Bava Kamma 053

1:
Our mishnah is not as straightforward as it seems to be. Indeed, at first glance the ruling of our mishnah seems to almost facile: is it not obvious that if you use as your own a field that is not yours that you would be liable for damages? Surely this is a clear case of simple trespass.

2:
The Gemara [BK59b] explains that we must understand the situation differently.

In his commentary of our present mishnah Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro explains the meaning of what Rav Pappa says:

3:
Let us explain the explanation in more modern terms. We must recall the layout of a typical village in Eretz-Israel during the centuries which are the subject of our study. All the houses were crowded together in the village (or town) which may or may not have been walled. Inside the village there was no room for any kind of agricultural activity at all. The circumference of the inhabited area was surrounded by an area that was free of all building and all agricultural activity. This area was for the recreation of the villagers. Beyond this 'green belt' each villager had his own allotment or allotments in which he could grow produce or rear cattle or herd sheep and so forth. Each allotment was fenced or walled so that one would not encroach on another's space – because space was at a premium. (Remember that we are speaking of villagers, not farmers with estates.)

4:
It follows that none of the villagers had space in which to stack the produce after it had been reaped. So a system was devised whereby one field was made available for common use. Everyone would transfer his reaped produce to this one field where he would stack it. Obviously, every villager was responsible for the safety of what he grew or herded in his own allotment; but who was responsible for all the produce stacked in the common field?

5:
The answer to the problem was, of course, to pay someone to administer this field. To avoid congestion and arguments this appointed overseer would allocate to each villager a time slot for bringing in his produce and a place in the field for stacking it.

6:
David can do Sara a favour and permit her to use his property for her own purposes but it is assumed that he is giving her permission to use his property on her own responsibility. That is to say, David does not undertake to be responsible for the safety of Sara's belongings housed on his property. If David does agree to assume responsibility for Sara's belongings which are on his property he must say so explicitly.

7:
We can now understand the real life situation which is reflected in our present mishnah. David has a field which he hires out to the rest of the villagers for the common storage of their stacked produce. Naturally, David is not so foolish as to accept responsibility for the safety of all that produce: he is just making the field available for a charge. So the villagers appoint an overseer to administer the field and this overseer is now responsible for the safety of Sara's produce the moment he gives her permission to bring it into the field and indicates where it is to be stacked. If Sam's goats get into the field and enjoy themselves on Sara's produce the overseer would be the one liable for payment of damages: he assumed responsibility.

8:
On the other hand, if Sara flouts the authority of the overseer – or if, for any other reason she was not able to get his permission to use the field – the overseer would not be liable for any damage done to Sara's produce. Furthermore, if Sara's produce does any damage to Sam's goats he would be able to sue her successfully. Only if David, as the owner of the field, gave Sara an explicit undertaking of assumption of responsibility would he be liable to compensate her.

9:
Our mishnah thus concludes the treatment of the subject of herd animals. With the next mishnah we shall begin dealing with the last of the four "major causes of damages" – arson.