Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Learning from One Scenario to Another

So... we had a question about whether a vessel is considered broken from the time it is launched toward certain doom or only after impact.  Case in point was Mrs. O'Learystein's cow kicking Yehuda's crystal ice bucket from the public thoroughfare into Yehuda's living room and smashing against the wall.  The gemara wants to learn what to do from the case of  Reuvein knocking his vase off the roof and Shimon smashing it with a bat before it hits the ground.  Since we know the halacha in the latter case (Shimon is patur), the gemara asserts that the underlying reason must be that the vessel was considered broken from the time it was knocked over.  The gemara then applies that reason to the the case of the cow kicking the bucket and concludes that Mrs O'Learystein does not need to reimburse Yehuda because the damage halachically occured int the public thoroughfare.

Proofs like these are tricky.  It is true that the proposed reason explains the halacha, but there could be other reasons that explain the halacha equally well.  In fact, a much easier explanation is that when Reuvein knocked his vase off the roof and realized how it was going to end, that he simply relinquished ownership and that's why Shimon is patur.  On the other hand, if you say he hadn't given up hope because maybe it wouldn't break or the pieces would be big enough to repair... then how could Shimon be patur; ie, how can it be considered broken already when it might not break at all?  That is, we can only compare this to our case if it is certain to break, but then Reuvein certainly relinquishes ownership so it it not comparable to our case, but then it must not be certain to break, but then Reuvein does not relinquish ownership, so it is not comparable to our case, but the gemara says that it is comparable to our case, so it must be destined for certain breakitude, but then... round and round she goes!

R' Shimon Shkop breaks the circuit (bu not the vase) by distinguishing between when we assert that someone relinquishes ownership and when someone becomes obligated in damages.  To be concrete (like our sidewalk), assume that there is a 10% chance that the vase will not break on impact (so maybe our sidewalk isn't concrete, but AstroTurf).  From Reuevein's perspective, since there is a 10% chance of survival he is not giving up hope and so retains ownership.  On the other hand, from Shimon's perspective there is 90% chance it will break; Shimon can therefore not be held responsible for breaking the vase... it was already considered broken.

In other words: we have used "hamotzi mei'chaveiro alav ha'raya" on both sides.  More to come...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Battling the Evil Inclination on all Fronts

Yom Kippur.  When I was growing up, there were three annual events that marked the Jewish calendar: eating matzos on Passover, lighting candles on Chanuka, and  fasting on Yom Kippur.  Major news organizations around the world report on the "surreal" and "eerie" quiet of the streets in even the most secular neighborhoods of Israel.  Yom Kippur.

As you know, I am observant of Jewish law.  Some have even called me "ultra orthodox" (not in a kind way).  Given that, I have a question.  How likely do you think that I would be tempted to eat on Yom Kippur, that most holy day of the year?  Let's make the scale zero to ten, where zero is "as likely as driving through McDonald's on Shabbos and ordering a Big Mac with extra cheese." and ten is "as likely as breathing regularly".  Take your time.  If you answered "zero"; thank you, but -- sadly and penitently -- no.  The answer is more like nine; I'd like to say lower, but i…

Thought for the Day: Sometimes a Food Loses Its Identity When It Loses Its Bracha; Sometimes It Doesn't

Let's start with a question: Why are We Allowed to Drink Coffee and Whiskey Made by Non-Jews?  Before you ask,"Why would I think that I shouldn't be able to drink whiskey and coffee made by non-Jews?", I'll tell you. Simple, we all know that Chazal made a decree -- known as בישול עכו''ם/bishul akim -- that particular foods cooked by non-Jews are forbidden.  There are basically two criteria that determines if a dish falls into this category:
Is not consumed raw.Fit for a royal banquet. Cooked carrots, therefore, are not a problem since they can be eaten raw (I actually prefer them that way).  Baked beans are find because the are not prestigious enough.  (For great synopsis of the laws, see the article on the Star-K site, FOOD FIT FOR A KING, by Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, shlita.)  There are lots of cool questions and details (baked potatoes are prestigious, does that make even potato chips and issue?) which are for another time.  Clearly, though, both coffee an…

Thought for the Day: Coming Into This World for Torah, Avodah, and Acts of Loving Kindness

This TftD is so self-serving that I should be embarrassed.  But I am not... talking about grandchildren is always off budget.  I have, bli ayin hara, a beautiful new grandson; born at 6:11 PM CDT last Friday night.  The secular (aka -- by me, anyway -- slave) date is October 20, 2017 CE.  The Hebrew (aka Real) date is certainly Rosh Chodesh חשון/Cheshvan and certainly in the year 5778 since Creation.  The date, you ask... good question!

Sundown on Friday night was 6:01 PM CDT, which means he was born either at the end of the last day of תשרי or the beginning of the first day of Cheshvan; a period know as בין השמשות/twilight.  What's the big deal, you ask... I am so glad you asked.  We all deal quite handily with בין השמשות every week and every holiday; we're just stringent.  We start Shabbos and the first day of Yom Tov before בין השמשות; that is, before sundown.  Likewise, we end Shabbos and the first day of Yom Tov after בין השמשות; some 42, 50, 60, or 72 minutes after sundo…