Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Tolodo d'Bor (BK 3a-b)

תולדה דבור

What is תולדה דבור?
The גמ' first thinks that if the בור is 10 טפחים deep (or more) than it is an אב. The גמרא then asks that the תורה wrote anything about 10 טפחים (or, for that matter, about 9 טפחים). The גמרא then says that the פסוק for it is "והמת יהיה לו".
רש"י says that the reference is that a בור is considered liable to kill those that fall in it if it is 10 טפחים deep and that this was always the גמרא's הוה אמינא.
The גמרא asks on this הוה אמינא that then a בור that is 9 טפחים deep is still an אב for נזיקין. The גמרא then answers that the תולדות of בור are if you would leave a rock or a knife in the street and it would damage someone's שור.

רש"י on דף נ: says that a סתם בור is 10 טפחים. However, the גרמא here implies (at least according to רש"י) that the reason that 10 טפחים is an אב is not because of סתם בור י' טפחים but that the תורה gave the חכמים the right to decide what type of בור can kill someone.
תוס' ד"ה לא י' כתיב here asks a few questions on רש"י. First, why does the גמרא ask how 10 טפחים is written while 9 טפחים is not? Can't we say סתם בור עשרה? Also, the answer of the גמרא (that it is learned from והמת יהיה לו) is not necessary! Couldn't we have simply said סתם בור י'? Also, according to רש"י ד"ה וזה אב לנזיקין, who says that we learn from ונפל שמה שור וחמור that you are also חייב if the בור damages you, why are we not ממעט you from being חייב if an אדם falls into the בור and damages himself if we learn from this פסוק that if a man falls into a בור and dies you are פטור because the פסוק says שור וחמור and not אדם!
Another possible question on רש"י is that on דף כח:, he seems to say in ד"ה שור ולא אדם that the פסוק is only talking about מיתה. Whereas on דף ג. he says that the פסוק is talking about both מיתה and נזיקין.
תוס' then presents his explanation, which argues with רש"י on two points. First he says that סתם בור is not עשרה but is rather "עמק הרבה" – very deep. He also says that we do not learn from ונפל שמה שור וחמור that you are חייב for נזיקין; rather, it is learned מסברה that since you are חייב for מיתת השור if the בור is liable to kill, which is 10 טפחים, you must be חייב for damaging the שור even if it is less than 10 טפחים, as it is liable to damage.

How can we answer up for רש"י?
It is possible to say that when רש"י said on נ: that סתם בור עשרה טפחים, he does not mean that when the word בור is said it refers to a בור that is 10 טפחים deep (like תוס' interpreted it), but rather it means that a בור that is considered to be able to kill someone is 10 טפחים deep.
This interpretation eliminates the first two questions of תוס', which were based on the premise that when the word בור is said, it means a בור that is 10 טפחים deep.

רש"י says in ד"ה וזה אב לנזיקין two פשטים in how the פסוק teaches us that a בור that is 9 טפחים deep is an אב for נזיקין. The first לשון is that from the פסוק of והמת יהיה לו we can infer that since when it is 10 טפחים deep it has the capacity to kill and the owner of the בור is חייב if the animal that fell in died, then in a case of 9 טפחים deep, you are פטור for מיתה but חייב for נזיקין. A לישנא אחרינא is that from the פסוק of ונפל שמה שור וחמור we see that you are חייב not only for מיתה but also for נזיקין (as the פסוק makes no differentiation). The חכמים came along and said that you are only חייב for מיתה if the בור was at least 10 טפחים deep.
Neither of these פשטים works well on its own. (The first פשט doesn't say how we know you are חייב for נזיקין, and the 2nd פשט doesn't tell us what gave the חכמים the right to limit the דין).
For this reason, the חתם סופר takes out the words "לישנא אחרינא". It is all one flowing פשט. The first part tells us how we know that the חכמים can decide what is considered to be liable to cause מיתה and what is only liable to cause damage (i.e. it teaches us that there is a חילוק between מיתה and נזיקין), and the second part tells us how we know that we are חייב for נזיקין.
Other ראשונים say different פשטים in how we know that you are חייב for both נזיקין and מיתה. תוס' quotes a ירושלמי that says that we learn it from the fact that the פסוק says בור twice. The reason that we do not say that we are ממעט the בעל הבור from being חייב if a man was damaged (see above) is that the פסוק of ונפל שמה שור וחמור only is talking about מיתה. תוס' רבינו פרץ explains that because the פסוק says ולא יכסנו instead of ולא יכסה, we see that it is only talking about one בור. Which בור is that dealing with? We know it deals with the בור מיתה because the פסוק says והמת יהיה לו.
Which word בור teaches us which type of בור?
The רש"ש says that the first word בור is מלא ו"ו (it has a Vav) and thus is talking about a full בור – i.e. a בור מיתה. The second word is חסר ו"ו and thus is talking about a בור that is less – i.e. a בור נזיקין.
However, רש"ר הירש says that the first one – the one that is מלא ו"ו - is only talking about בור נזיקין because the פסוק said כי יפתח איש בור – he is digging a new בור, and it is only a בור ט'. Then another person comes and digs it further to a בור מיתה – (כי יכרה איש בר).
Elli Rappaport brought a proof to רש"ר הירש from פרשת וישב. In בראשית ל"ז:כ, when יוסף's brothers want to kill him, they want to throw him into a בר – without a ו"ו. Two פסוקים later, when ראובן comes along, he convinces them not to kill him and to throw him into a בור – with a ו"ו. Based on this, Elli says that a בר is a בור מיתה and a בור is a בור נזיקין.[א]
תוס' רבינו פרץ gives another way that we know that you are חייב by נזיקין by בור. He says that the תורה has to tell us that if someone digs a nine טפח hole and then another person digs it into a 10 טפח hole, then the second digger is חייב. What is the חידוש if you are not חייב at all by a 9 טפח hole? If so, the second digger made the hole (essentially)! It must be that you are חייב by נזיקין (and by a 9 טפח hole).

