Hevel and Chavata of "Bor"
In Bava Kama 50B there is a debate between Rav and Shmuel the reason that one who creates a Bor is obligated to compensate for damages. Shmuel says "Mishum Chavata" - The blow caused the damage and Rav say "Mishum Hevel" - The foul air in the Bor caused the damage.
The Rishonim in the Shita Mekubetzes (Talmid Rabeinu Peretz) asks the obvious question, how can one justifiably think that according to Rav when one falls and breaks a bone that the foul air caused the damage?
Also, why is one not obligated to compensate for the blow according to Rav.
If one reads Rashi it seems obvious that according to Rav the blow is only what is considered in Talmudic terminology a "Grama" meaning a second hand cause but not direct and torah law only obligates one to compensate for their direct actions not for indirect actions. The ground was there before he dug the pit. The Mazik just caused the Nizak to stumble but the ultimate damage was caused by the ground. That is why Rav says that the Mazik cannot be obligated "Mishum Chavata". Hevel has its issues too. How do we know for sure that the Hevel caused the damage? maybe the Hevel should be considered indirect too just like Chavata?
The explanation to all this is simple. All the above is true. However, we do know for a fact that the Torah obligates one to compensate for his Bor's damages. That being the case, the question is why. We know that one is not obligated for indirect damage. What we must assume is the most likely or lowest common possibility and ascribe that to the Torah's obligation. To that Rav says- maybe the Hevel is what killed or damaged not the blow. Being that this possibility exists, we can not longer assume that one should be obligated for any other reason. That is why Rashi says that even if one breaks his foot, maybe the hevel damaged him, even though it is unlikely since it is a remote possibility we no longer can assume anything else. Shumel holds that Hevel is more indirect and therefore Chavata is the easiest common possibility but fundamentally they do not argue.
The Rishonim in the Shita Mekubetzes (Talmid Rabeinu Peretz) asks the obvious question, how can one justifiably think that according to Rav when one falls and breaks a bone that the foul air caused the damage?
Also, why is one not obligated to compensate for the blow according to Rav.
If one reads Rashi it seems obvious that according to Rav the blow is only what is considered in Talmudic terminology a "Grama" meaning a second hand cause but not direct and torah law only obligates one to compensate for their direct actions not for indirect actions. The ground was there before he dug the pit. The Mazik just caused the Nizak to stumble but the ultimate damage was caused by the ground. That is why Rav says that the Mazik cannot be obligated "Mishum Chavata". Hevel has its issues too. How do we know for sure that the Hevel caused the damage? maybe the Hevel should be considered indirect too just like Chavata?
The explanation to all this is simple. All the above is true. However, we do know for a fact that the Torah obligates one to compensate for his Bor's damages. That being the case, the question is why. We know that one is not obligated for indirect damage. What we must assume is the most likely or lowest common possibility and ascribe that to the Torah's obligation. To that Rav says- maybe the Hevel is what killed or damaged not the blow. Being that this possibility exists, we can not longer assume that one should be obligated for any other reason. That is why Rashi says that even if one breaks his foot, maybe the hevel damaged him, even though it is unlikely since it is a remote possibility we no longer can assume anything else. Shumel holds that Hevel is more indirect and therefore Chavata is the easiest common possibility but fundamentally they do not argue.
posted by funnyfundamentalist at 9:44 AM
0 comments
