In the case of one ox worth two hundred zuz that gored another ox worth two hundred and the carcass is worth fifty, one owner takes half of the live ox and half of the dead one, and so does the other. Thus, each party suffers half the loss, and the damager can pay the carcass as a partial payment.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Bava Kamma 34 - Half The Loss (Torts)
In the case of one ox worth two hundred zuz that gored another ox worth two hundred and the carcass is worth fifty, one owner takes half of the live ox and half of the dead one, and so does the other. Thus, each party suffers half the loss, and the damager can pay the carcass as a partial payment.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Bava Kamma 33 - Damages in Fighting (Torts)
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Bava Kamma 32 - Running Before Shabbat (Torts)
Said Rabbi Yochanan, - This ruling only talks about the time right before Shabbat, when running for the sake of Shabbat is allowed, but otherwise the one who runs is liable.
Suppose one chops wood in the public domain and thereby does damage in the private domain, or chops in the private domain and damages something in the public domain, or chops in private and damages something in the private domain. In all the cases, he is liable for full damages.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Bava Kamma 31 - Potter Stumbled and Fell (Torts)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Bava Kamma 30 - Pouring Water out in the Street (Torts)
Even in those cases where it is allowed to put hazardous objects out, such as pouring water out in the street in a rainy season, if a passerby is damaged, the one who poured out the water is liable.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Bava Kamma 29 - Responsibility for One's Objects (Torts)
They also argue after the breakage: one maintains that if a person leaves his hazardous objects and declares them ownerless, he is liable, while the other one maintains that the person is not liable.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Bava Kamma 28 - Can a Man Take Law into his own Hands? (Torts)
Rav Yehudah says that a person may not enforce the law for himself, but Rav Nachman says he may. They argue about a case where there will be no loss if he does not take action.
Rav Yehudah explains: "Since there will be no loss, let him go before the judge." Rav Nachman says: "Since he is acting in accordance with the law, he does not have to trouble himself and go before the judge."
The "Common Side" Logic in Midsummer Night's Dream
Ay me! for aught that I could ever read,
Could ever hear by tale or history,
The course of true love never did run smooth;
But, either it was different in blood,--
Lysander wants to prove that impediment to love do not foretell doom, rather, they portend success.
Proof: sometimes lovers came from different social stratas, and there are multiple cases where it worked out well – so too will our love!
O cross! too high to be enthrall'd to low.
Rebuttal: this only worked for women going higher in state, but I am already high.
Or else misgraffed in respect of years,--
Proof: impediment to love may come from difference of ages, but observe multiple cases where it worked out well – so too will our love!
O spite! too old to be engaged to young.
Rebuttal: the common cases here are young women marrying older men, but you are so young that you can not marry anyone younger then yourself
Or else it stood upon the choice of friends,--
Proof: Yet love overcame bad friendships. So too will ours!
O hell! to choose love by another's eyes.
Rebuttal: we do not have friends, even bad ones, but enemies who try to rule over us.
Or, if there were a sympathy in choice,
War, death, or sickness did lay siege to it,
Making it momentany as a sound,
Swift as a shadow, short as any dream;
Brief as the lightning in the collied night,
That, in a spleen, unfolds both heaven and earth,
And ere a man hath power to say 'Behold!'
The jaws of darkness do devour it up:
So quick bright things come to confusion.
Winning proof using the "common side" All of the cases above have a stringency not found in another. What is common between them? In all the cases there was love based on sympathy, and there were impediments to it. Regardless of all impediments, salvation came fast and unexpected. This then is the common rule.
If then true lovers have been ever cross'd,
It stands as an edict in destiny:
Then let us teach our trial patience,
Because it is a customary cross,
As due to love as thoughts and dreams and sighs,
Wishes and tears, poor fancy's followers.
Proof accepted. Once we have come to here, let us accept suffering as a human condition (but that is already Tao Te Chin)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Bava Kamma 27 - Liability of Two People Killing a Child (Torts)
If one places a jug in the public domain and another comes and stumbles and breaks it, the pedestrian is not liable. If the pedestrian was damaged by it, the owner of the jug is liable.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bava Kamma 26 - A Man Is Always Warned for Damages (Torts)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Bava Kamma 25 - Ox on the Premises of Damaged Party (Torts)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Bava Kamma 24 - From Warned Back To Innocent (Torts)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Bava Kamma 23 - Fire Damages (Torts)
A cow is only liable for eating someone else's fruit if it veered into someone's field. The cow's owner could try to claim that the cow's mouth is his premises, and "What is your fruit doing in my cow's mouth?" but the above case of a dog that ate a biscuit precludes this.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bava Kamma 22 - Dog or Kid Jump From a Roof (Torts)
If a dog took the biscuit from the coals and went to a stack of grain sheaves, where it ate the biscuit and set fire to the stack, for the biscuit, the dog's owner pays full damages, and for the stack, he pays half the damage.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Bava Kamma 21 - This One Benefits, The Other One Does not Lose (Torts)
Additional support for this ruling comes from "...through desolation the gate is broken apart," meaning that demons of desolation ruin the house, or alternatively from the reason that the residents see what needs repair and attend to it. What is the practical difference between these two reasons? Using the house for storing wood and straw.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Bava Kamma 20 - "Tooth" damages (Torts)
Eating in a pinch, such as cats eating dates and donkeys eating fish, is normal damage.
