פירוש על בבא קמא 18:14
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
An ox's way is to detach. Rashi explains that when the Gemara says: an ox becomes untied, it means that even without the involvement of the deaf mute it commonly works its way loose on its own and so too the bor’ is regularly uncovered on its own as a result of the traffic that passes over it.
And this is difficult. For we are compelled to say that we are speaking of when the ox was tied properly and the bor was covered properly as we explained (see previous Tosafot), but later we are taught by the Mishna (52a): when one covers a bor properly he is exempt. If so, how can our Gemara conclude according to Resh Lokish that one is liable for a properly covered bor because the cover is commonly dislodged? This is a direct contradiction to the Mishna on 52a.
Due to this difficulty, Tosafot rejects Rashi’s explanation.
And it is more appealing to explain that when the Gemara says it commonly works its way loose, the Gemara is saying: that this is due to the deaf mute’s involvement, for the level of security is reduced, because the owner gave the secured ox to a deaf-mute. If not for the deaf mute’s involvement the ox would have remained tied. It is precisely because the owner handed over the ox to a deaf mute that a hazardous situation was created.
However, handing over a coal to a deaf mute does not lessen the level of security as much as handing over an ox, for a deaf mute does not generally fan a coal, as it is common for him to untie an ox and to uncover a bor,1This may be an explanation of why the security hazard is less for a live coal than an ox. The ox’s potential to damage does not pass with time. The coal’s potential to cause damage passes in a relatively short time span. Since there is so much less time for the deaf mute to cause problems, handing over the coal to him is not considered a breach of appropriate security. for when a coal is left alone the fire will become weaker and weaker and be extinguished.
In summation Tosafot holds that according to Resh Lokish it is the involvement of the deaf mute that causes a greater hazard when he is left with an untied ox or a covered bor. If the deaf mute was not involved the owner would be exempt.
And this is difficult. For we are compelled to say that we are speaking of when the ox was tied properly and the bor was covered properly as we explained (see previous Tosafot), but later we are taught by the Mishna (52a): when one covers a bor properly he is exempt. If so, how can our Gemara conclude according to Resh Lokish that one is liable for a properly covered bor because the cover is commonly dislodged? This is a direct contradiction to the Mishna on 52a.
Due to this difficulty, Tosafot rejects Rashi’s explanation.
And it is more appealing to explain that when the Gemara says it commonly works its way loose, the Gemara is saying: that this is due to the deaf mute’s involvement, for the level of security is reduced, because the owner gave the secured ox to a deaf-mute. If not for the deaf mute’s involvement the ox would have remained tied. It is precisely because the owner handed over the ox to a deaf mute that a hazardous situation was created.
However, handing over a coal to a deaf mute does not lessen the level of security as much as handing over an ox, for a deaf mute does not generally fan a coal, as it is common for him to untie an ox and to uncover a bor,1This may be an explanation of why the security hazard is less for a live coal than an ox. The ox’s potential to damage does not pass with time. The coal’s potential to cause damage passes in a relatively short time span. Since there is so much less time for the deaf mute to cause problems, handing over the coal to him is not considered a breach of appropriate security. for when a coal is left alone the fire will become weaker and weaker and be extinguished.
In summation Tosafot holds that according to Resh Lokish it is the involvement of the deaf mute that causes a greater hazard when he is left with an untied ox or a covered bor. If the deaf mute was not involved the owner would be exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy