## Bava Kamma Daf 55b

###### Bava Kamma 55b:1
[Bava Kamma 55b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַכּוֹנֵס** צֹאן לַדִּיר, וְנָעַל בְּפָנֶיהָ כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצְאָה וְהִזִּיקָה – פָּטוּר. לֹא נָעַל בְּפָנֶיהָ כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצְאָה וְהִזִּיקָה – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who brought** his flock of **sheep into the pen and locked** the door **before it** in a manner that is **appropriate, and** despite this sheep **went out and caused damage** in another person’s field by eating produce or trampling it, the owner is **exempt,** since he safeguarded the animals appropriately. If **he did not lock** the door **before** the sheep in a manner that is **appropriate, and** sheep **went out and caused damage,** the owner is **liable,** since his negligence led to the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:2
[Bava Kamma 55b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:2)

נִפְרְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁפְּרָצוּהָ לִסְטִים, וְיָצְאָה וְהִזִּיקָה – פָּטוּר. הוֹצִיאוּהָ לִסְטִים – לִסְטִים חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the owner locked the door appropriately but the wall of the pen **was breached at night, or bandits breached it, and** sheep subsequently **went out and caused damage** by eating or trampling, the owner of the sheep is **exempt** from liability. If the **bandits** themselves **took** the sheep **out** of the pen and the animals subsequently caused damage, the **bandits** are **liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 55b:3
[Bava Kamma 55b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:3)

הִנִּיחָה בַּחַמָּה, אוֹ שֶׁמְּסָרָהּ לְחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְיָצְאָה וְהִזִּיקָה – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the owner **left** the animal **in the sun,** causing it to suffer, **or** if **he conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,** who are not able to safeguard it, **and** the animal **went out and caused damage,** the owner is **liable** because he was negligent.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:4
[Bava Kamma 55b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:4)

מְסָרָהּ לְרוֹעֶה – נִכְנַס הָרוֹעֶה תַּחְתָּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the owner **conveyed** the animal **to a shepherd** to care for it, **the shepherd enters in his place** and is responsible for the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:5
[Bava Kamma 55b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:5)

נָפְלָה לְגִינָּה וְנֶהֱנֵית – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. יָרְדָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהִזִּיקָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה? שָׁמִין בֵּית סְאָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה – כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the animal **fell into a garden and derives benefit** from produce there, its owner **pays** for **the benefit that** it **derives** and not for other damage caused. If the animal **descended** into the garden **in its usual manner and caused damage** there, its owner **pays** for **what it damaged. How does** the court appraise the value of the damage when the owner **pays** for **what it damaged?** The court **appraises** a large piece of land with **an area required for** sowing **one *se’a* of seed [*beit se’a*] in that field,** including the garden bed in which the damage took place. This appraisal includes **how much it was worth** before the animal damaged it **and how much is it worth** now, and the owner must pay the difference. The court appraises not only the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, rather the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:6
[Bava Kamma 55b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:6)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אָכְלָה פֵּירוֹת גְּמוּרִים – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת פֵּירוֹת גְּמוּרִים. אִם סְאָה – סְאָה, אִם סָאתַיִם – סָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** This principle of appraisal applies only in a case where the animal ate unripe produce; but if **it ate ripe produce,** the owner **pays** the value of the **ripe produce.** Therefore, **if** it ate **one *se’a*** of produce, he pays for **one *se’a*,** and **if** it ate **two *se’a*,** he pays for **two *se’a*.**


###### Bava Kamma 55b:7
[Bava Kamma 55b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:7)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ ״כָּרָאוּי״, וְאֵיזֶהוּ ״שֶׁלֹּא כָּרָאוּי״? דֶּלֶת שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה – זֶהוּ כָּרָאוּי. שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה – זֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא כָּרָאוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara clarifies the definition of locking the door in a manner that is appropriate. **The Sages taught: What is** considered locking in a manner that is **appropriate, and what is** considered locking in a manner that is **not appropriate?** If one locked the **door** such **that it is able to withstand a typical wind** without collapsing or opening, **this is** considered a manner that is **appropriate,** whereas if he locked the door such **that it is unable to withstand a typical wind, this is** considered a manner that is **not appropriate.**