If one lives in the yard of his fellow without the latter's knowledge, does he have to pay rent? The inquiry is only in regard to a yard that is not for rent and a person who usually rents.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bava Kamma 19 - Bull breaking vessels with its male organ (Torts)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Bava Kamma 18 - Breaking a Broken Utensil (Torts)
Can we rely on another ruling: If chickens were pecking at the rope of a bucket, and it snapped, and the bucket broke, the chicken owner is responsible for damages. Is it because the bucket is broken from the beginning of the fall, and thus, the chickens are directly responsible? No! Perhaps the damages refer to the rope.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Bava Kamma 17 - Innocent and Established Damagers (Torts)
Regarding what is the foot of an animal considered an established damager? For breaking things in the course of its walking but not when kicking.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bava Kamma 16 - Usual and Unusual Damagers (Torts)
Five damage categories are considered unusual and liable for only half-damage: domestic animals who gore, push, bite, squat, and kick. Among the five damage categories deemed normal, with their owners "warned" of the complete liability: an animal while walking ("foot"), an ox that already gored, and a man that does damage.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Bava Kamma 15 - Do Normal Oxen Gore? (Torts)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Bava Kamma 14 - Who Can Judge? (Torts)
Any three knowledgeable persons who have mastered related areas of law can form a court to judge ordinary damages cases. However, unusual cases involving penalties, such as half-damages awarded in the first three instances of goring by an ox, can only be judged by people possessing an uninterrupted chain of ordination since the time of Moses. Therefore, such cases can not be adjudicated today.
Bava Kamma 13 - Whose Ox Did the Damage? (Torts)
One is liable for damage done anywhere except for premises reserved exclusively for the damager. If the damage occurs on his premises, the damager can ask, "What was your ox doing on my premises?"
Friday, January 9, 2009
Bava Kamma 12 - Are Slaves Like Land? (Torts)
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Bava Kamma 11 - The Value of a Carcass (Torts)
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Bava Kamma 10 - An Animal Falls into the Pit (Torts)
When an animal falls into the pit and dies, if the pit is at least 10 hand-breadths deep, the owner of the pit is liable. If one person digs the 9 hand-breadths and the second one adds 1 hand-breadth, the second one is liable for all the damage since he added the lethal quality to the pit.
The pit owner pays the difference between the animal's worth when it was alive and the carcass' value.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Bava Kamma 9 - Paying for Damages with Movable Items (Torts)
1. One can pay with bran only if he has no money and no land;
2. One can pay with bran only if he doesn't have money;
3. One can pay with bran even if he has money, and if he has no money or movables left, then he needs to pay with superior land.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Bava Kamma 7 - Whose Best Land? (Torts)
But whose best land is it?
Rabbi Ishmael says: "The damaged party's choicest field or the damaged party's choicest vineyard." Why? Just as another man's field (mentioned before) was that of the damaged party, the payment is also measured by the quality of the damaged party's land.
And Rabbi Akiba says: "he shall pay his choicest field," which clearly means - with the choicest field of the one who is paying."
Money or valuables are also acceptable.
Bava Kamma 6 - Other Damages Include... (Torts)
However, when the words "common characteristic" appear in the Mishnah, this is meant to include something else. What is it?
Abaye said: "One's stone, knife, or burden that he left on top of his roof, and they fell down and did the damage." Wind makes this case different.
Rava said: "An object that was left in the public domain (pit category), rolled to another place by the feet of the passerby and damaged there."
Friday, January 2, 2009
Bava Kamma 5 - Can Ox and Man Teach About Fire? (Torts)
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.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Bava Kamma 4 - How to Translate Mav'eh? (Torts)
Rabbi Oshaya listed thirteen primary damages: unpaid custodian, borrower, paid custodian, renter, bully, pain, healing, unemployment, and humiliation, plus the four primary damagers above. Why does the Mishna not include these? - It listed man and meant all types of damage inflicted by man.