1:
In chapter 1 we noted that the main kinds of damage caused by animals derives either from their 'foot' or from their 'tooth'; that is to say that they cause damage either by walking around or by eating things. The first mishnah in this chapter clarified aspects of damage caused by 'the foot'; our present mishnah clarifies aspects of damage caused by 'the tooth'.

2:
One other comment by way of preamble would have to be our use of the term 'vicious'. It must be viewed as a technical term which means nothing more - in our present context - than that the owner of an animal must be aware that the animal is liable to cause specific kinds of damage and therefore he or she must take precautions against such an eventuality.

3:
If animals find food in their path they will quite naturally eat it - if it is the kind of food that they are accustomed to eat. Apparently, tame herd animals were accustomed to eat fruit and vegetables! This may only mean that if they see fruit and vegetables in their path they will "examine" them. If David's donkey eats Sara's carrots David will have to indemnify Sara to the full value of the carrots. Later in this mishnah we shall find more details in this regard.

4:
However, if David's goat eats Sara's tablecloth he need only pay half-damages, because such an eventuality could not have been foreseen.

5:
The rules that we have outlined in the two previous paragraphs only apply when the damage is done in the public area. The reason for this is because the public area belongs to everyone equally. So David is just as entitled to lead his animals through the public area as Sara is to leave her personal belongings lying around there. Where both have equal rights Sara can only claim damages from David for the destructive actions of his animals that could be reasonably foreseen. If the damage was caused in Sara's private domain the rules outlined above apply.

6:
With regards to animals eating foodstuffs in the public area,certain criteria apply. If what his donkey ate saves David some money - because now he doesn't have to feed Dobbin one meal - he does not indemnify Sara the extent of the damage suffered but the extent of his saving: if Dobbin's lunch would have cost David 2 dinars that is the extent of his indemnification, even if the loss of the carrots to Sara is 3 dinars. And this is on the assumption that Dobbin ate Sara's carrots in the middle of the public area; however, if he was permitted to wander to the side of the road where Sara was keeping her carrots then David must indemnify Sara to the full extent of her loss because it is clear that David was not taking proper precautions.

7:
The same ruling applies to a shop. If the animal in passing enjoys a stolen meal from ware outside the shop the owner must pay to the extent of his saving and not to the extent of the damage. But if the animal actually entered the shop then full damages are exacted because someone was derelict in watching over the animal.

In BK006 I wrote:

Human beings, perhaps the most 'vicious' of all animals: the defendant cannot claim that 'this is my first time in court'.

Amnon Ron'el objects:

Why not? He can claim anything: this is my first time, I didn't know, it was a mistake, the other's negligence contributed, he slandered me, American damages - and so on.

I respond:

I was not clear enough in my explanation: hopefully I shall make the matter good when we reach mishnah 6 of our present chapter. All that the ruling means is that human beings cannot claim that they need only pay half-damages because they had not previously been warned in court. Human beings must always pay full compensation for any damage that they cause: the law places on them responsibility for their their actions at all times. Even if this is one's "first offence" full damages must be paid.

In BK003 I wrote:

Our mishnah also rules that the damaged property must belong to a Jew. At first glance this would seem to be very discriminatory (and in a certain sense it is).

Meir Stone offers the following information:

Although Talmudic laws teach that a Jew does not have to return the lost article of a non-Jew. Talmudic stories often teach otherwise. For Example Shimon Ben Shitach returned a rare jewel he found in a donkey. A certain wool washer who returned a necklace to a Roman lady etc.... each time that Jews acted above the letter of the law the non-Jew praised the God of the Jews. Toward the end of the second Temple period the gods of the pagan faith seemed empty and their religion even more so. Many non-Jews became Jews. Rome had to ban conversion to Judaism less than 25 years after the Temple was destroyed because far too many Romans were becoming Jewish (even a member of the Roman Senate and his wife had converted.) There were many people who did not convert to Judaism but loved the God of the Jews and thought of Jews as the light of the world (Nero's wife Poppaea was one such person). I could see one of these Godly non-Jews allowing themselves having a case heard in a Beit Din.

Let me wish everyone a most joyous Sukkot festival. The next shiur in this series, God willing, will be on Tuesday 13th October.