If an ox gored a [pregnant] cow, and its fetus were found [dead] at its side, and it were not known whether it gave birth before it was gored, [so that the fetus did not die because of the goring], or whether it gave birth after it was gored, [and it miscarried because of the goring], he (the owner) pays a half-nezek for the cow and a quarter-nezek for the fetus. [For a tam pays a half-nezek, and the status of this fetus is in doubt, so that they divide. Our Mishnah is in accordance with Somchos, who says that money whose ownership is in question is divided. But the sages say: This is a great principle in law — "The burden of the proof is upon him who would extract (payment) from his neighbor." And the halachah is in accordance with the sages. And even if the nizak says: "I am certain" (that your ox injured mine), and the mazik says: "Perhaps" (it did), "the burden of the proof is upon him who would extract (payment) from his neighbor."] Likewise, if a cow gored an ox, and its fetus were found at its side, and it is not known whether it gave birth before or after it gored, he pays a half-nezek from the cow and a quarter-nezek from the fetus. [He pays a half-nezek from the cow if it were found (a tam paying a half-nezek from its body), and, if it were not found, he pays a quarter-nezek from the fetus. For if it were known that it gored before it gave birth, the entire half-nezek would be paid from the fetus. For if a pregnant cow gores, it and its fetus gores. And if it gored after it gave birth, nothing would be paid from the fetus, the fetus not having gored. And a tam pays only from its body, so that now the status (of the ownership of the money) being in doubt, it is divided; and of the half-nezek that he must pay, a quarter-nezek is paid from the fetus.]

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of the ba'al habayith (the owner of the courtyard) without permission, and the beast of the ba'al habayith broke them, he (the ba'al habayith) is not liable. And if it were injured by them, the potter is liable. And if he brought them in with permission, the ba'al habayith is liable. If one brought his fruits into the courtyard of the ba'al habayith without permission and the beast of the ba'al habayith ate them, he is not liable. And if it were injured by them, the owner of the fruits is liable. [This, if it slipped on them and were hurt; but if it ate of them until it died, the owner of the fruits is not liable. For (he can contend that) it should not have eaten.]

If one brought his ox into the courtyard of the ba'al habayith without permission, and the ox of the ba'al habayith gored it or the dog of the ba'al habayith bit it, he is not liable. If it gored the ox of the ba'al habayith, it is liable. If it fell into his pit and fouled his waters, he is liable. If his [the ba'al habayith's] father or mother were in it [(The same applies with others, but the common instance is given)], he pays kofer. [as when it were a muad to throw itself upon people in pits, and that day it saw greens in the pit and threw itself into the pit to eat the greens and killed a man, in which instance the ox is not put to death, since it killed without intent, and the owner pays kofer (Scripture indicating kofer liability even in the absence of intent, as stated above)]. And if he brought it in with permission, the ba'al habayith is liable. Rebbi says: In all of them (the aforementioned instances), he (the ba'al habayith) is not liable unless he takes it upon himself to guard (against damage). [The halachah is in accordance with Rebbi. Therefore, if he brought in his ox with the permission of the ba'al habayith, unqualified, the ba'al habayith not undertaking to guard, he is not liable, not having assumed responsibility. And the one who brings it in, too, is not liable, having brought it in with permission.]

If one ox had intent to (gore) another and it struck a woman and she miscarried, he (the owner) is not liable to compensate for the miscarriage. And if one man intended to (strike) another, and he struck a woman and she miscarried, he must compensate for the miscarriage. [Since it is to be taught "If one man intended to strike another, etc.", it is also taught: "If one ox had intent to gore another, etc." For even if it had intent to gore the woman, the owner need not compensate for the miscarriage, such liability obtaining only with a man.] How is the miscarriage compensated for? The woman is assessed — how much she is worth (for sale as a bondswoman) before giving birth and how much after giving birth. R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: If so — a woman is worth more after giving birth! [If it is thus assessed, he will give her nothing! For a woman is worth more after giving birth. For before giving birth, her sales value is less, in that she is in danger of dying in childbirth.] Rather, the (sales) value of (what would have been) the children is assessed, and that is given to the husband. And if she has no husband, he gives it to his heirs. If she were a freed bondswoman [married to a proselyte or to a freed bondsman] or a proselytess [married to one of them, and the husband died], he is not liable. [For one holding the property of a proselyte who dies and has no heirs acquires it. And this one (who caused the miscarriage) is first to acquire what he holds. The same is true for a Jewess who married a proselyte. If the proselyte died, he (the causer of the miscarriage) is not liable, for the miscarriage compensation goes to the husband. But because it is generally a freed bondswoman and a proselytess who are married to a proselyte, we have "bondswoman" and "proselytess."]

