Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Rif Bava Kamma 21a {47a - 48b}

21a

{Bava Kamma 47a}
Mishna:

הקדר שהכניס את קדרותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ושברתן בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור
ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הקדרות חייב
ואם הכניס ברשות בעל החצר חייב:
IF A POTTER BRINGS HIS WARES INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND THE CATTLE OF THE OWNER OF THE COURTYARD BREAKS THEM, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.
SHOULD THE ANIMAL BE INJURED BY THEM, THE OWNER OF THE POTTERY IS LIABLE [TO PAY DAMAGES].
IF, HOWEVER, HE BROUGHT [THEM] IN WITH PERMISSION, THE OWNER OF THE COURTYARD IS LIABLE.

הכניס פירותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור
ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הפירות חייב
ואם הכניס ברשות בעל חצר חייב:
IF [A MAN] BRINGS HIS PRODUCE INTO THE COURTYARD OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT PERMISSION AND THE ANIMAL OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES CONSUMES IT, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.
IF IT WAS HARMED BY IT THE OWNER WOULD BE LIABLE.
IF, HOWEVER, HE BROUGHT THEM IN WITH PERMISSION, THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES WOULD BE LIABLE.

{Bava Kamma 47b}
Gemara:
אמר עולא אמר רב ל"ש אלא שהוחלקה בהן אבל אכלה פטור
מאי טעמא
היה לה שלא תאכל:
Ulla cited Rav {our gemara just has Rav}: They only learned this where the animal {was injured} by slipping on them, but if the animal ate them {and was thereby harmed}, there would be exemption. What is the reason? It should not have eaten them.

{Bava Kamma 48a}
ההיא איתתא דעלתה למיפא בההיא ביתא
אתא ברחא דמרי ביתא אכליה ללישה
חביל ומית חייבה
רבא לשלומי דמי ברחא
לימא פליגא דרבא אדרב
דאמר רב היה לה שלא תאכל
There was a certain woman who entered to bake in a certain house. A goat of the owner of the house came and ate from the dough. It became sick and died. Rava required {her} to pay the value of the goat.
Let us say this is in disagreement with Rav. For Rav said: It should not have eaten.

הכי השתא התם שלא ברשות לא קבל עליה נטירותא הכא ברשות קבל עליה נטירותא
ומאי שנא מהאשה שנכנסה לטחון חטים אצל בעה"ב שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעה"ב פטור הוזקה בהן חייבת
טעמא דשלא ברשות הא ברשות פטורה
אמרי לטחון חטים כיון דלא בעי צניעותא לא מסלקין מרואתא דחצר נפשייהו הלכך עלייהו דידהו רמיא נטירותא
אבל למיפא כיון דבעי צניעותא סלוקי מסלקי מרואתא דחצר נפשייהו
הלכך עלה דידה רמיא נטירותא
Let us see now. There, where it was not with permission {that the animal entered}, he did not accept upon himself an obligation to watch. Here, it was with permission, such that he accepted upon himself the obligation to watch.
And why is this different from the woman who entered to grind wheat by the owner of a house without permission, and the animal of the owner of the premises eats it up, he is exempt; and if the animal suffers harm the woman is liable? The reason is that it was without permission, but with permission, she would be exempt!?
They can say: To grind wheat, since it does not require privacy, the owner of the courtyard will not absent himself. Therefore upon him devolves the requirement to guard. But to bake, since it requires privacy {since the woman would uncover her arms}, the owner of the courtyard would absent himself. Therefore upon her devolves the requirement to guard.

{Bava Kamma 47a}
Mishna:
הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ונגחו שורו של בעה"ב או שנשכו כלבו של בעה"ב פטור
נגח הוא שורו של בעה"ב חייב
נפל לבור והבאיש את מימיו חייב
היה אביו או בנו בתוכו משלם את הכופר
ואם הכניס ברשות בעל חצר חייב
רבי אומר בכולן אינו חייב עד שיקבל עליו בעל הבית לשמור:
IF [A MAN] BRINGS HIS OX INTO THE COURTYARD OF A HOMEOWNER WITHOUT
{Bava Kamma 47b}
PERMISSION AND THE OX OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES GORES IT OR THE DOG OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES BITES IT, THERE IS NO LIABILITY.
SHOULD IT GORE THE OX OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES, ITS OWNER WOULD BE LIABLE.
IF IT FALLS [THERE] INTO A PIT OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES AND MAKES THE WATER IN IT FOUL, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY.
SO ALSO IF [IT KILLS] THE OWNER'S FATHER OR SON [WHO] WAS INSIDE THE PIT, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY TO PAY KOFER.
IF, HOWEVER, HE BROUGHT IT IN WITH PERMISSION, THE OWNER OF THE YARD WOULD BE LIABLE.
RABBI, HOWEVER, SAYS: IN ALL THESE CASES THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNLESS HE HAS TAKEN IT UPON HIMSELF TO WATCH [THE ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO HIS PREMISES].

