Baba Kama 2:5-6
Baba Kama 2:5
An ox causing damage in the injured party’s domain is as follows: if it gored, pushed, bit, lie or kicked in the public domain, the owner pays half-damages. If it does any of these in the injured party’s domain, Rabbi Tarfon says the owner pays full damages while the Sages say that he pays half-damages. Rabbi Tarfon argued his case saying that cases of damage by tooth and foot are lenient in the public domain in that the animal’s owner is exempt from payment, and such cases are stringent in the injured party’s domain in that the animal’s owner pays full damages. The public domain (which is lenient in those cases) is stringent regarding damage by the horn in that the owner pays half-damages. Doesn’t it make sense that the injured party’s domain should continue to be a degree more stringent, requiring the animal’s owner to pay full damages? The Sages replied that in a kal v’chomer (an argument a fortiori), the thing derived is comparable to the thing from which it was derived. Therefore, since the public domain requires half-damages, the injured party’s domain (which is the thing derived) also requires half-damages. Rabbi Tarfon replied rather than that deriving the rules for damage by horn from other cases of the horn, let us derive them from the rules of damage by foot. If the public domain is lenient for damage by tooth and foot but stringent for damage by horn, doesn’t it make sense that the injured party’s domain, which is stringent for damage by tooth and foot, should be stringent for damage by horn? The Sages again replied that, in a kal v’chomer, the thing derived is comparable to the thing from which it was derived. Therefore, since the public domain requires half-damages, the injured party’s domain also requires half-damages.
Baba Kama 2:6
A human being always has a presumption of causing damage, whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether he is awake or asleep. If a person blinds another person’s eye or breaks his utensils, the offending party must pay full damages.