Ox and man each have stringencies over the other, and the liability for one can't be derived from another.If combined, can the two teach liability for fire? Ox has the intent to damage, whereas fire does not. However, a man is liable even for damage that he inflicts while sleeping. Thus, the intent to damage is not essential.
Man is liable for four damage payments but fire for just one. However, the ox disproves that since it is also liable for just one payment.
Man and ox are alive, and fire is not; thus, liability for fire had to be mentioned in the Torah.
Art: Girl Sleeping By The Fire by Friedrich Wasmann
No comments:
Post a Comment