Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Damage Done by a Rented Ox

Nature vs nurture is an ongoing argument; in fact, it is actually a machlokes ta'na'im.  Which means, of course, that both positions are true and it will always be a struggle to determine how much of each is responsible in any given situation.  The situation we'll consider (Bava Kama, 40a) is an ox that is owned by one party, let's call him Leon the lender, and rented by, oh heck... let's call him Ralph.  Before we go further, we need some background on payment due for damage done to one ox by another.

Your standard issue ox is known as a "tahm"/innocent.  Oxen, being big and not so bright (hence the expression, "you dumb ox"), sometimes do damage; even the most docile ox can do pretty hefty damage (hence the expression, "bull in a china shop").  The Torah says that the one in control of the ox will have to pay half the damages incurred, limited by the worth of the animal.  This is know as "chatzi nezek mi'gufo".  The owner of an ox worth $500 who kills an ox worth $800 will be required to pay $400; if it the victim was worth $1000 or more, he would have to pay $500.  Once an ox has killed three times in three days (as verified by witnesses in court), however, he becomes a "mu'ad"; the owner will henceforth be required to pay full damages with no limiting cap.

So Ralph goes to Leon to rent an ox.  He sees one that looks very energetic (aka lebadich) in the "tahm" coral and rents him for a week.  During that week, the ox kills Ralph's neighbor's ox.  Leon then reveals that the ox he rented to Ralph is actually a mu'ad!  Ralph is incensed.  When the dust settles, Ralph is obligated to pay half (limited by the value of the attack ox he rented) and Leon will have to make up the difference.  The fact that the ox was under the control of Ralph when he attacked does not seem to make any difference; his violent nature is responsible.
Nature 1; Nurture 0.

Next time, Ralph is a more educated consumer and confirms that the ox he rents from Leon is a tahm (though still lebadich).  Ralph, however, is not such a straight shooter either; the ox gores three times in three days while rented by Ralph and certified mu'ad by a court of law.  Ralph returns the animal, which a week or two later kills another ox.  The victim wants full damages.  Nope.  When the ox left Leon it was a tahm, when it was under the control of Ralph, it became a mu'ad, when it was returned to Leon it reverted to its tahm status.  The change of control in leaving Ralph and returning to Leon also changed the status of the ox from mu'ad (back) to tahm.
Nature 0; Nurture 1.

So which is it?  The beginning case says nature (aka, r'shus eina m'shana), the ending case says nurture (aka, r'shus m'shana).  You are welcome to check out the gemara (Bava Kama 40b), Rashi, Tosofos, Me'iri, Rashba, and Art Scroll; all of whom weigh in.  Or you can check back here tomorrow, b'ezras HaShem; of the next few days if there is lesss heavenly help coming that I hope for.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Love in the Time of Corona Virus/Anxiously Awaiting the Mashiach

Two scenarios: Scenario I: A young boy awakened in the middle of the night, placed in the back of vehicle, told not to make any noise, and the vehicle speeds off down the highway. Scenario II: Young boy playing in park goes to see firetruck, turns around to see scary man in angry pursuit, poised to attack. I experienced and lived through both of those scenarios. Terrifying, no? Actually, no; and my picture was never on a milk carton. Here's the context: Scenario I: We addressed both set of our grandparents as "grandma" and "grandpa". How did we distinguish? One set lived less than a half hour's drive; those were there "close grandma and grandpa". The other set lived five hour drive away; they were the "way far away grandma and grandpa". To make the trip the most pleasant for all of us, Dad would wake up my brother and I at 4:00AM, we'd groggily -- but with excitement! -- wander out and down to the garage where we'd crawl

Thought for the Day: David HaMelech's Five Stages of Finding HaShem In the World

Many of us "sing" (once you have heard what I call carrying a tune, you'll question how I can, in good conscience, use that verb, even with the quotation marks) Eishes Chayil before the Friday night Shabbos meal.  We feel like we are singing the praises of our wives.  In fact, I have also been to chasunas where the chasson proudly (sometimes even tearfully) sings Eishes Chayil to his new eishes chayil.  Beautiful.  Also wrong.  (The sentiments, of course, are not wrong; just a misunderstanding of the intent of the author of these exalted words.) Chazal (TB Brachos, 10a) tell us that when Sholmo HaMelech wrote the words "She opens her mouth Mwith wisdom; the torah of kindness is on her tongue", that he was referring to his father, Dovid HaMelech, who (I am continuing to quote Chazal here) lived in five worlds and sang a song of praise [to each].  It seems to me that "world" here means a perception of reality.  Four times Dovid had to readjust his perc

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that referred to the noise of תקתוק