If one dug a bor (see 1:1) in a private domain and opened it to the public domain, or in the public domain and opened it to a private domain, or in one private domain and opened it to another private domain, he is liable. [Even though there is no public domain element here, he is liable (this, on condition that he declare his domain with the opening to the bor hefker (ownerless)]. If one dug a bor in the public domain, and there fell into it an ox or an ass and it died, he is liable. Both one who digs a bor, [which is round], a shiach, [long and narrow], a me'arah, [square and vaulted, but having a mouth], charitzin, [broad and square like a me'arah, but not vaulted], or ne'itzin, [narrow below and wide above] is liable. Why, then, is "bor" written? Just as a bor is deep enough to kill — ten tefachim (handbreadths), ["bor," unqualified, being ten tefachim deep], so [are included] all that are deep enough to kill — ten tefachim. If it were less than ten tefachim and there fell into it an ox or an ass and it died, he is not liable. And if it were injured, he is liable.

A bor of two partners — If the first passed by it and did not cover it, and the second, and did not cover it, the second is liable. [This, if the first gave the second the cover of the bor as he passed by and he did not cover it.] If the first covered it and the second passed by and found it uncovered and he did not cover it, the second is liable. If he covered it properly and there fell into it an ox or an ass, [as when the cover became worm-eaten], and it died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and there fell into it an ox or an ass and it died, he is liable. If it fell forwards because of the sound of the digging, he is liable. [If he were digging and the ox heard the sound of the hammer and took fright and fell into the bor and died, he is liable. And though we can contend that since it fell because of the sound of the digging, bor liability falls away and there remains only the factor of his causing the sound of the digging, which, being an indirect cause, should not render him liable — still, he is liable, the nezek itself having occurred in the bor.] (If it fell) backwards because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. [If the ox stumbled on the mouth of the bor because of the sound of the digging and fell backwards, outside the bor, and died, he is not liable. For the nezek itself did not occur in the bor, and the sound of the digging is only an indirect cause, for which he is not liable.] If there fell into it an ox and its implements and they were broken; an ass and its appurtenances, and they were torn [("breaking" applies to the implements of the ox — yoke and plow; "tearing," to the appurtenances of the ass — the clothes bundles and the pack-saddle on its back)], he is liable for the beast and not liable for the implements, [it being written (Exodus 21:33): "…and there fall into it an ox or an ass" — an ox, and not a man; an ass, and not vessels.] If there fell into it an ox that were deaf, or deranged, or "minor," he is liable. [But he is not liable for a "sound" ox, which should have looked while walking.] He is not liable for (minor) son or daughter, bondsman or bondswoman.

Both an ox and any other beast are subsumed in (the halachoth of falling into a bor), [it being written (Exodus 21:34): "Money shall he restore to its owner" — anything that has an owner.], and in separation from Mount Sinai, [it being written (Ibid. 19:13): "Or beast or man, he shall not live." "Animal" is in the category of "beast"; "Or" — to include birds (in the injunction)], and in the paying of kefel ("double payment"), [it being written (Ibid. 22:8): "For every thing of violation" — every thing which he violates.], and for returning a lost object, [(Deuteronomy 22:3): "…with every lost object of your brother."], and for unloading, [(Exodus 23:4): "…help shall you help with him." Though it is written (Ibid.): "the ass of your foe," all beasts are included, this being derived "ass" (here) — "ass," in respect to Shabbath, where it is written (Deuteronomy 5:14): "…your ox, your ass, and all of your beasts."], for muzzling, [(Ibid. 25:4): "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." We derive "ox" - "ox" from Shabbath.], for kilayim (forbidden admixtures) [In respect to (forbidden) mating, though it is written (Leviticus 19:19): "Your beast you shall not mate with a different breed," animal and bird are also included by derivation, "beast" - "beast," from Shabbath. Likewise, in respect to the kilayim of driving (them together), viz. (Deuteronomy 22:10): "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together," we derive, "ox" - "ox" from Shabbath, that the same applies to any two types of beast, animal, and bird. However, as to the Torah halachah, one is not liable unless he plows with or drives two kinds (of animal), one of which is unclean and the other, clean, as is the case with ox and ass. But the sages forbade all two kinds, even if both are unclean or both clean.], and for Shabbath, [it being written: "your ox, your ass, and all of your beasts." "Animal" is included in "beast," and "all" is a term of inclusion, to include birds.] If so, why is it written (Exodus 21:34): "ox or ass"? Scripture speaks of the common instance.