Bava Kamma

MISHNAH. IF A MAN BRINGS SHEEP INTO A SHED AND LOCKS THE DOOR IN FRONT OF THEM PROPERLY, BUT THE SHEEP [NEVERTHELESS] GET OUT AND DO DAMAGE, HE IS NOT LIABLE.  IF, HOWEVER, HE DOES NOT LOCK THE DOOR IN FRONT OF THEM PROPERLY, HE IS LIABLE.  IF [THE WALL] BROKE DOWN AT NIGHT, OR IF ROBBERS BROKE IN, AND THEY  GOT OUT AND DID DAMAGE, HE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE. IF [HOWEVER] ROBBERS TOOK THEM OUT [FROM THE SHED AND LEFT THEM AT LARGE AND THEY DID DAMAGE] THE ROBBERS WOULD BE LIABLE [FOR THE DAMAGE].  BUT IF THE OWNER HAD LEFT THEM IN A SUNNY PLACE, OR HE HAD HANDED A MINOR, AND THEY GOT AWAY AND DID DAMAGE, HE HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT, HE WOULD BE LIABLE.  IF HE HAD HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A SHEPHERD, THE SHEPHERD WOULD HAVE ENTERED [INTO ALL RESPONSIBILITIES] INSTEAD OF HIM. IF A SHEEP [ACCIDENTALLY] FELL INTO A GARDEN AND DERIVED BENEFIT [FROM THE FRUIT THERE], PAYMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT,  WHEREAS IF IT HAD GONE DOWN THERE IN THE USUAL WAY AND DONE DAMAGE, THE PAYMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGE DONE BY IT.  HOW IS PAYMENT MADE FOR THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE DONE BY IT?  BY COMPARING THE VALUE OF AN AREA IN THAT FIELD REQUIRING ONE SE'AH  [OF SEED] AS IT WAS [PREVIOUSLY] WITH WHAT ITS WORTH IS [NOW]. R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: IF IT CONSUMED RIPE FRUITS THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR RIPE FRUITS; IF ONE SE'AH  [IT WOULD BE FOR] ONE SE'AH, IF TWO SE'AHS [FOR] TWO SE'AHS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: What is denominated 'properly' and what is not 'properly'? — If the door was able to stand against a normal wind,  it would be 'properly', but if the door could not stand against a normal wind, that would be 'not properly'. R. Manni b. Pattish thereupon said: Who can be the Tanna [who holds] that in the case of Mu'ad,  even inadequate precaution  suffices [to confer exemption]? It is R. Judah. For we have learnt: If the owner fastened his ox [to the wall inside the stable] with a cord or shut the door in front of it properly  and the ox got out and did damage, whether it was Tam or already Mu'ad, he would be liable; so R. Meir. R. Judah, however, says: In the case of Tam he would be liable, but in the case of Mu'ad exempt, for it is written, And his owner hath not kept him in  [thus excluding this case where] it was kept in. R. Eliezer, however, says: No precaution is adequate [for Mu'ad] save the [slaughter] knife.  [But does not an anonymous Mishnah usually follow the view of R. Meir?]  — We may even say that it is in accordance with R. Meir, for Tooth and Foot are different  [in this respect], since the Torah required a lesser degree of precaution in their case as stated by R. Eleazar, or, according to others, as stated in a Baraitha: There are four cases [of damage] where the Torah requires a lesser degree of precaution. They are these: Pit and Fire, Tooth and Foot. Pit as it is written, And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it,  implying that if he covered it  he would he exempt. Fire, as it is written, He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution,  [that is to say] only where he acted [culpably], as by actually kindling the fire.  Tooth, as it is written, And he shall send forth,  [that is to say] only where he acted [wrongly] as by actually sending it forth.  It was [further] taught:  'And he shall send forth'  denotes Foot, as in the similar expression, That send forth the foot of the ox and the ass;  And it shall consume denotes 'Tooth',  as in the similar expression, As the tooth consumeth to entirety.  This is so only for the reason that he acted [culpably] as by actually sending it forth or feeding it there,  whereas where he did not act [in such a manner] this would not be so. Rabbah said: The text of the Mishnah also corroborates [this view]  by taking here the case of sheep. For have we not been dealing all along [so far] with an 'ox'?  Why then not say [here also] 'ox'?  What special reason was there for taking here SHEEP?  Is it not because the Torah required a lesser degree of precaution in their case  on account of the fact that it is not Horn that is dealt with here,  but Tooth and Foot that are dealt with here? It is thus indicated to us that [this kind of precaution  is] only in the case of Tooth and Foot which are Mu'ad [ab initio]; and this may be regarded as proved. It was taught: R. Joshua said: There are four acts for which the offender is exempt from the judgments of Man but liable to the judgments of Heaven. They are these: To break down a fence in front of a neighbour's animal [so that it gets out and does damage];  to bend over a neighbour's standing corn in front of a fire;  to hire false witnesses to give evidence; and to know of evidence in favour of another and not to testify on his behalf. The Master stated: 'To break down a fence in front of a neighbour's animal.' Under what circumstances? If we assume that the wall was sound, why should the offender not be liable even according to the judgments of Man [at least for the damage done to the wall]? — It must therefore be