Given that "Ki Yav'er", "Be'iro" and "u'Bi'er" are all Leshonos of 'Beheimah (as in Bamidbar 20:4), what is the meaning of "Ki Yav'er Ish Sadeh ... "?
Rashi: "He sends his animal into his friend's field".
Rashbam: 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: 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 Shein va'Regel, because, since, as unlike 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), 1 implying whoever the owner may be.
See Torah Temimah, note 38.
What is the difference between "Veshilach ... " and "u'Bi'er ... "?
Rashi: "Veshilach" refers to Regel 1
Seeing as "Veshilach ... " implies Regel, why does the Torah se fit to add "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher"?
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 Shein va'Regel, by confining their obligation to pay to where the owner was Poshe'a (negligent)
Seeing as "Be'iroh" is the Targum of '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?
Why does the Torah need to mention Shein and Regel? Why can we not learn them with a Kal va'Chomer from Bor, which does not move?
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 and pay Nezek Shalem. 1
Because, whereas Keren is rare, Shein ve'Regel are common (Torah Temimah). And it is for the same reason that Keren Tam does not pay Kofer
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
What exactly is the meaning 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'shis ha'Rabim
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.
Bava Kama (Ibid.): As opposed to where the vegerables were detached or fully ripe which no longer needed the ground, in which case one assesses them independently accordeing to their market value.
Because if they were both permitted to bring their oxen into it, it would not be considered 'S'dei Acher'. See Torah Temimah.
What are the implications of "Meitav Sadeihu ... Yeshalem"?
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 that a. the Nizak may only claim from fields that the Mazik actually has, but not from Meshubadim (fields that he sold); and b. he may only claim Meitav from Karka, but not from Metalt'lin, which are all considered Meitav. 5
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, aLa'av ha'Re'ayah'?
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 Hekdeah, and b. from fields that he actually has, but not from 'Ra'uy' - fields that he is destined to receive. 1
Such as an inheritance and where his father died after his ox damaged.
Whose field is "Meitav Sadeihu" referring to?
Bava Kama, 6b (citing R. Akiva): It refers to the best 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
Why are damages paid only from Idis (highest quality land)?
Bava Kama (7b): So it will be easy for the victim to sell it.
Riva #1: It is because a person prefers his own to another's (if the victim receives the same quality, he was not properly compensated).
Riva #2: His own property is close to him (more convenient. If he receives the same quality, he was not properly compensated.)
Riva #3: It is a deterrent, so people will not damage. 1
Riva: A borrower did not intend to damage, just he cannot pay. He should pay Ziburis (lowest quality land), just Chachamim enacted Beinonis, lest people be loathe to lend. A Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis, for she did not lose anything.