Podcasts about bava kama

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh FinkelQuestion: Reuven owns a Roomba vacuum cleaner, which rolls by itself across the floor of his house. He brought it over to his neighbor's house to demonstrate to them how it works. During his demonstration, it vacuumed up a child's gold earring and they were unable to retrieve it. Is Reuven liable to pay for the lost earring?In a similar occurrence, a Roomba banged into a parakeet's cage and injured the valuable bird. Is the owner of the vacuum culpable for the injuries to the parakeet? Answer: The Torah says that a person is liable for damages done by his animals. While the Mishnah in Bava Kama lists various categories of animals that one is chayav for, obviously, a Roomba vacuum cleaner is not one of them. The Rambam clearly rules that any liability of animal damages applies only to live creatures; therefore, they would not apply to the case in question. One could suggest that the owner of the vacuum could be liable as a derivative of aish. If one places any object in a place where it is likely that wind will move it and cause damage, he can be held liable as a form of aish. In this case, the individual left his vacuum running in a place where it is likely to vacuum up an earring, which would place it in the category of aish.However, the Gemara says that if someone puts his friend's cow next to a third person's fruit and, as a result of this, the cow eats the fruit, the one who put it there is chayav, even though it is not his cow. The Rishonim discuss which hezek this is. They agree that it cannot be shein, as one is only liable for shein of his own animals. The Rashba says that it is aish. Tosafos disagree and say that it cannot be aish. The Acharonim explain that Tosafos hold that aish only applies in a case where the object is moved by an outside force like the wind, and not on its own. A cow cannot be aish because it moves of its own volition. So too, it would seem that according to this opinion a Roomba cannot either be considered aish because it moves from its own power. Thus, aish would also be ruled out in this case.It is possible that the owner of the vacuum can be held liable because of bor. While a bor is usually stationary, the Gemara in Bava Kama says that if someone owns a dead tree that falls down and causes damage as it falls, the owner is liable if he was properly warned. Tosafos say that he is liable because his tree is considered a bor. We see that even a moving obstacle in a public place is considered a bor. Accordingly, the Roomba can also be considered a bor. However, we know that a bor is not liable for damages caused to keilim, which would mean that we cannot obligate the owner to pay for the earring. The parakeet, however, is a living animal, and we could obligate the owner to pay for its injuries.  

Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh FinkelQuestion: A driver makes a turn and accidentally sideswipes a parked car. He leaves a note on the windshield with his phone number and starts to drive away. Suddenly, he sees another car plow into the same parked car and total it. The owner of the car has his vehicle declared a total loss by the insurance company and is given enough money to buy a new car. Now that he is covered for his entire loss, does the first driver owe him anything?Answer: The Rashash writes about a similar scenario. A person went into someone's house and broke some furniture, only for the entire house to go up in flames a short time later. Since the house and its contents would have burned anyway, is the man liable for breaking the furniture?The Rashash proves from a Tosafos in Bava Kama that a damager has to pay for what he did, regardless of what happens later. Tosafos is speaking about a case where someone threw a rock at a dish and someone else breaks it before the rock makes contact. In this case, the dish would have been broken by the rock in any case, yet Tosafos says that the one who broke it is liable for the damage he did.In our case as well, it's true that the owner received money for a new car, so the damage the first driver caused made no difference to him and caused him no loss. It could, perhaps, be argued that this driver is not liable because one person cannot receive two payments for the same damage. However, I believe that he is nevertheless chayav because the second damage is not related to the first in any way.To further explain: When the insurance company pays for a totaled car, they simply look at the year, make and model of the car and pay its value. This can be compared to the owner “selling” his car to the insurance company for however much they will give him. This would be similar to a scenario where someone scratches a car, and then the owner finds a buyer who doesn't care about the scratches and is willing to pay the same amount the owner could have gotten before it was scratched. Clearly, this would not exempt the damager from paying for the scratches he made. In this case as well, the fact that the insurance company is willing to “buy” the totaled car for its full value does not mean that the one who made the scratches isn't liable for the damage that he did.Therefore, it would seem that the driver who sideswiped the parked car is obligated to pay for the damage he caused.

The Laws of Torts Week 1Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh FinkelTEXT VERSION:Question: Reuven's neighbor went away for Shabbos. Before he left, he forgot to shut the hose that was running in his backyard. Over Shabbos, the water flowed into Reuven's property and flooded his basement. Is the neighbor liable as an odom hamazik?  Answer: He definitely could be chayav because of the rule of garmi, which is a form of direct causation of damage; however, there are some limitations to the halachos of garmi. For example, there is the opinion of the Shach who says that garmi is only a chiyuv d'rabanan, which allows for leniency in some cases.Odom hamazik, however, is a chiyuv d'oharaysa. A person is biblically liable for damages that he does through his actions. In this case, the neighbor just turned on the water. He did not actually cause the flooding by pouring water into Reuven's basement. Is what he did enough of an action to hold him liable as an odom hamazik?The Gemara in Bava Kama speaks about a case where someone releases water out of a pipe, which flows out and causes damage. It says that if the water strikes something in the first burst as it is running out of the pipe, it is called “kocho” – a damaging force caused by the person. Although he didn't touch the water and merely allowed it to come out of the pipe, it is considered as if he did the damage and he is liable as an odom hamazik. The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a similar case where someone opened a dam and cause the water to be diverted in a certain direction, thereby killing a person. The Rishonim use this Gemara to discern the halacha regarding damages. There, the Gemara says that only the initial spurt of water, known as “koach rishon”, is considered odom hamazik. The subsequent flow of water is called “koach sheni”, and is not considered odom hamazik.In the case in question, the flow from the hose would be considered koach sheni since it takes time for it to cause damage; therefore, it is not odom hamazik. Furthermore, even if a person would actually spray the hose directly into the basement, it might only be odom hamazik if he sprayed things like books, which get ruined right away. Whereas, if it hit hardwood furniture, which only gets damaged after it is saturated with water, it may not be considered active damage. Since such furniture is not damaged on contact, it is only destroyed by the koach shnei and, thus, is not odom hamazik.The Gemara discusses another case where a trespassing cow falls into a pit of water and ruins the water by dirtying it. It says that if the cow was dirty and ruined the water on contact, the owner has to pay for the damage. If, however, the cow was clean and only ruined the water by staying in it for an extended period of time, the damage is not considered to be a result of the cow's action; rather, it was damaged while the cow was stationary. Damage by a stationary object falls under the category of “bor”, which is only liable for damaging people or animals and not for damages to keilim (inanimate objects). Similarly, perhaps when one damages furniture by spraying it with water, the damage occurs while the water is stationary in the furniture. Thus, the water is akin to a bor and the owner would not be liable to pay for keilim – meaning he is exempt from paying for the furniture as an odom hamazik.According to all of this, the neighbor would not be liable in this story as an odom hamazik; however, as we started off by saying, he may be chayav becau

Bava Kama 119b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 119b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 119a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 119a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 118b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 118b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 118a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 118a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 117b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 117b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 117a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 117a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 116b by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 116a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 116a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 115b (3) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 115b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 115b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 115a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 115a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 114b (4) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 114b (3) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 114b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 114b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 114a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 114a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 114a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 113b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 113b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 113a (3) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 113a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 113a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 112b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 112b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 112a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 112a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 111b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 111b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 111a by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 110b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 110b by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 110a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 110a by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 109b (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 109b (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 109a (2) by Rabbi Avi Harari

Bava Kama 109a (1) by Rabbi Avi Harari