HaGaon Rav Abba Berman ztz"l
Adapted by Rabbi Moshe Speiser
1.
בבא קמא שיעור א
There is a well-known חקירה of what is the מחייב
for נזקי ממון. Is it because the מזיק
is ממונו and that is what obligates payment. If the
owner will watch it, then there is a פטור.
Or, is it the אי שמירה that is the cause for
the owner to pay. The fact that he is the owner is what causes the obligation
to watch it. Should he not watch it, the responsibility of payment falls upon
him.
רש"י דף
ט' ע"ב ד"ה הכשרתי את נזקו writes וזימנתי אותו
היזק שלא שמרתיו יפה seems to say clearly that it is the ‘not
watching’ that is the מחייב. The רמב"ם ריש הל' נזקי ממון writes “כל נפש חיה
שהיא ברשותו של אדם שהזיק ההבעלים חייבים לשלם שהרי ממונם היזק.”
The Rambam is clear that the מחייב is because it was his
ממון שהיזק.
In חידושי ר'
שמעון יהודא הכהן ס' א אות א' R. Shimon asks many questions on the side
of אי שמירה. His questions basically revolve around
the problem that there are many times that the Gemorrah differentiates between נזקי ממון and נזקי גופו.
If it is the ‘not watching’ that causes the obligation to pay, then it was the
owner who was the cause. נזקי ממון and נזקי גופו should be one and the same. Both were
caused by the person. The Rosh Yeshivah explained that it is a mistake to say
that it is the אי שמירה that is the מחייב. Even those who hold so (Rashi) agree that
the מחייב is that it was הדין
מזיק של שור. The מחלוקת רש"י ורמב"ם
is in regard to the step afterwards. Now that there is a מחייב,
what causes that מחייב to take effect on the
owner and obligates him to pay? Is he liable because it is his property
(Rambam) or because he, the owner had the responsibility to watch his animal?
This answers all of R. Shimon’s questions because the עיקר
מחייב דממונו שהזיק and the עיקר מחייב
דגופו שהזיק are different. One is הדין ממון המזיק
and one is אדם המזיק. At the source, they
are not one and the same.*
The Mishnah on דף ט ע"ב states: הצד השוה
שבהן שדרכן להזיק ושמירתן עליך וכשהיזק חב המזיק לשלם תשלומי נזק במיטב
הארץ. According to Rashi, the Mishnah is simple. Since it is normal
for an animal to damage, therefore he has the obligation to watch it and should
he not, he must pay. However, according to the Rambam, what does “ושמירתן עליך” doing here? It is not the reason for
obligating the owner to pay.
The RY answered based on a Tosafos
(דף נ"ו ע"ב ד"ה פשיטא כיון דאפקוה.)
Tosafos writes that ownership is dependent upon who has the responsibility of שמירה. That is what the Mishnah means: “Since he
has the responsibility of watching it “ושמירתן עליך”
that is why he is the owner and makes it ממונו שהיזק.
That causes the responsibility for payment וכשהיזק חב
המזיק לשלם. This can be seen in the Rambam’s wording also. “כל נפש חיה שהוא ברשותו של אדם שהיזקה הבעלים חייבים לשלם”
He is equating the being ברשותו של אדם
with being the בעלים.
The אור שמח
הל' נזקי ממון פ"ט ה"ב asks the following. In the case of a
shepherd (שומר) who left the flock unattended and a wild
animal kills a lamb, we say that if his presence would have prevented the
damage, then he is liable. If it would not have saved the lamb, he is פטור (תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו
באונס.) If we do not know whether he could have saved it, the
shepherd is חייב. It would be
considered as איני יודע אם פרעתי. As we know that
there was a מחייב by being negligent and
leaving, he remains חייב until we know for
sure that he has a reason to be פטור. However, the Mishnah
writes that if one animal chased another and we see one damaged but we are not
sure whether the other animal did the damage or whether it got hurt by itself,
the owner of the animal does not pay. המוציא מחבירו עליו
הראיה What is the difference? The owner was פושע
by not watching his animal and we do not know for sure that he has a reason to
be פטור.
Based on the way the RY explained,
the answer is simple. By a שומר, the פשיעה of ‘not watching’ is a סיבה המחייבת
and until we have a reason to make him פטור
he remains with the obligation. However, by ממון המזיק
we said the סיבת המחייבת was the שור המזיק and not the אי שמירה.
When in doubt if there was a ממון המזיק
we do not know if there ever was a סיבה לחייב.
It is not an
איני יודע אם
פרעתי but is like איני יודע אם נתחייבתי
and the rule המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
is applicable.
Summary:
Everyone agrees that the מחייב תשלומין דמזיק is the דין מזיק של
שור.
The next step is, what makes that
obligation to pay fall upon the owner? Rashi learns because the owner had the
responsibility to watch his animal. Rambam learns that the responsibility to
watch his animal is what defines him as ‘owner.’ An owner must pay because it
is his property that damaged.
