Torah Community Connections

Week 92 - Tuesday - 28 August 2001

BAVA KAMMA: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 3

If a dog or a kid jumped from the top of a roof and broke vessels, he pays full damages, since they are mu'ad. If a dog took a cake and went to a stack of corn, and ate the cake and ignited the stack of corn, he pays full damages for the cake, and he pays half-damages for the stack of corn.

Kehati

If a dog or a kid - whose owner had left them on the top of a roof close to his neighbor's courtyard - jumped from the top of a roof - into the courtyard - and broke vessels - there, when jumping on them - he pays full damages - according to the law of damages caused by the foot - since they are mu'ad - it is their nature to jump, and this is a derivative of the principal of "foot

If a dog took a cake - which was baking on coals, and a hot coal adhered to it - and went - with the cake - to a stack of corn - belonging to the owner of the cake, and ate the cake and ignited the stack of corn - with the hot coal, he - the owner of the dog - pays full damages for the cake - according to the law of damages caused by the tooth in the domain of the injured party, for it is normal for a dog to eat the cake, even though there are hot coals adhering to it, and he pays half-damages for the stack of corn- since it is similar to the case of chips (above, Mishnah 1).

Rambam, in his commentary on our mishnah gives a different reason for this law: namely, that the damage is abnormal, since it is not natural for a dog to ignite a fire.

Amoraim in the Gemara disagree as to the nature of a person's responsibility for damage caused by fire: Rabbi Yohanan holds "his fire is due to his arrows," i.e., a person is responsible for fire since it comes from his power, and is as if his hands had themselves done the damage, similar to one who shoots an arrow and injures his fellow. Resh Lakish holds "his fire is due to his property," i.e., that the Torah obligated man for damages caused by fire since the fire is considered to be his property, and he is responsible just as a person is responsible for damages caused by his ox or his pit. The law is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that his fire is due to his arrows. In the case of the stacked corn in our mishnah, however, the fire is brought by the dog, i.e., it is the dog's arrows, and this is similar to the "chips"; he is therefore obligated for half-damages for the stacked corn. The Gemara also explains that Rabbi Yohanan holds that the case here refers to the dog placing the coal on the stacked corn in its normal manner. In such a case the owner of the dog is obligated to pay full damages for the place of the coal, and half-damages only for the rest of the stacked corn, like the law for chips (see Tosefot Yom Tov).

BAVA KAMMA: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 4

Which is tam and which is mu'ad? A mu'ad is any about which they warned three days, and tam when it refrained three days; this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says, mu'ad, about which they had warned three times, and tam, any which children touch and it does not gore.

Kehati

This mishnah interprets what was taught above in 1:4; "and the shor mu'ad."

Which - ox - is tam and which is mu'ad - for damages caused by the horn, and when does it reacquire the status of tam after having acquired the status of mu'ad? A mu'ad - is any ox - which gored three times in three days, and after each goring - about which they warned - its owner in the presence of the Court to guard it, - such an ox has acquired the status of mu'ad, and its owner is henceforth obliged to pay full damages. If, however, the ox gored three times in a single day, even though the owner was warned after each goring, the ox does not acquire the status of mu'ad; and - the ox reacquires the status of - tam - after having become mu'ad - when it refrained - i.e. it saw oxen - three days - and did not gore them; this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah.

Rabbi Meir says, Mu'ad - is the ox which gored three times, even during a single day, and - about which after each goring, they had warned - the owner to guard it three times - and - it reacquires the status of- tam, any which children who pull and play with it touch it - and it does not gore - The law is in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah for the definition of mu'ad, and in accordance with Rabbi Meir for the definition of tam.

According to Rambam, the law is in accordance with Rabbi Meir: that a shor mu'ad does not reacquire the status of tam until children play with it, even if it refrained from goring other oxen during the course of three days. Others hold, however, that even when children play with it, it reacquires its previous status of tam, and certainly reacquires this status if it refrained from goring other oxen for three days (Rabbeinu Asher, Yam shel Shlomo).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives