Lesson # 309 • Reuven Damages Shimon’s Animal Sometimes I meet a person who has read my articles in Torah Tidbits and she or he will tell me that the last time he heard a discussion of the subject matter of the article was over 50 years ago in yeshiva. This week’s article will refresh many recollections as to what was learned in Baba Kama. This article discusses the laws that are unique to situations where Reuven with his own hands, directly or indirectly causes death or injury to an animal belonging to Shimon. Reuven either: (a) actually touches the animal causing its death or injury; or (b) does not actually touch the animal with his hands, but his act results in death or injury to the animal. Just as Reuven is liable for damages caused to Shimon’s inanimate chattel, so is he liable for damages or death that he causes to Shimon’s animals. Assume that Reuven places a burning ember on Shimon’s ox near the heart and the ox is burned to death. The halacha remains the same whether Shimon was close by, observed when this happened and did not remove the burning ember, or was not close by. There are two opinions as to the liability of Reuven: 1. Reuven is liable only if the ox was tied up and could not move about to shake off the burning ember. If the ox was not tied up and it could have shaken off the burning ember, therefore Reuven is not liable, whether or not Shimon was present when this took place. While according to this view, Reuven has no liability in Beth Din, he is liable to Shimon in the judgments of Heaven. A person is not forgiven in Heaven unless he makes payment on Earth to the injured party. 2. Reuven is liable to pay for the destruction of Shimon’s ox even if the ox was not tied up and whether or not Shimon was present. Not every ox would shake itself to remove a burning ember on its hide. Reuven can successfully plead that Shimon, if he was present, had a duty to remove the burning ember from his ox. [The monetary obligations do not take into account the wickedness of both Reuven and Shimon who let the ox die by burning. See A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law, volume 9, chapter 338 which discusses prohibited conduct by people against animals.] In the example above, Reuven placed a burning ember close to the heart of the animal. Assume that Reuven pushes Shimon’s animal into a lake, the animal cannot get out and drowns. Or Reuven pushes the animal into an enclosure from which it cannot escape the blistering heat and dies of the heat. In both of these instances Reuven touched the animal and is therefore liable to Shimon for the death of the animal. If the animal could have managed to get out of he water or the sun but did not do so, then Reuven is free of the liability from Beth Din but is liable to the judgments of Heaven. Assume that Reuven does not touch the animal and the animal by itself falls into the water or enters the enclosure from which there is no respite from the sun. Thereafter, Reuven by physically touching the animal prevents the animal from escaping the water or the heat. Reuven is liable for he directly caused the death of the animal. However, if Reuven does not touch the animal after it enters the water or enclosure of its own volition, Reuven locks the door so that the animal could not escape the water or the heat, and the animal dies, then Reuven is not liable since he did not touch the animal. If more than one person causes the loss they are both liable. Assume that both Yehuda and Reuven throw Shimon’s animal into a deep lake and the animal drowns. Shimon can sue both of them and obtain a judgment against both Reuven and Yehuda for the full value of the animal, but he can only collect the value once. Thus if Reuven pays the entire amount, Shimon cannot levy against Yehuda. Reuven can look to Yehuda for a contribution toward the payment that he had made. Assume that five persons loaded bundles on Shimon’s mule, and the mule is able to carry the load. Reuven then places another bundle on the mule and mule collapses and dies. If when Reuven placed his bundle on the mule as it was walking and when he placed the bundle on it, the mule stopped and collapsed, then Reuven is solely liable. The other five persons are not liable. Conversely, if before Reuven placed his bundles on it the mule was faltering because of the bundles or the original five persons, then the five are liable and Reuven is free of liability. Reuven’s property is threatened by Shimon and to escape damage to his property, Reuven damages Shimon’s animal. Reuven is free of liability if he could not have saved his own property in any other manner. This in spite of the fact that Reuven could have sued Shimon for damages inflicted by Shimon on Reuven’s property. However, if in order to save his own property from damages not threatened by Levi , Reuven damages Levi’s animal, then Reuven is liable to Levi. A person may not save himself or his property by damaging someone else’s property and is therefore liable for the damage caused. Shimon, in order to save his own jug filled with wine, leans it against a vessel belonging to Reuven so that Shimon’s jug should not fall. Reuven thereafter removes his own vessel and in doing so Shimon’s jug is broken. Reuven is liable for the damages that Shimon suffered to his jug and wine. Reuven should not have removed his vessel causing Shimon’s jug to break; he should have waited until he could find another vessel to rest Shimon’s jug thereon and only then removed his own vessel. If Reuven did provide another vessel to support Shimon’s jug and the jug broke, Reuven is not liable. It has been held that the following is a similar situation: Two men, Shimon and Levi are fighting and Reuven trying to stop the fight pushes Shimon away. Shimon is injured as a result of being pushed away. Reuven is liable if he could have pushed Shimon away in a gentler manner. If Reuven could not have saved Levi without pushing Shimon, then Reuven is not liable to Shimon. If Shimon is much stronger than Levi and Reuven saves Levi by pushing Shimon, then Reuven is free of liability. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume X chapter 383 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 To-l'dot Homepage]
|
