Lesson # 313 (part one) •Damage Caused by Chattel We begin a new topic, damages caused by a person’s chattel (personal property). For the women and men who studied Talmud in yeshiva or other schools, this is a very popular topic. Others will IYH get to know this topic in this and the next few lessons. It is a fundamental rule that just as a person is responsible for injuries and damages that he causes and must pay compensation to the victim of his personal actions, so is a person responsible for injuries or damages caused by his property; he must pay must pay compensation to the victim. This lesson commences the laws of damages caused by one's property, and will continue for a few more lessons. Most of these laws deal with animals that cause injuries and damages. Injuries are to persons and damages are to property. In essence there are four different types of causes of damages. Two are animate - man and an animal; two are inanimate - fire and a pit. For our purposes, the animate things owned by a person are limited to animals owned by him and do not include slaves owned by him, although they are considered his property. The owner of a slave is not liable for injuries and/or damages caused by the slave so as to prevent a situation in which a slave who is angry with his master would intentionally cause injury to a third person and his master would have to pay for it. The subject of the ox is the basis of the most sophisticated Talmudic lectures and discussions; it is featured in the novella of most prominent Talmudic scholars. It is also treated at length in Maimonides, Shulhan Aruch and all of the Codes, commentaries and responsa literature. I think that this ox is even more famous than the "cow that jumped over the moon"; wherever there is and has been Torah scholarship, this ox has played and continues to play a prominent role. Of course it is not the ox that is important, but rather the role of Reuven - the owner of the ox - in his relationship towards Shimon, who himself or his property has been injured or damaged by Reuven's ox. What are Reuven's obligations towards Shimon (and the community) regarding his ox? The ox merely represents an object belonging to Reuven that may have a propensity to inflict injury and/or damages. No ox has ever been sued in Beth Din by a cow; but Shimon - the owner of a cow that was gored by Reuven's ox - is to sue Reuven. The laws of damages caused by
an animal are divided into three main categories: (1) with its horn; (2)
with its tooth; and (3) with its foot. The laws shall be designated in these
lessons as such. Category (1), with its horn, is subdivided into two types;
(a) if the ox is forewarned or (b) if the ox is innocuous. Thus only in
category (1) is there a difference between a forewarned and an innocuous
animal. In the other two categories, with its tooth and with its foot, there
are no subtypes; the ox is deemed forewarned Each of the categories has laws that are unique to it while other laws are shared by some or all of the categories. The owner of the ox causing the injuries and/or damages is designated as "Reuven"; the victim of the injuries and/or damages is designated as "Shimon". The real estate owned by a person, other Reuven or Shimon, is designated as "his yard". As mentioned above, just as a person is liable for damages that he himself causes, he is also liable for damages caused by his animals and his other property. Reuven has the obligation to watch his animals so that they will not cause injuries and/or damages and if they do, he is liable to the victim for injuries and/or damages. Also stated above is the fact that nowadays Beth Din does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving injuries and a damage caused with the ox's horns. We shall begin on our adventure of getting to know Torah tort law with a definition of the innocuous ox, the “tam”. IY"H we shall define the forewarned ox in the next lesson. If an ox causes damage by an act that it ordinarily does not do, such as causing damage with its horn, it is deemed to be innocuous. Although it causes damage thereby, it is still not classified as an ox that causes damage as a forewarned ox. The innocuous ox here is a difference in the payments that the owner of an innocuous ox must make to the victim of the goring and the payments that an owner of a forewarned ox must make. The owner of an innocuous ox compensates for only one-half of the damage caused by the ox. In this case the payment is also limited to the value of the body of the ox that caused the damage. Thus if Reuven's ox that gores is worth less than or is equal to one-half of Shimon's damage, Shimon takes the goring ox as full compensation. If the goring ox is worth more than the damage, then both Reuven and Shimon are partners in the goring ox. For example, assume the value of Reuven's ox that gored Shimon's ox is $50. Shimon's ox was worth $200 before being gored and is now worth only $40. Shimon's loss is $160. Reuven must pay one-half of that amount - $80. However, Reuven's ox is worth only $50. Reuven need only to turn over to Shimon the ox that gored and need not pay the balance. If Reuven's ox is valued at $100 and Shimon's ox was worth $120 and after being gored is now worth $90, Shimon suffers a loss of $30. Reuven must pay one-half of the loss - $15. Shimon thereby becomes the owner of 15% of Reuven's ox and Reuven retains 85% of the ox. If Reuven says he wants to pay cash for the damage and to keep his own ox, if the ox is not worth more than half the damage, Shimon can insist that the ox be turned over to him. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume X chapter 389 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il [The Parshat
Mikeitz Homepage]
|