###### Bava Kamma 55b:8
[Bava Kamma 55b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ: מַאן תַּנָּא מוּעָד דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּשְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: קְשָׁרוֹ בְּעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵירָה, וְנָעַל לְפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק – אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, חַיָּיב; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** with regard to animals that are **forewarned that it is sufficient** for the owner to provide only **reduced safeguarding?** Since the mishna deals with damage categorized as Eating or Trampling, for which all animals are considered forewarned, **it** must be in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned** in a mishna (45b): If **the owner** of an ox **tied it with reins** to a fence **or locked** the gate **before it** in a manner that is **appropriate, but** nevertheless the ox **went out and caused damage, whether** the animal is **innocuous or forewarned** the owner is **liable** because this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Bava Kamma 55b:9
[Bava Kamma 55b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:9)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּם – חַיָּיב, מוּעָד – פָּטוּר; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו״ – וְשָׁמוּר הוּא זֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא סַכִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Rabbi Yehuda says** that if the ox is **innocuous** the owner is **liable** even if he safeguarded it appropriately, since the Torah does not limit the required safeguarding for an innocuous animal. But if the ox is **forewarned,** the owner is **exempt** from payment of damages, **as it is stated** in the verse describing the liability for damage caused by a forewarned animal: **“And the owner has not secured it”** (Exodus 21:36), **and this** ox that was tied with reins or behind a locked gate **was secured. Rabbi Eliezer says:** A forewarned ox **has no** sufficient **safeguarding** at all **other than** slaughtering it with **a knife.** According to this mishna, only Rabbi Yehuda maintains that reduced safeguarding is sufficient to render exempt from liability the owner of an ox that is forewarned.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:10
[Bava Kamma 55b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:10)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁאנֵי שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל – דְּהַתּוֹרָה מִיעֲטָה בִּשְׁמִירָתָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים הַתּוֹרָה מִיעֲטָה בִּשְׁמִירָתָן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: בּוֹר, וָאֵשׁ, שֵׁן, וָרֶגֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You** can **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who holds that the owner of a forewarned ox is liable even if he provides only reduced safeguarding. Although animals are considered forewarned with regard to Eating and Trampling, one cannot apply to them a *halakha* stated with regard to an animal that is forewarned with regard to Goring. The *halakha* **is different** with regard to **Eating and Trampling since the Torah limited** the required standard of **safeguarding for them. As** the *amora* **Rabbi Elazar says, and some say it was taught in a *baraita*:** There are **four matters** for which **the Torah limited their** required standard of **safeguarding, and these are: Pit, and Fire, Eating, and Trampling.**


###### Bava Kamma 55b:11
[Bava Kamma 55b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:11)

בּוֹר – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר, וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ״, הָא כִּסָּהוּ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of **Pit? As it is written: “If a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it,** and an ox or a donkey fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:33). One can infer: **But** if **he covered it,** he is **exempt** from liability, even though it is possible that the pit would become uncovered in the future.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:12
[Bava Kamma 55b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:12)

אֵשׁ – דִּכְתִיב: ״שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה״ – עַד דְּעָבֵיד כְּעֵין מַבְעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of **Fire? As it is written: “The one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation”** (Exodus 22:5), which is interpreted to mean that one is exempt from liability **unless he acts** in a manner that is **similar** to actively **kindling** the fire in another’s property by being negligent.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:13
[Bava Kamma 55b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:13)

שֵׁן – דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ – עַד דְּעָבֵיד כְּעֵין ״וּבִעֵר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of **Eating? As it is written:** “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose, **and it feed [*uvi’er*] in the field of another”** (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner does not bear liability **unless he acts** in a manner that is **similar** to causing his animal to **feed** there, by being negligent.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:14
[Bava Kamma 55b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:14)

רֶגֶל – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשִׁלַּח״ – עַד דְּעָבֵיד כְּעֵין וְשִׁלַּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of **Trampling? As it is written:** “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, **and he set** his animal **loose [*veshilaḥ*],** and it feed in the field of another” (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner is not liable **unless he acts** in a manner that is **similar** to **setting** his animal **loose.**


###### Bava Kamma 55b:15
[Bava Kamma 55b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:15)

וְתַנְיָא: ״וְשִׁלַּח״ – זֶה הָרֶגֶל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״. ״וּבִעֵר״ – זֶה הַשֵּׁן, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the term ***veshilaḥ*: This** is referring to damage by **Trampling, and similarly,** the verse **states: “That send forth [*meshaleḥei*] the feet of the ox and the donkey”** (Isaiah 32:20). With regard to the term ***uvi’er*: This** is referring to damage by **Eating, and similarly,** the verse **states: “As one consumes with the tooth, until it be all gone”** (I Kings 14:10).


