Given that "Ki Yav'er", "Be'iro" and "u'Bi'er" are all Leshonos of 'Beheimah (as in Bamidbar 20:4), what are the connotatons of "Ki Yav'er Ish Sadeh ... "?
Rashi: It means 'that he sends his animal into his friend's field".
Rashbam: It means that he feeds his animal in his friend's field.
Seforno: It means that he keeps his animal in his own field - and it strayed on its own into his neighbor's property.
Targum Onkelos: "He damages (treats like Hefker) his friend's field or vineyard.
Targum Yonasan: It mans that he treats his friends field as if it was Hefker and allows his animal to enter it.
Oznayim la'Torah: The Torah writes "Ki Yiv'ar Ish ... " in connection with Shen va'Regel, because, since, as opposed to Keren, they are common, , it holds the owner directly responsible for the damage. 1
Since the Torah writes "Ki Yav'er Ish ... " from where do we know that a woman, Tumtum and Androginus are also Chayav to pay damages?
Mechilta: We learn it from "Shalem Yeshalem ha'Mav'ir ... " (in Pasuk 8), implying whoever the owner may be. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 38.
What is the difference between "Veshilach ... " and "u'Bi'er ... "?
Rashi, Rashbam, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: ("Veshilach" refers to Regel, 1 damage that the animal does as it walks - Rashi, and) "u'Bi'er", 2 to Shen - eating the fruit. 3
Bava Kama, 2:2: As in Yeshayah, 32:20.
Both "Ki Yav'er" and "u'Bi'er" are terms that pertain to a Beheimah, as in Chukas Bamidbar, 20:4 "Anachnu u'Ve'ireinu" - and Beheimah incorporates Chayah - See Torah Temimah, citing Bava Kama, 17b.
Bava Kama, 2:2: As in Melachim 1, 14:10. See also Ba'al ha'Turim.
Seeing as "Veshilach ... " implies Regel, why does the Torah need to add "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher"?
Refer to 22:4:1.2:1.
Bava Kama, 3a: To incorporate where the owner did not send his animal into his friend's field but it went by itself.
Why does the Torah write "Veshilach" ... "u'Bi'er", implying that the owner sent his animal to his friend's field or actually fed it his friend's fruit?
Bava Kama, 55b: To minimize the Din of Shemirah regarding Shen va'Regel, by confining their obligation to pay to where the owner was Poshe'a (negligent) - as if he had actually led or fed the animal - but to exempt him where there was an element of Oneis. 1
Mechilta: The Torah writes "Veshilach" to teach us that he is only Chayav if he left his animal unguarded to wander off into his friend's field, but that if he gave it to his grown-up son, his Shali'ach or his Eved he is Patur. 2
Seeing as "Be'iroh" means 'Beheimah', what will be the Din if the owner allows his horse or his donkey (which fall under the catogary of 'Chayah') to go into his friend's field?
Seeing as the Torah writes "Ki Yav'er Ish", how do we know that a woman, a Tumtum and n Androginos are also Chayav?
Mechilta: "Shalem Yeshalem ha'Mav'ir ... " incorporates them. 1
See Torah Temimah, not 38. It is not clear however, as to why the Torah mentions "Ish"?
Why does the Torah need to mention Shen and Regel? Why can we not learn them with a Kal va'Chomer from Bor, which does not move and which is not common?
Mechilta: To teach us that, as opposed to Keren of Shor , which is initially a Tam and pays only half, they are Mu'ad at the outset 1 - Shen to eat what it normally eats and Regel to damage as it walks - and pay Nezek Shalem.
What are the implications of "Sadeh O Kerem"? Why does the Torah mention them both?
Mechilta #1: It inserts the word "O" to teach us that one is Chayav for each one independently - and not only if one damages them both. 1
Mechilta #2: The Torah adds "O Kerem" to teach us that the field, like the vineyard, contains fruit - that one is Chayav for Shen too, and not just Regel. 2
Seforno: The Torah is referring to someone who sends his animal into his own field or vineyard and it then walks into his neighbor's field. 3
See Torah Temimah, note 39.
See Torah Temimah, not 40. The question remains however, why the Torah then needs to insert "Sadeh" in connection with Shen?
This does not answer the question, but it is noteworthy that the Seforno interprets the first psrt of the Pasuk in connection with the owner's field and not with that of the Nizak.