{Bava Kamma 48a}
Gemara:
אמר רבא הכניס שורו לחצר בעה"ב שלא ברשות וחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות בעל השור חייב בנזקי חצר ובעל חצר חייב בנזקי הבור
ואע"ג דאמר מר כי יכרה איש בור ולא שור בור הכא כיון דאית עליה לאיתויי עפרא וממלי ליה ולא קא מייתי ומימלי כמאן דכרייה הוא דמי:
Rava said: If he brings his ox on another person's ground and it digs there pits, ditches, and caves, the owner of the ox would be liable for the damage done to the ground, and the owner of the ground would be liable for any damage resulting from the pit.
And even though Master said {earlier}: {Shemot 21:33}
לג וְכִי-יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר, אוֹ כִּי-יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר--וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ; וְנָפַל-שָׁמָּה שּׁוֹר, אוֹ חֲמוֹר. 33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein,
and not an ox {shall dig} a pit, here since there is upon him to bring dirt and fill it, and he did not bring it and fill it, he is like one who dug it.

ואמר רבא הכניס שורו לחצר בעה"ב שלא ברשות והזיק את בעה"ב או בעה"ב הוזק בו חייב
הרביץ גללים וטנפו כליו של בעה"ב פטור דהוו להו גללים בור ולא מצינו בור שחייב בו את הכלים:
And Rava said: If he brings his ox into the premises of another person without permission, and the ox injures the owner of the premises, or the owner of the premises suffers injury through the ox {by stumbling over it}, he is liable.
If it lays down its excrements and thereby soils the utensils of the owner of the premises, he is exempt. For the excrements are considered Pit, and we do not find Pit involving liability for damage done to inanimate objects.

ואמר רבא נכנס לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות והזיק את בעל הבית או בעל הבית הוזק בו חייב הזיקו בעה"ב פטור
אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא דלא הוה ידע ביה אבל הוה ידע ביה אפילו הזיקו בעה"ב חייב
מ"ט משום דאמר ליה כי אית לך רשותא לאפוקן לאזוקן לית לך רשותא
ואזדו לטעמייהו
דאמר רבא ואיתימא רב פפא שניהן ברשות שניהן שלא ברשות הזיקו זה את זה חייבין הוזקו זה בזה פטורין
טעמא דשניהן ברשות ושניהן שלא ברשות אבל אחד ברשות ואחד שלא ברשות שברשות פטור ושלא ברשות חייב:
And Rava said: If one enters the premises of another person without permission, and injures the owner of the premises, or the owner of the premises suffers injury through him there would be liability; if the owner of the premises injured him, there would be no liability.
Rav Pappa said: They only said this where the owner had not noticed him. For if he had noticed him, even the owner of the premises by injuring him would render himself liable.

What is the reason? For he {=the trespasser} could say to him, "you have authority to send them out, but to damage them you do not have authority."
And they maintain a consistent opinion. For Rava said, or some say Rav Pappa:
{Bava Kamma 48b}
Where both of them had a right {to be where they were} or where both of them had no right, if either of them injured the other, he would be liable, but if either suffered injury through the other, there would be no liability.
The reason is that both of them had a right or both of them had no right, but where one of them had a right and the other had no right, the one who had a right would be exempt, whereas the one who had no right would be liable.

נפל לבור והבאיש מימיו:
הג"ה אמר רב לא שנו אלא שהבאיש מגופו אבל הבאיש מריחו פטור מאי טעמא גרמא בעלמא הוא ע"כ:
"IF IT FALLS [THERE] INTO A PIT OF THE OWNER AND MAKES THE WATER IN IT FOUL":
Gloss: Rav {our gemara: Rava} said: They only learnt this where it made the water foul by its body, but where it made the water foul by the smell {of its carcass} there would be no liability.
What is the reason? It was only a {secondary} cause. End quote.

היה אביו או בנו בתוכו משלם את הכופר
אמאי הא תם הוא ותם אינו משלם את הכופר
אמר רב במועד ליפול על בני אדם בבורות
אי הכי בר קטלא הוא
דחזא ירקא ונפל:
"IF HIS FATHER OR HIS SON [WHO] WAS INSIDE THE PIT, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY TO PAY KOFER":
Why? It is a Tam, and a Tam does not pay kofer!?
Rav said: Where the ox was Mu'ad to fall upon people in pits.
If so, should it not have already been executed?
That it was looking at some grass and thus fell.

ואם הכניס ברשות בעל החצר חייב וכו':
איתמר אמר רב הונא אמר רב הלכתא כתנא קמא
ושמואל אמר הלכתא כרבי
והלכתא כשמואל דקי"ל הלכתא כשמואל בדיני
"AND IF HE BROUGHT THEM IN WITH PERMISSION, THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES WOULD BE LIABLE":
It was stated {by Amoraim}: Rav Huna cited Rav: The halacha is like the Tanna Kamma. And Shmuel said: The halacha is like Rabbi.
And the halacha is like Shmuel, for we establish that the halacha is like Shmuel by {monetary} law.

1 comment:

Shai Gluskin said...

Regarding the permission (liable)/no permission (owner not liable)... it occurs to me that this whole approach breeds an attitude of responsibility. Permission actually increases responsibility on the part of the one who grants it.

It's part of healthy accountability. Being accountable usually requires that there is someone to hold you accountable.

The danger here is that, knowing the law, one can sometimes "work" it. For instance, avoiding giving someone permission, knowing however that the person is quite likely to proceed without the permission. The avoidance is conscious and intended for the precise purpose of reducing the person's responsibility. This is why Torah is an eitz chayim, a living and breathing document meant to serve the will of God and not the will of the crafty sekhel that spurns responsibility.