The issue of his owner with him

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › The issue of his owner with him

asked 9 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
The Torah says: “If a man borrows from his neighbor, and he is injured or dies while he is with him, he shall make restitution. If his neighbor is with him, he shall not make restitution; if he is a hired hand, he shall bring his wages.” (Exodus 22:13-14)

It is explained in the Torah that although a beggar is liable for rape, if his “husband is with him,” he is exempt from paying.
Although the Hasbara would have stated that the exemption of “the owner is with him” refers to cases in which, at the time the damage occurred, the owner was with the guard, and therefore there is room to say that in such a case the guard is not obligated to pay, the halacha is (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, section 2), that “he was with him at the time of the question – he does not need to be with him at the time of the accident and death.”
It emerges from this issue that the laws of the Jewish Law are a kind of decree of Scripture (meaning that they have no logic, but are arbitrary laws). And if so, what is the point of using reasoning there? After all, this entire field is arbitrary and human logic does not belong there. On the surface, it seems that only the rules of the sermon should be used in this field, and the conclusions that arise from it are the halakhic truth, and human reasoning should not be involved in the process.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

Hello. It is indeed difficult to understand this ruling. There is a perception here that if the owner leaves the animal with the beggar, he leaves the responsibility on him. But to your general comment, I would say that in many areas of halacha that are even further removed from common sense, there is room for interpretation. There are interpretations even in sacred and pure matters. Interpretations are not always substantive (i.e., they deal with the actual reason for the obligation) but rather within the framework of the discussion. Assuming that there is such and such a law, it makes sense to define it one way or another. It should be remembered that property law can be supplemented by custom or royal law. If both parties to a contract agree that there will be no exemption for the owner, then there will be none. Therefore, these exceptions are not very disturbing. They belong to the theoretical understanding of property law in Halacha. See my articles on duties and rights and the law of the court.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אורן replied 9 years ago

What is even more strange about this whole issue is that this halakha was not born out of a midrashic constraint, but rather from an explanation:

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Metzia, page 1, page 1
To tell you: Be with him at the time of questioning – You do not need to be with him at the time of breaking and dying, be with him at the time of breaking and dying – You need to be with him at the time of questioning. – Please reverse it! – It turns out that Adifa asked because I had a dead body at her disposal. – On the contrary, Adifa broke and died – Yes, he is obligated to be on the one hand! – Didn't she ask – Broken and died from what? – And did she not break and die – Asked from what? – Even the most, Adifa asked, because he owes her alimony

How is it possible that the Hasbara says that Adifa asked? This sounds absurd to me.

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

I don't have time to look at it now, but the Gemara implies that it assumes that there is an exemption for the owner to be with him, as written in the verse. Now it is debating when it is more correct to say that the owner is with him, when he was with him at the time of the question or at the time of the rape. The assumption is that if he was with him at the time of the question, then it is more likely to be called "with him", because the owner's presence at the time of the rape has no halachic meaning. This is not a stage where something legal is created and therefore the owner is not obligated to him. On the other hand, if he was with him at the time of the question, it can be said that he is "with him".
There is an assumption here that the owner's presence at the time of the rape does not mean anything. After all, if the animal was lent to the beggar, he is obligated to pay the onsin. Why does it matter if the owner was with him at the time of the rape? The obligation to protect the animal is not on the owner, and therefore he can not handle the rape and it is not his fault. But if he was with him at the time of the question, he is obligated to pay the onsin, and then the assumption is that this ownership also imposes the onsin liability on him. It is indeed a joke, but it has an internal logic (which brings us back to the question of the explanation of the joke mentioned above in the question. You have a beautiful example of this).