###### Bava Kamma 55b:16
[Bava Kamma 55b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:16)

טַעְמָא דְּעָבֵיד כְּעֵין ״וְשִׁלַּח״ ״וּבִעֵר״, הָא לָא עָבֵיד – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Evidently, **the reason** for the owner’s liability is specifically **that he acted** in a manner that is **similar to** setting the animal **loose** or causing it **to feed.** One can infer: **But** if **he did not act** in such a manner, even if he provided only reduced safeguarding, he is **not** liable.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:17
[Bava Kamma 55b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:17)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי ״צֹאן״ – מִכְּדֵי בְּשׁוֹר קָא עָסְקִינַן וְאָתֵי, נִיתְנֵי ״שׁוֹר״! מַאי שְׁנָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״צֹאן״? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהַתּוֹרָה מִיעֲטָה בִּשְׁמִירָתָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** The wording of **the mishna is also precise, as it taught** the *halakha* specifically with regard to **sheep.** This raises the question: **Since we have been dealing with** cases involving **an ox** in all the previous *mishnayot*, then **let** this mishna also **teach** the *halakha* with regard to **an ox. What is different** in this mishna **that it teaches** the case of **sheep? Is it not because the Torah limited** its requirements specifically with regard to **the safeguarding** against damage that is more likely to be caused by sheep, i.e., caused by Eating and Trampling, since sheep are unlikely to gore? If so, the wording of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that a reduced level of supervision is sufficient only with regard to Eating and Trampling, but not Goring.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:18
[Bava Kamma 55b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:18)

לָאו; מִשּׁוּם דְכָאן קֶרֶן לָא כְּתִיבָא בַּהּ, שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל הוּא דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ; וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּשֵׁן וָרֶגֶל – דְּמוּעָדִין הוּא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: One can **not** necessarily derive from the wording of the mishna that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Perhaps the mishna specifically uses the case of sheep to teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, **because** if it would have used an example of an ox **here,** one might have thought that it also includes damage caused by **Goring,** about which it **is not written** in the Torah that reduced supervision is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna specifically uses the example of sheep, to indicate damage caused by **Eating and Trampling,** about **which it is written** that reduced supervision is sufficient. And **it teaches us that** only with regard to **Eating and Trampling, for** which animals **are** considered **forewarned** from the outset, is reduced supervision sufficient according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes that this is a valid reading of the mishna and one may **learn from** it that the mishna may even be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Bava Kamma 55b:19
[Bava Kamma 55b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:19)

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַפּוֹרֵץ גָּדֵר בִּפְנֵי בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ, וְהַכּוֹפֵף קָמָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בִּפְנֵי הַדְּלֵיקָה, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר לְהָעִיד, וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehoshua said:** There are **four matters** in which one **who commits** an offense concerning **them** is **exempt** from liability **according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven** and it would be proper for him to pay compensation, **and the** cases **are** as follows: **One who breaches a fence** that stood **before another’s animal,** thereby allowing the animal to escape; **and one who bends another’s standing** grain **before a fire** so that it catches fire; **and one who hires false witnesses to testify; and one who knows testimony** in support **of another but does not testify on his behalf.**


###### Bava Kamma 55b:20
[Bava Kamma 55b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/55b:20)

אָמַר מָר: הַפּוֹרֵץ גָּדֵר בִּפְנֵי בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּכוֹתֶל בָּרִיא – בְּדִינֵי אָדָם נָמֵי נִיחַיַּיב! אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies each of the cases listed in the *baraita*. **The Master says:** With regard to the case of **one who breaches a fence** that stood **before another’s animal, what are the circumstances? If we say** it is speaking **of a stable wall** that would not have fallen by itself, the one who breached it **should also be liable according to human laws,** at least for the damage caused to the wall. **Rather,** here