to any case where one’s secondary power damages. If the animal stepped on a vessel and it did not break but it rolled to another area and broke there, the owner would pay for the full damage.

Paragraph 6- if the animal was travelling in the public domain, and it kicked and shot out pebbles in the public domain, the owner would be exempt. If the victim seized ¼ of the damage, we would not remove it from him because the law is uncertain, and perhaps, because the animal kicked, this is a deviation and is not a subcategory of leg-damage.

Paragraph 7- If the animal kicked on the ground of the victim’s domain, and it shot out pebbles because of the kicking and damaged there, the owner would be required to pay ¼ of the damage because this is a deviation of shooting pebbles. If the victim seized half the damage, we would not remove it from him. Even if the animal was travelling in a place where it would be impossible for it not to shoot out, and the animal kicked and shot out, the owner would still pay ¼ of the damage. If the victim seized half the damage we would not remove it from him. We already discussed that there are those who disagree and hold that seizure is not effective in a case with an uncertain law.

Paragraph 8- If an animal cast excrement into dough, that qualifies as pebbles. This assumes the animal was cramped and had nowhere to turn in either direction, because otherwise it would be a deviation and a subcategory of horn-damage.

Paragraph 9- Just as one is liable for a substantive power that shoots out pebbles, so too would he be liable for a power that has no substance, such as a horse that neighs or a donkey that brays and broke vessels from the property of their voice, or a chick that broke vessels with the air of its wings or where the chicken stuck its head into the airspace of a vessel, blew on it and broke it. When is this true? Where there are seeds in the vessel, so now it is typical. If there are no seeds, however, it is a deviation and we would now not judge it.

Paragraph 10- Chickens are considered warned for travelling in their usual manner and breaking. If there was a string or strap tied to their legs and vessels got caught with the string and rolled and broke, the owner would pay for half the damage. This is the language of the Rambam and it is vague. Others write, however, that if there was a string or thread tied to the chicken’s feet and it dragged and broke a vessel while the chicken was travelling, the owner would pay for the full damage. If the chicken threw it and broke it, he is liable for half the damage. When is this true? Where the string was ownerless or had owners who hid it and it got tied to the chicken on its own. If the string belonged to the owner of the chicken who did not hide it, even if it was tied on its own and broke via throwing, the owner would be required to pay for the full damage because the half damage of pebbles only applies where something ownerless was shot out. If the animal shot out something that had owners and was not hidden, however, the owner would be liable for the full damage. If the string belonged to others, the owner of the string would be liable, regardless of whether it damaged via dragging or throwing, because the owner did not hide his string. If the string damaged after it rested, he would be liable because it is a rolling pit. When is this true? Where the chicken is unowned. If the chicken has an owner, however, and it damaged via dragging, they would both pay together. If it damaged via throwing, the owner of the chicken would give ¼ of the damage, and the owner of the string would give ¾. If it damaged after it rested, the owner of the chicken would be exempt and the owner of the string would be liable for everything. This is all where the string was tied on its own. If a person tied it to the chicken’s foot, however, the person that tied would be liable in all cases, even if the string has an owner. The same is true where the string was placed in a hidden location and a person placed it out in the open and that is how it got tied to the chicken, and it is as if he tied it with his own hands.

Paragraph 11- If a chicken was pecking at rope with a bucket tied to it, and the rope snapped and the bucket broke and there was dough attached to the rope, which makes what the chicken did typical, or even of there was no dough but the rope was worn out, in which case it is typical for it to snap from the chicken’s pecking, the owner would be liable for the full damage, both on the rope and on the bucket. If the rope was new and there was no dough attached it, the pecking was atypical and the owner would only be liable for half the damage, both on the rope and on the bucket. If the chicken was going with the bucket and rolling it until the location where it broke, the owner would pay for the full damage.

Paragraph 12- If a dog or goat jumped from on top of the roof downwards and broke vessels, the owner would pay the full damage because they are warned for such an action. The same would apply if they fell and damaged while negligently climbing to the top of the roof, even though their falling was an unavoidable accident, because in any case where there was negligence originally but ultimately an accident occurred, the party is liable. There are those who say that if the vessels were near the wall and not destined to break if the animals jumped, and they ended up falling, the owner would be exempt because it was an unavoidable accident. If the vessel is long and one side is close to the wall and the second side is far enough that it is destined to break if the animal jumps, and they fell close to the wall and broke it, the owner would be liable because he was originally negligent vis a vis the jumping. If the wall was narrow, even if they were close to the wall and they fell, the owner would be liable, assuming the animals jumped as they ordinarily would. If the dog jumped in a dancing manner or the goat slid down, which is atypical for them, the owner would only pay for half the damage. If the animal jumped from below to on top, the owner would pay half the damage, assuming the goat hung on and slid down and the dog jumped. If the dog slid down and the goat jumped, regardless of whether it jumped from on top to down below or from down below to on top, the owner would be liable for the full damage. Similarly, if the chicken jumped, regardless of whether it was from on top to down below or down below to on top, the owner would pay the full damage. The same is true where one gave over his house to be watched and there was a deaf-mute, fool or minor, and the watchman must watch that he not jump from on top to down below or from below to on top.