Commentary for Bava Kamma 18:11
במאי עסקינן אילימא בשור קשור ובור מכוסה דכוותה גבי אש גחלת מאי שנא הכא ומאי שנא הכא
HAS NO APPLICATION. THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY SHOULD BELONG TO PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER [THE JURISDICTION OF] THE LAW.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sons of the Covenant', excluding heathens who do not respect the covenant of the law; v. infra p. 211, n. 6. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
A tethered ox and a covered pit. The Braita compared shor and bor to aish, and said that one is liable for giving his shor and bor to a deaf mute, an idiot and a minor but not when he gives them his aish-fire. The Gemara is searching for the exact level of security that he provided for the shor and bor and the comparable level of security that he provided for the fire. Of course, we will need to understand, why, if the levels of security are comparable is there a difference between the shor and bor and the fire?
We will see in the next Tosafot that he believes that initially the Gemara held that the level of security provided by tying an ox and covering a bor is sufficient to exempt one from liability if not for the involvement of the deaf mute, the minor and the idiot. To this end Tosafot explains that the level of security initially suggested by the Gemara is the appropriate level.
First, Tosafot suggests that it is logical that the level suggested must be the proper level of security.
When the Gemara suggests that the shor was tied and the bor covered, the meaning of tied and covered is that they were tied and covered appropriately, for if the Gemara meant that it was not tied or covered appropriately, such tying and covering is of no value and could not exempt the owner from liability.
Secondly, Tosafot proves from the context of the Gemara’s question, that the level of security is sufficient to exempt the shor and bor owner.
And furthermore, since the Gemara asks: “why is this, the shor and the bor different than the coal?” The thrust of the question is to say that both the shor and bor and the aish should be exempt and this can be true only if we are discussing a shor that was tied properly and a bor that was covered properly.
That the Gemara’s objective with asking its question is that the shor and bor should also be exempt can be seen from the fact that the Gemara afterward sets up the situation of the Braita as speaking of an untied shor and an uncovered bor. It is evident that the Gemara is certainly searching for circumstances that the shor or bor owner is liable. It appears that the Gemara could not tolerate the idea that one might be liable for a tied ox or a covered bor. This must be because the Gemara was speaking of a shor that is tied properly and a bor that is covered properly.
We will see in the next Tosafot that he believes that initially the Gemara held that the level of security provided by tying an ox and covering a bor is sufficient to exempt one from liability if not for the involvement of the deaf mute, the minor and the idiot. To this end Tosafot explains that the level of security initially suggested by the Gemara is the appropriate level.
First, Tosafot suggests that it is logical that the level suggested must be the proper level of security.
When the Gemara suggests that the shor was tied and the bor covered, the meaning of tied and covered is that they were tied and covered appropriately, for if the Gemara meant that it was not tied or covered appropriately, such tying and covering is of no value and could not exempt the owner from liability.
Secondly, Tosafot proves from the context of the Gemara’s question, that the level of security is sufficient to exempt the shor and bor owner.
And furthermore, since the Gemara asks: “why is this, the shor and the bor different than the coal?” The thrust of the question is to say that both the shor and bor and the aish should be exempt and this can be true only if we are discussing a shor that was tied properly and a bor that was covered properly.
That the Gemara’s objective with asking its question is that the shor and bor should also be exempt can be seen from the fact that the Gemara afterward sets up the situation of the Braita as speaking of an untied shor and an uncovered bor. It is evident that the Gemara is certainly searching for circumstances that the shor or bor owner is liable. It appears that the Gemara could not tolerate the idea that one might be liable for a tied ox or a covered bor. This must be because the Gemara was speaking of a shor that is tied properly and a bor that is covered properly.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy