An animal that wanders into someone's private property and causes damage - the owner of the animal is liable. But if the animal caused damage because it gave birth, that is a case that begins with negligence, but the damage is because of an accident, as it were. Perhaps that means the animal's owner is exempt from paying because the damage was unavoidable. Or should the owner have guarded the animal even more carefully? Also, the case of a person who cut down a date palm, one of three in a little grove, and the case is brought to the exilarch for adjudication. Until the perpetrator rejects the civil authority, and the cad comes before R. Nachman.