(ה) שור המזיק ברשות הניזק כיצד. נגח. נגף. נשך. רבץ. בעט. ברשות הרבים משלם חצי נזק. ברשות הניזק. רבי טרפון אומר נזק שלם. וחכמים אומרים חצי נזק. אמר להם רבי טרפון ומה במקום שהקל על השן ועל הרגל ברשות הרבים שהוא פטור. החמיר עליהם ברשות הניזק לשלם נזק שלם. מקום שהחמיר על הקרן ברשות הרבים לשלם חצי נזק. אינו דין שנחמיר עליה ברשות הניזק לשלם נזק שלם. אמרו לו דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה ברשות הרבים חצי נזק אף ברשות הניזק חצי נזק. אמר להם אני לא אדון קרן מקרן אני אדון קרן מרגל ומה במקום שהקל על השן ועל הרגל ברשות הרבים החמיר בקרן. מקום שהחמיר על השן ועל הרגל ברשות הניזק אינו דין שנחמיר בקרן. אמרו לו דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה ברשות הרבים חצי נזק אף ברשות הניזק חצי נזק:
(ו) אדם מועד לעולם. בין שוגג בין מזיד. בין ער בין ישן. סימא את עין חברו ושבר את הכלים משלם נזק שלם:
(5) How is the penalty assessed for an ox that damages while on the private domain of the damaged party? If the ox gores, pushes, bites, crouches, [or] kicks (all these are later classified as similar to "horn", i.e., damage caused through unusual behavior) -- in the public domain, he [the owner] pays half damages. In the domain of the damaged party, Rabbi Tarfon says [the owner pays] full damages, while The Sages say, [the owner pays] half-damages. Rabbi Tarfon said to them [using a fortiori reasoning], in a case where we are lenient with respect to "tooth" and "leg" [damages caused by normal behavior] in the public domain, where he [the owner] is completely exempt, we are strict regarding the private domain of the damaged party, [requiring the owner] to pay full damages. In a case where we are strict with "horn" damage [damage from unusual behavior, as described above] in the public domain, [requiring the owner] to pay half-damages, isn't it logical [a fortiori] that we should be strict with him in the domain of the injured party to pay full damages? They [The Sages] said to him [Rabbi Tarfon], it is enough that a law derived from an a fortiori argument be established similar to the case from which the inference is drawn [i.e., the derived principle cannot be more strict than the base case]. Just as in the public domain [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damages, so too in the domain of the damaged party [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damage. He [Rabbi Tarfon] said to them [The Sages], I will not derive "horn" [damage] from "horn" damage, I will derive "horn" damage from "leg" damage. In a case where we are lenient with respect to "tooth" and "leg" [damages caused by normal behavior] in the public domain [where the owner is exempt], we are strict with regard to "horn" damage [where the owner pays half-damages]. [By a fortiori reasoning] in the case where we are strict with regard to "tooth" and "leg", [namely] in the domain of the damaged party, isn't it logical that we should be strict[er] with regard to "horn" [and require payment of full damages]? They [The Sages] said to him [R Tarfon], it is enough that a law derived from an a fortiori argument be established similar to the case from which the inference is drawn. Just as in the public domain [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damages, so too in the domain of the damaged party [the payment for "horn" damage is] half-damage.
(6) A human being is always considered a habitual damager, whether [he or she damages] accidentally, or purposefully, while awake, or while asleep. If he blinded the eye of his friend or broke his vessels, he pays full damages
(א) המניח את הכד ברשות הרבים ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה פטור. ואם הוזק בה. בעל החבית חייב בנזקו. נשברה כדו ברשות הרבים והוחלק אחד במים או שלקה בחרסיה חייב. רבי יהודה אומר במתכוין חייב. באינו מתכוין פטור:
(ב) השופך מים ברשות הרבים והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקו. המצניע את הקוץ ואת הזכוכית. והגודר את גדרו בקוצים. וגדר שנפל לרשות הרבים. והוזקו בהן אחרים חייב בנזקן:
(1) [If] one places a jar in a public domain and another comes and trips on it and breaks it, he is exempt [from damage to the jar]. And if he was injured by it, the barrel's owner is liable for his damages. [If] one's jar broke in a public domain and another slipped in the [spilled] water, or was injured by its shards, [the jar's owner is] liable. Rabbi Judah says, if intentional, he is liable. If unintentional, he is exempt.
(2) [If] one pours water in a public domain, and another is damaged by it, he is liable to pay damages. One who hides thorns or glass [in the public domain], or one who builds his fence [bordering the public domain] with thorns, or a fence that falls into the public domain -- if others were injured, he is liable to pay their damages.