ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף עובדיה 1:6

(7) After dealing with involuntary damages caused by man to man, the Torah proceeds to deal with damages caused to man's property. When man owned animal kills man, kopher, conscience money is acceptable even though negligence bordering on homicidal negligence may be involved. The fact that the compensation for the death of a slave is fixed at thirty shekalim regardless of the age and health of the slave, is explained by the fact that the average slave's labour value is thirty shekalim. Exceptions are treated as if they were due to indirect causes, and as such not punishable in the Jewish civil code. Distinctions are drawn between man and beasts that can take care of themselves in varying degrees. Man has the duty to look out for himself; on the other hand, objects are prone to be damaged caused by the normal behaviour of whoever causes the damage, as well as by abnormal behaviour of such agents. Compensation rates are based on those considerations. A thief who pays double the value of the stolen goods- if discovered before he has given himself up-, does so because having decided to diminish the assets of his victim, his own assets are diminished in turn. In this way, he serves as an example for the principle "as he has done, so shall be done to him." Damages caused by one's animals etc. are not so assessed, since no intent to diminish the victim's assets existed. (8) When the stolen goods have been slaughtered or otherwise disposed of, we view this as additional theft having been perpetrated in order to cover the tracks of the original theft. Achan ben Karmi, in the book of Joshua, is a prime example of how one minor infraction, stealing the loot, leads to a string of misdeeds each one helping to disguise the original sin. (Joshua chapter 7) This is why the four, respectively five times valuation of the item stolen originally is levied on such a thief. All the foregoing applies to crimes committed bemachteret, under veil of secrecy. When the crime is committed in the open, in full view of society or any of its members, i.e. "when the sun shone on him," simple restitution is acceptable. Since no special effort had been made for the crime to succeed or to be concealed, no special effort is needed to square the account. Damage caused by one's animal eating from one's neighbour's field, shows lack of consideration for such neighbour's property, therefore the replacement has to be made from the offending owner's prime soil. The valuation of "prime" is based on the best that the victim owns. Damage caused by fire is treated similarly. The common denominator of "principal categories of property damage," is that all of them are the result of involuntary actions on the part of the owner/perpetrator. (9) Next, the Torah deals with objects or beasts entrusted for safekeeping, or borrowed for use. When the keeper acted out of neighbourliness, accepting no compensation, he needs to swear that he has not been negligent, and is free from any responsibility for untoward happenings. If he had misused, i.e. used the object or had plotted to arrange for its disappearance, he is treated like a thief. When the object to be kept is livestock, which, since it requires feeding even a good neighbour would only undertake if he is compensated, the degree of responsibility assumed is commensurably greater. It includes liability for theft or disappearance, but excludes robbery with violence and other accidents beyond one's control. When the animal is put at one's disposal as an act of friendship by one's neighbour, the borrower assumes all risks, barring death from natural causes while performing tasks approved by the lender. Responsibility increases in proportion to the degree of use permitted. (10) The owner, having forgiven, i.e. renounced payment for lending the animal, may be presumed to have also forgiven accidental death for which the borrower is completely blameless. (11) The seducer, though he acts with the consent of the seduced, has yet caused greater damage, since he has not only violated the girl's body, but has also corrupted her morals. He has to pay the father of the girl in question considerably more as dowry than the rapist who pays a fixed amount, which may represent only the physical damage he has caused. The decision whether to enter into marriage is up to the girl's father in this case.