Q&A: Rav’s reasoning: “It should not have eaten”
Rav’s reasoning: “It should not have eaten”
Question
Hello Rabbi.
I didn’t really understand the reasoning of the amora Rav, “It should not have eaten,” in the case where someone brought produce into another person’s courtyard, and the courtyard owner’s animal ate it and was harmed. Rav says the owner of the produce is exempt because “it should not have eaten.”
Does an animal have understanding? I didn’t really understand the rationale.
Answer
I assume you’re asking about the conclusion of the Talmudic passage, because in the initial assumption it says something that the Talmud itself flatly rejects. According to the conclusion, the claim here is simple: what happened to the animal is its own “fault,” and therefore the owner of the produce has no obligation to pay. This is somewhat like the claim of “your bad luck caused it,” or perhaps like indirect causation in damages, which is exempt. There is no intention here to place blame on the animal. One must understand that in order to obligate the owner of the produce, it is not enough to say that the animal is not at fault; you would have to say that he is at fault. The Talmud says that the owner of the produce is not at fault, even if the animal is also not at fault, since it is an animal.
A parallel can be brought from the case of a minor pursuer, who may be killed even though he has no understanding. Why? Because even if the minor pursuer is not guilty, the one being pursued certainly should not have to bear the consequences. The animal is like a minor in this respect.
By the way, in the laws of damages they do relate to the intentions of animals. Goring is damage done by an animal that intends to harm.
Discussion on Answer
P.S.
You need to know how to learn Talmud with Tosafot and the medieval authorities (Rishonim).
The Dissenter, I see you woke up this morning in a combative mood and went out on a jihad, riding your Rocinante against windmills.
As for your remarks: indeed, one does need that. In addition, one also needs to write substantively, and certainly not to use irrelevant terms pulled in from all over the place, whether connected to the discussion or not, just in order to show that I’m an ignoramus who doesn’t know how to learn (= a windmill). Maybe I am such a person, but if you want to argue that, I recommend (despite my ignorance, and perhaps because of it) giving up Rocinante and Sancho, and for a change using relevant arguments on the merits of the issue. Worth trying. Best of luck.
A. See Tosafot on Bava Kamma 47 regarding the animal having brought this upon itself.
B. The answer has to begin by thinking about what actually causes the produce owner’s liability. Is he liable under the law of a pit or under the law of fire… and then connect that to the fact that the animal brought it upon itself, and why this is not similar to a pit or to fire.
C. There is no liability here under the laws of a person causing damage, because this is indirect causation in damages.