Bava Kamma 014

1:
You will recall that in Mishnah 4 of Chapter 1 we learned that human beings are among those animals which are always considered to be 'vicious'. By 'vicious', of course, we mean that human beings must consider themselves at all times to be forewarned and they cannot claim the fine distinctions between 'docile' [tam] and 'vicious' [mu'ad].

2:
Having recalled that we can now approach our present mishnah which is, perhaps the easiest to understand of all the mishnahs in this tractate that we have studies so far. In fact, all our present mishnah does is to re-iterate and clarify what we have already learned. Human beings are always responsible for their actions and can never claim otherwise, and will always be required to pay in full for any damage that they have caused.

3:
Of course, we must remember that our mishnah is concerned with one thing only: damage. When we reach chapter 8 of our present tractate we shall see that there are other possible payments that a person might be required to make in restitution, but as far as direct damage is concerned payment must always equal the extent of the damage as assessed by the court.

4:
Our mishnah makes the astonishing ruling that a human being is always responsible for damage he or she has caused: it makes no difference whether the damage was caused deliberately or inadvertently; indeed, I will be held responsible for damage I cause even when I am unconscious!

5:
The last sentence of our present mishnah adds nothing at all to our understanding of the ruling and, indeed, in several codices of the mishnah it is missing. Perhaps the purpose of the additional sentence is to clarify that the severity of the damage caused makes no difference: a person will always be required to make full restitution according to the assessment of the judges.

6:
This brings to a close the discussion in our tractate concerning damage caused by animals. In our next shiur we shall, God willing, begin to study all the various kinds of damage that a human being can inflict on his or her neighbours.

Nurit Reches sent me a message with the following introduction:

How relevant, unfortunately, is the tractate that you are teaching us.

Nurit then quotes a newspaper account whose headline is

A horse runs wild and injures seven young people in Akko.

Here is the account (without the pictures):

A horse running wild near the Old City of Akko, injured today seven children and youths aged between 10 and 14. Two girls, aged 12 and 14, are suffering from injuries to their head and extremities and their medical condition is described as serious. The other youngsters were lightly injured. The paramedic, David Fisher, from MDA described how ambulances were called to the site after the incident had been reported. The MDA team gave first aid treatment to the injured and evacuated them to Nahariyya Hospital. Later, two of the injured were sent home, but two others were admitted to the hospital's surgical ward.

The commander of Akko police station, Avi Edri, relates that the horse escaped before it was harnessed to a cart: it charged down the Old City's main road in the direction of Machine Gun Square in Jehoshaphat Street. During its charge it injured the children who, it seems, are not Akko residents but had come from the centre of the country.

The owner of the horse, a 17 year old resident of the town was located by the police and arrested. He was interrogated on suspicion of negligence in holding an animal. Later on the youngster's father arrived at the police station as implicated himself in the incident, claiming that he had no idea how the horse had got free. The two were released on bail.

Since the weekend dozens of people arrive in Akko every day to tour the town and to celebrate both Rosh ha-Shanah and Idh el-Fitr. According to police statistics some 40,000 people visited Akko today. Youngsters riding on horse-drawn carts are a regular sight on Akko streets, particularly during the festival season. At this time of year many offer the visitors rides against payment. This kind of activity is not supervised by the authorities.

In BK 009 I wrote:

The owner of an animal must take precautions to prevent her animal from causing damage with its feet as it goes on its way. Thus, if Sara's donkey treads on David's shovel and breaks it Sara will have to make good David's total loss. But, if the donkey treads on the shovel which then hits against the earthenware pots on Sam's stall in the market and breaks some of them Sara will only have to pay Sam half-damages, because such an eventuality cannot be foreseen.

Amnon Ron'el writes:

If David's shovel is lying on the ground in the public domain then he has contributed to the negligence and Sara will only have to pay half-damage or perhaps be excused any restitution at all. And if by treading on it the shovel is raised and injures the poor donkey's leg then it is a dangerous obstacle and David would have to indemnify Sara.

I respond:

Amnon is thinking in terms of Western jurisprudence. Why his scenario would not come about will become clear as we start to study Chapter 3 next time.