Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Explanation of Liability for Damage Done by Rented/Rentable Oxen

Yesterday I wrote about the obligations of the owners and renters to pay for damage done by the oxen for rent.  There are two cases, in each Ralph rents regular (but leibadich) ox from Leon.  You may want to review, but here is the executive summary is:
Case I: The rented ox kills another ox while Ralph is renting it.  It is revealed that Leon actually rented Ralph a certified violent ox.  The damaged party is due full compensation, since the damage was done by a certified violent ox Ralph is obligated to pay the half damages that would be due if the ox had, in fact, been regular (not certified violent); Leon is responsible for the rest.
Case II: The ox becomes certified violent during the rental period.  The ox, after Ralph returns her, kills another ox.  The damaged party is due only limited half damages, as the ox has returned to her status of normal (no longer certified violent) once she was returned to Leon.  Leon pays the limited half damages; Ralph is off the hook completely.
Note that in Case I, the status of the animal was independent of who had control of her (r'shus einah m'shaneh); ie, that's her nature.  In Case II, though, her status changes from certified violent to normal when the stewardship changed (r'shus m'shaneh); ie, depends on how she is nurtured.  Seems to be a head on contradiction, as both cases are in a single ma'mar Chazal.  There are three ways to handle resolving the contradiction, and the gemara explores all three.

R' Yochanan punts; yep, it's two different opinions that were mistakenly put into one statement.

Rava says, since Case I says that nature is king, Case II must agree.  In that case, why did Leon only have to pay half damages?  Simple, Leon has every right to assume that Ralph was totally negligent in guarding the animal.  Any landlord knows that renters do not have the same concern for maintenance and upkeep that the owner himself does.  Therefore, Ralph doesn't have the legal ability to convert the ox to certified violent.  Ralph, on the other hand, is exempt because he is no longer connected to the animal at all when the damage was done.  Maybe Ralph was negligent, and maybe that will affect the animal for a long time.  That's included in the cost of doing this kind of business and -- in order to keep the marketplace running smoothly -- society absorbs some of that cost.

Rav Papa says, since Case II says that nurture is king, Case I must agree.  That being the case, why does the animal get treated as certified violent when Ralph took control?  Even though the ox is under Ralph's stewardship, Leon is still his owner and the ox (as well as everyone else) knows that.  So in Case I there was no "change in responsibility", but "addition of responsibility".  The animal therefore retains whatever nurture he already had while waiting to be rented and remains that way even when rented out.

Not completely clear?  Good... that means you understand; there are very fundamental forces at work here and I have left lots (oodles and oodles) of details to the interested reader.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more