Bava Kamma 048

7:
The last five items in the list given by our present mishnah are simple to explain. The Torah [Deuteronomy 22:1-3] requires us to return lost property to its owner, if at all possible:

We shall not here go into all the rules and regulations concerning the return of lost property (even though the topic is quite fascinating and occupies considerable space in Tractate Bava Metzi'a). Here we shall just note that the Torah requires us to take into our possession anything that we find that is clearly lost property: we 'must not remain indifferent' and pass on by. We must then make efforts to locate the owner. While this process is taking place we must look after the property we have found so that it can be restored in good shape. If someone claims the property he must identify it by a reasonably accurate description.

8:
The Torah refers to an ox, a sheep, an ass, and an article of clothing. Our present mishnah makes clear that these must be understood only as examples. As the last verse makes clear: "so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find".

9:
Unloading. The Torah [Exodus 23:5] exhorts us as follows:

Our understanding of this verse follows that of Rashi. But the purport of the verse is quite clear: if you see a donkey prostrate because its burden is too heavy or has been badly loaded you may not pass on by, but you are required to assist the owner of the donkey in setting things right – even if he is your enemy. (Why should the donkey suffer because of the enmity of the human beings?)

Modern scholars understand the verb rendered by Rashi as "assist" to mean "build up". The meaning of the verse would then be that you are required to help your enemy reload ("build up") the pack animal in a more efficient (and humane) manner.

Our present mishnah teaches that the donkey of the Torah is just an example and the same ruling applies to any animal in distress.

10:
Muzzling. The Torah [Deuteronomy 25:4] commands:

If you are using an ox to thresh your produce you may not prevent it from eating some of the produce as it does its work. Its mouth must be free to eat as it chooses. Our mishnah, of course, explains that the ox here is just an example: you may not muzzle any animal while it is threshing. In his commentary on this verse Rashi adds that there is one animal which is excepted from this general rule: the human animal. (Though Deuteronomy 23:5 does give a worker in a vineyard the right to eat grapes while on the job, provided that he does not put any into his private purse 'for later use'.)

To be continued.

In BK 045 I wrote:

Let's assume that Sara is having a pit dug to serve as a cistern. She wants it to be quite deep, so at a certain stage the men working on the excavation are down inside the pit, hacking and shoveling. Along comes Goliath, David's ox: he sees the pit in front of him and is going to avoid it when suddenly there are noises from down in the pit. These noises so startle Goliath that he falls into the pit head first. Sara is responsible for David's loss.

Elizabeth Petuchowski writes:

In addition to considerations like the depth of the pit or its location, what about the unfortunate workers IN the pit who were shoveling and hacking, making the noises that startled the ox. Before the age of workmen's compensation, did the rabbis, who anticipated so much, give thought to them and their families? It was surely no inconsequential matter to have an ox fall on a worker in such a confined space.

I respond:

We have learned several times while studying this tractate that anyone who has suffered injury from an animal can sue the animal's owner for compensatory damages. (Later on in this tractate we shall learn about compensation for injuries caused by human beings.) In the case to which Elizabeth refers the plaintiff would have to convince the court that the injuries sustained were a direct or indirect result of negligence on the part of the animal's owner. Since it is not reasonable to attribute to the animal itself malice of forethought dear old Goliath would not be killed by order of the court – if he survived the fall. If the owner of the animal is not responsible for what happened who else could be forced by the court to compensate the victim?