What is the definition of "S'dei Acher"?
Rashi (citing Bava Kama, 13b) and Targum Yonasan: It means 'somebody else's field', to preclude his own. 1
Targum Onkelos: It means 'in another field. 2
Bava Kama, 25b: It means 'somebody else's field', to preclude the R'shus ha'Rabim - If Reuven's ox tramples on or eats food that Shimon left in the street, he is Patur. 3
Bava Kama, 59b: The Pasuk also implies that, if his ox ate a row of vegetables that was still growing in the field 4 one assesses the value of a Beis Sa'ah in the field, and the row as part of that Beis Sa'ah. 5
Yerushalmi Bava Kama, 1:2: "S'dei Acher" incorporates a. A field that belongs to both the Mazik and the Nizak for fruit but not for oxen; 6 b. A field that belongs to neither of them.
Bava Kama, 13b: Because if Reuven's ox damages Shimon's ox that strayed into his field, he can say to him 'What is your ox doing in my field?" See Torah Temimah, note 46.
As if it had written "be'Sadeh Acher" (with a 'Kamatz').
Seeing as Reuven's ox is permitted to be in the street no less than Shimon's fruit. See Torah Temimah, note 47.
Bava Kama (Ibid.): As opposed to where the vegetables are detached or fully ripe which no longer need the ground, in which case one assesses them independently accordeing to their market value.
See Torah Temimah, note 48.
Because if they were both permitted to bring their oxen into it, it would not be considered 'S'dei Acher'. See Torah Temimah, note 50.
What are the implications of "Meitav Sadeihu ... Yeshalem"?
Rashi and Rashbam #2 (citing Bava Kama, 6b): It implies that in the event that the Mazik pays land, 1 he pays for the damage 2 from the best of his fields (Idis). 3
Rashbam #1: If it is not sure exactly what his animal ate, he must pay according to the Nizak's best field, in case that is what it ate. 4
Yerushalmi Gitin, 5:1: It implies a. that the Nizak may only claim from fields that the Mazik actually has, but not from Meishubadim (fields that he sold); 5 and b. that he may only claim Meitav from Karka, but not from Metalt'lin, which are all considered "Meitav". 6
He does however, have the option of paying money or Metaltelim - even bran. See Sifsei Chachamim. Refer to 22:4:3.1:1 and note.
The amount of the damage and no more.
This Din extends to all forms of Nezikin.
This is problematic however, since, in case of doubt, one ought to apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah'?
See Toah Temimah, note 54.
Refer to 21:34:152:1**.
What are the implications of "Meitav Karmo ... Yeshalem"?
Yerushalmi Gitin, 5:1: It implies that the Nizak may only claim a. from the fields that belong to the Mazik, but not from Hekdesh, and b. from fields that he actually has, but not from 'Ra'uy' - fields that he is destined to receive. 1
Torah Temimah: Such as an inheritance and where his father died after his ox damaged.
How will we reconcile the current Pasuk "Meitav Sadeihu" with the Pasuk in 21:34 "Yashiv" which permits the Mazik to pay whatever he pleases?.
Refer to 21:34:152:1 and notes.
Whose field is "Meitav Sadeihu" referring to?
Bava Kama, 6b: It refers to the best (Idis) of the Mazik's fields, irespective of the quality fields of the Nizak. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 52.
Why does the Torah obligate the Mazik to pay Meitav?
Oznayim la'Torah: To force him to be careful not to cause damage. 1
Refer also to 21:34:152:1*.
Why are damages paid from Meitav?
Riva #1: Because a person prefers his own to that of somebody else (Consequently, if the Nizak receives the same quality fields, he will not have been properly compensated).
Riva #2: Because is own property is close to him (and therefore more convenient). See previous answer.
Riva #3: It is a deterrent, to discourage people from damaging. 1
Bava Kama, 7b: So that it will be easy for the Nizak to sell it. 2
Riva: A borrower, who did not intend to damage, only he is unable to pay, should really pay Ziburis (the lowest-quality land), only the Chachamim enacted Beinonis, to encourage potential creditors to lend. On the other hand, a woman collects her Kesubah from Ziburis, since the woman did not lose anything.
See Torah Temimah, note 51.
