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...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 Aru...
Post a Comment
Read more