Bava Kamma

'My ox committed manslaughter on A'; or 'killed A's ox' '[in either case] a liability to compensate is established by this admission.  Now does this Mishnah not deal with the case of Tam?  — No, only with Mu'ad. But what is the law in the case of Tam? Would it really be the fact that no liability is established by admission?  If this be the case, why state in the concluding clause, 'My ox killed A's slave,'  no liability is created by this admission?  Why indeed not indicate the distinction in the very same case by stating: 'the rule that liability is established by mere admission is confined to Mu'ad, whereas in the case of Tam no liability is created by mere admission'?  — The Mishnah all through deals with Mu'ad. Come and hear: This is the general rule: In all cases where the payment is more than the actual damage done, no liability is created by mere admission.  Now does this not indicate that in cases where the payment is less than the damage,  the liability will be established even by mere admission?  — No, this is so only when the payment corresponds exactly to the amount of the damages. But what is the law in a case where the payment is less than the damage? Would it really be the fact that no liability is established by admission? If this be the case, why state: 'This is the general rule: In all cases where the payment is more than the actual damage done, no liability is created by mere admission'?  Why not state simply: 'This is the general rule: In all cases where the payment does not correspond exactly to the amount of the damages …' which would [both] imply 'less' and imply 'more'?  This is indeed a refutation.  Still the law is definite that the liability of half-damages is penal. But if this opinion was refuted, how could it stand as a fixed law? — Yes! The sole basis of the refutation is in the fact that the Mishnaic text  does not run '… where the payment does not correspond exactly to the amount of the damages'. This wording would, however, be not altogether accurate, as there is the liability of half-damages in the case of pebbles  which is, in accordance with a halachic tradition, held to be civil. On account of this fact the suggested text has not been adopted. Now that you maintain the liability of half-damages to be penal. the case of a dog devouring lambs, or a cat devouring hens is an unusual occurrence,  and no distress will be executed in Babylon  — provided, however, the lambs and hens were big; for if they were small, the occurrence would be usual?  Should, however, the plaintiff  seize chattels belonging to the defendant, it would not be possible for us to dispossess him of them. So also were the plaintiff to plead 'fix me a definite time for bringing my case to be heard in the Land of Israel,' we would have to fix it for him; were the other party to refuse to obey that order, we should have to excommunicate him. But in any case, we have to excommunicate him until he abates the nuisance, in accordance with the dictum of R. Nathan. For it was taught:  R. Nathan says: Whence is it derived that nobody should breed a bad dog in his house, or keep an impaired ladder in his house? [We learn it] from the text, Thou bring not blood upon thine house.MISHNAH. THERE ARE FIVE CASES OF TAM AND FIVE CASES OF MU'AD. ANIMAL IS MU'AD NEITHER TO GORE, NOR TO COLLIDE, NOR TO BITE, NOR TO FALL DOWN NOR TO KICK.  TOOTH, HOWEVER, IS MU'AD TO CONSUME WHATEVER IS FIT FOR IT; FOOT IS MU'AD TO BREAK [THINGS] IN THE COURSE OF WALKING; OX AFTER BECOMING MU'AD; OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES; AND MAN,  SO ALSO THE WOLF, THE LION, THE BEAR, THE LEOPARD, THE BARDALIS [PANTHER] AND THE SNAKE ARE MU'AD. R. ELEAZAR SAYS: IF THEY HAVE BEEN TAMED, THEY ARE NOT MU'AD; THE SNAKE, HOWEVER, IS ALWAYS MU'AD. GEMARA. Considering that it is stated TOOTH IS MU'AD TO CONSUME … it must be assumed that we are dealing with a case where the damage has been done on the plaintiff's premises.  It is also stated  ANIMAL IS MU'AD NEITHER TO GORE … meaning that the compensation will not be in full, but only half-damages will be paid, which is in accordance with the Rabbis who say that for the unusual damage done by Horn [even] on the plaintiff's premises only half-damages will be paid.  Read now the concluding clause: OX AFTER HAVING BECOME MU'AD, OX DOING DAMAGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES, AND MAN, which is in accordance with R. Tarfon who said that for the unusual damage done by Horn on the plaintiff's premises full compensation must be paid.  Is the commencing clause according to the Rabbis and the concluding clause according to R. Tarfon? — Yes, since Samuel said to Rab Judah, 'Shinena,  leave the Mishnah alone  and follow my view: the commencing clause is in accordance with the Rabbis, and the concluding clause is in accordance with R. Tarfon.' R. Eleazar in the name of Rab, however, said: