The Torah in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 23:4) addresses the case of an animal that damages somebody’s property through its normal activity – meaning, it trampled on property as it walked, or ate food. If this happened in the victim’s property, then the animal’s owner must compensate the victim for the damage. The Sefer Ha’hinuch lists as the 55 th Biblical command the obligation upon Bet Din to abide by this rule and hold an animal’s owner liable in such a case. Both males and females are liable for the damages caused by their animals, and it makes no difference whether the victim was a male or female. The guilty party in such cases must pay either money, objects of value, or a portion of his highest-quality land (“Idit”) which equals the value of the damage. The Torah specifies that the animal’s owner must pay “Metab Sadehu” – “the best of his fields,” indicating that if he pays with land, he must give a portion of his highest-quality property. As mentioned, an animal’s owner is liable for damages it causes by eating or treading only if this occurred in the victim’s property. If an animal eats or tramples upon somebody’s property in the public domain, the animal’s owner is not responsible to compensate the victim. The Rambam explains that the owner is exempt in such a case because the animal has the right to walk in the public domain. Since animals are allowed in the public domain, and eating and trampling are normal and natural activities, the owner bears no liability for damages caused as a result of the animal’s eating and walking there. According to this explanation, the animal’s owner is exempt even if the animal somehow caused damage in somebody’s property by stepping on something in the public domain. Since the damage was caused by the animal as it walked in the public domain, the owner is not responsible. Others disagree, and claim that the owner is exempt only if the damage was caused in the public domain, but not if it occurred in somebody’s property, even if it was caused by the animal’s treading in the public domain. These authorities maintain that the owner is absolved if the damage occurred in the public domain not because the animal had the right to walk there, but for a different reason. Some explain that he is absolved because the victim should not have had his belongings in the public domain, where they could be damaged. Others assert that this exemption is simply a “Gezerat Ha’katub” – a “Scriptural decree” that is not based upon any reasoning which we can grasp. Proof to this theory may be drawn from the Shulhan Aruch’s ruling that if an animal went into someone’s property, took some food, and then brought it to the public domain and ate it there, the owner does not bear liability. Even though the animal brought the item from the victim’s property, where it did not have the right to be, the owner is nevertheless exempt, since the damage occurred in the public domain. This would seem to prove that the exemption constitutes a “Gezerat Ha’katub,” and is not rooted in any rationale which we can understand. Further proof may be drawn from the fact that this exemption extends even to animals which may not be raised in Eretz Yisrael. The Sages enacted that certain animals which are dangerous or frequently cause damage should not be bred in the Land of Israel, but nevertheless, if such an animal eats or tramples on someone’s possessions in a public domain in Eretz Yisrael, the owner does not bear liability. Clearly, the animal did not have the right to be present in the public domain; it did not have the right to be in the country at all. The fact that the owner is nevertheless exempt would seem to prove that this exemption was introduced as a “Gezerat Ha’katub,” and not because the animal had the right to be present in the public domain.