Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/394

Paragraph 1- If an animal slipped on a stone or urine and fell into a garden and struck fruits or vegetables or ate them, the owner would pay for the benefit. Even if the animal went from row to row, and even if it remained there all day, the owner would only pay for what it benefited and for the benefit he received from the striking given that the animal found a soft spot to land and its limbs were not crushed. If the animal went down in an ordinary manner and ate, however, the owner would pay for the damage. Even if the animal soiled the fruit with liquids from labor, the owner would pay for the damage because he was negligent originally. Similarly, if one animal pushed the other, the owner would pay for what it damaged because he should have had them pass one at a time so that they do not push each other. There are those who say that if one pushed the other it is not considered negligence. Rather, it is an unavoidable accident, and the owner would be exempt. If he had the animal pass next to another’s garden, and it was possible for the animal to go down and enter the garden, even it fell due to an unavoidable accident he would be liable because he was originally negligent and an accident ultimately occurred. There are those who disagree with this.

Paragraph 2- If the animal slipped, fell and left, and the owner was aware, and then returned to the garden, even though it returned without its owner’s knowledge, the owner would pay for the damage because the owner should have guarded the animal from returning given that now that it knows the way to the garden, it would return on its own. If the owner watched it with a superior watching and it left and damaged, however, he would be exempt.

Paragraph 3- If one stands another’s animal over another’s standing grain, he would be required to pay for the damage. The same would apply if he hit the animal until it went to another’s standing grain and damaged, and the person hitting would be liable, even if the fruits were in the public domain, because it is like he physically damaged it with his own hands. This is only applies where he was hitting the animal or something similar. If he stood in its way until it went there, however, he would be exempt because it is indirect damage.

Paragraph 4- If any animal damages attached fruits, we would appraise what it damaged using a formula of 60 and the liable party would pay. How so? If the animal ate one seah, we would appraise how much 60 seah of that field is worth and how much it is worth now that one seah was missing, and the owner would pay the difference. Similarly, if the animal ate a kav, ¼ kav or even one stalk, we would appraise it with 60.

Paragraph 5- If the animal ate completed fruits that do not required the ground, the owner would pay the value of completed fruits, at their worth. If it ate a seah, he would pay the value of a seah, and if it ate two seah, he would pay the value of two seah.

Paragraph 6- If an animal ate the fruits of one palm tree, and the same would apply if one cut down the fruits of another’s palm tree and ate it, and the palm tree was Roman or something similar where they are not beautiful, we would appraise it using the 60 formula as part of the ground. If it was a Persian palm tree or something similar where the dates are extra beautiful, we would appraise the tree by itself; how much it was worth and how much it is worth. There are those who say that if it did not yet finish growing, we would appraise using 60, and if it did finish growing we would appraise as is.