In which manner is it that the leg is accustomed to break in its way of walking... The main idea of this whole type of damage, that it is all damage that comes from an animal while it is doing what it's accustomed to do all the time or most of the time. This is the case that is said about it that it is normal and full damages are paid. And that which is not normal, that there will be in it a thing that it did that was uncommon for it, or that it came through an intermediary of another action, and the animal, the one that did that deed, was not the primary catalyst, for this he's obligated in half damages and this is the half damage he's obligated in for pebbles that shoot out from under his feet. That he pays (is assessed for) the full amount of damage, as it's explained in the 8th perek of this tractate. And the explanation of 'a bucket'- a thing that was tied to its foot or it was jumping and digs its feet into the ground. And this the chicken does more than other birds.

How is the tooth accustomed to eat what is appropriate for it... What that it says in what matters is this said returns upon what that it said it eats fruits or vegetables, but eating garments or vessels in the public domain obligates in half damages since it is the way of people to place garments or vessels in the public domain for when they are needed. And the explanation of what that it benefits, that he pays for items which are appropriate for its portion of eating from things it's normal for the animal to eat, for example, a donkey that ate 10 liters of dates, the master pays for the donkey the value of 10 liters of barley. And if it was the price of barley was more he pays the value of the dates alone, and like this is the way to evaluate and judge. And when it was placed in the midst of the market and turned to the side and ate, then he pays what he damaged.

A dog or a goat jumped from a roof etc... A thin cake and sometimes that coals attach to it. And When they are eaten in the field and they ignite the field with that coal, behold in his eating of the cake he is acting normal and he pays full damages. And for lighting the field, it's different, and therefore he pays half damages. (other versions translate differently- saying he pays half because it is pebbles).

Which is unaccustomed and which is accustomed: 'Touching' implies touching it and pulling it and it does not gore. And the halacha is like Rav Yehuda in the explanation of the accustomed ox and the halacha is like Rav Meir in the explanation of a simple ox. And all the time that the ox is accustomed to gore it does not return to its unaccustomed status until that children can play with it and it does not damage by goring.

An ox that damages in the domain of the damager, how is this? It pushes… When it's learned out one law from another with 'lesser to severe' exegesis, It should not be that what we derive (has a penalty) is greater than what we learn from, rather it should be like it. And this is what it says 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling'. And there is not in this a disagreement because this is from the Torah, that it says with Miriam 'and if her father spits in her face, would she not be embarrassed for 7 days', all the more so for the divine presence. That if the father gets angry with her she separates from him for seven days, all the more so he who God may his name be blessed gets angry at, that it's appropriate that he be isolated for more days, however, the verse says to isolate for 7 days, behold, there, the law of the divine presence which is learned from the father is like the law of the father. And thus the main point of disagreement of Rav Tarfon and the sages is this, that since Rav Tarfon says at the end, what that we say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling', that when we want to obligate this thing which we learned out from another law that we did not learn out previously, and thus there will not be in it a ruling greater than the ruling from which we learned it out from. Like that we learned that when the divine presence is angry she secludes for 7 days and this thing was not known before this, however, that when there will be by us a known law of one of these things like half damages, and after that we learn this with a lesser to more severe exegesis, if it does not add to the law and obligate to pay full damages, it will be that this exegesis is in vain and does not add a thing to our knowledge, that this half damage was known without a lesser to more severe exegesis. And in a case like this, we do not say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling' because there does not come a ruling, rather half damages are known. And the sages say even in a case like this, we say 'it's enough that what comes from the ruling (the exegesis) to be like the ruling' since it does not come from a ruling, rather we know it was (half) damage [other editions remove from 'Since']. And thus I explained to you this idea that it should not rise in your mind that Rabbi Tarfon does not hold by this rule ('it's enough...') in other places since he believes like this in this place alone, that he does not hold by this as we explained. And the halakha is like the sages.

A man is accustomed always, whether by accident or intentional etc... Like that a person is sleeping and comes another and sleeps at his side, the second is accustomed with regard to the first. And if the second damages the first, he's obligated (to pay damages). And if the first damages, that he was asleep first the other who came to sleep at his side, he is exempt. And if the two lay down together, all who do damage from them to their friend are obligated, since they are both accustomed to each other.