(Exodus 22:4) "If a man ravage a field or a vineyard, and he send his beast, etc.": Why is this written? (Even) if it were not written, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a pit is his property, and his (beast, that is) "sent" is his property, then if you have learned that he is liable for his pit, (which is stationary,) then should he not be liable for his beast, (which is sent)! If it is derivable a fortiori, why need the verse be stated? It comes to teach that the tooth is a mued (i.e., "confirmed") to eat what is appropriate for it, and a best is a mued to break (objects in its path) as it walks, (so that there is full liability even for the first instance of such damages).