Q&A: Sabbath – Chapter 1
Sabbath – Chapter 1
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
The question in brief: how should one understand the word “primary” in conceptual analyses?
The details:
I watched your courses on chapter 1 of tractate Shabbat. You raised a “conceptual analysis” about the labor of carrying out. As is known (at first glance), there are two components to the labor of carrying out: lifting up and setting down. But which component is the primary one? The lifting up or the setting down?
Usually (in every conceptual analysis that asks which is the primary component), I don’t understand what the word “primary” means (and not because I’m French ).
I’ll give an example:
The sentence “In this cake, the primary ingredient is chocolate” can be interpreted in several ways:
1) Chocolate is the tastiest ingredient in the cake
2) Chocolate is the ingredient with the greatest influence on the cake’s flavor
3) If you need to remove one ingredient, the one ingredient that cannot be removed is the chocolate
4) etc.
I concluded from what you said regarding the Sabbath that the word “primary” is interpreted as “necessary in order to incur liability for the labor of carrying out” (practical difference: lifting up before the Sabbath and setting down on the Sabbath, or lifting up on the Sabbath and setting down after the Sabbath).
But it is impossible to interpret the word “primary” this way in the topic of property that causes damage. Indeed, in that topic, both components (responsibility for the property + negligence in guarding the property) are necessary. So how should one understand the word “primary”?
All the best,
PS: I really wanted to thank you for the fascinating work you have done and are doing (on the quartet, on the trilogy, on the columns, on the YouTube courses, and more and more)
Answer
Precisely with regard to property that causes damage, it is very easy to understand the meaning of the concept “primary.” The question is what creates the liability, and what is only a side condition. There, for example, a practical difference is brought regarding on whom the burden of proof falls: does the damager have to prove that he was not negligent, or does the injured party have to prove that the damager was negligent? If the negligence is the ground that creates liability, then clearly the burden of proof is on the injured party, since without proving that, he has no cause of action. But if what creates the liability is the fact that it is his property, and proper guarding is only an exempting claim, then the burden of proof is on the damager (even though he is the one in possession).
He same applies to lifting up and setting down. There too, the question is what one is liable for, and which element is just the side condition. There could be a practical difference (though not necessarily) in a case where the lifting up was on a weekday and the setting down was on the Sabbath. If the setting down is the primary element, then the lifting up could be on a weekday, and as long as the setting down was on the Sabbath he would be liable. Of course this can be rejected, but it sharpens the meaning of “primary.”