In the מסקנה of the גמרא, which says that a תולדה of בור occurs when you leave a rock, knife or load in the street and someone is damaged by it, does the ניזק have to be damaged by it or does he only have to trip over it and fall on the ground for the מזיק to be חייב.
רש"י ד"ה אבנו או סכינו... says "והזיקו להם". This implies that the ניזק was damaged by the rock, not just by the ground.
This is also מוכרח from תוס' ד"ה "בין לרב בין לשמואל". He says there that the reason that רב would agree that this is a בור even though he says that what you are חייב on by a בור is because of the (empty space/) air and not because of the impact is because here, you own the impacting object, as opposed to a normal בור, where it is merely קרקע בעלמא. If over here you are damaged by the קרקע and not by the rock, then the answer of תוס' would not make sense. Thus, we see that the ניזק must be damaged by the rock itself.
In that same רש"י he says that "בני אדם" fell on the rock and got damaged. Does he say that you are only חייב if an אדם was damaged and not a בהמה? Otherwise, why use the words בני אדם?
When the רמב"ם brings down this הלכה in הל' נזקי ממון פי"ג ה"ג he differs from רש"י in three ways. The first way the רמב"ם differs is that he adds תבן and קש and other things that are "ביוצא בהן" to the list of things that one would be חייב for if he left them on the ground. The second way is that the רמב"ם differs is that he says that you are חייב whether it was an אדם or בהמה that was damaged. The third way the רמב"ם differs is that he says that you slipped on the ground and fell on the תקלה, whereas רש"י says you tripped on and fell on the תקלה.
However, the הגהות מיימוניות and the ראב"ד (על פי"ב הל' ט"ז) say that you are only חייב if an אדם was damaged because of אין דרך בני אדם להתבונן בדרכים. Perhaps רש"י held like the ראב"ד and הגהות מיימוניות.
The other differences could possibly be explained by the fact that רש"י was a מפרש while the רמב"ם was a פוסק. רש"י would have to explain the סוגיא like רב and שמואל, and according to רב the "הבל" (which is in this case the entity that caused the ניזק to slip) must be the מזיק's (see תוס'). However, according to שמואל, who the הלכה is like, the בור does not need to be the מזיק's. For this reason the רמב"ם said that the ניזק slipped on the ground.
The first difference can be explained in the same way. Perhaps רש"י would agree that you are חייב by his תבן and his קש, but the רש"י mentions only the cases of אסו"מ because those are what the גמרא mentions.
However, רבינו פרץ does hold that only if the object is sharp are you חייב. If that is the case, you would be פטור by קש.

What is the definition of תחילה?
רש"י says on ג: that in this case it is when the מזיק put his rock on the street. However, on ו: he says (the גמרא is saying that an unstable tree [i.e. the מזיק was told to take it down] that falls down is חייב but not because of בור because תחלה לא עשייתו לנזק) that תחלה is when he planted the tree. These are not parallel cases!
Possibly we can answer that we look at what the אדם did to cause it to be a בור. In our case what he did was to put it into the street – which made it liable to damage. In the case on ו: the thing he did last was to plant the tree.

רש"י ד"ה היינו שור (on ג:) addresses the question of why we don't ask on רב why אסו"מ שלו is not a תולדה that is not like the אב of שור. He says that we already determined that the תולדות of שור are like the אבות.
The פנ"י asks on רש"י – but earlier we addressed different תולדות! We should ask the question again! In fact, the original question on the גמרא comes back – why don't we use this as an example of תולדותיהן שלאו כיוצא בהן?
He answers (not like רש"י) that for a תולדה to be כיוצא באב does not mean that it is similar in every respect; it only means that it is similar in its major qualities. When we ask a question of מ"ש אב זה..., we are asking ourselves before, "What אב is this most similar to?" In our case, רב already said it is most similar to שור because it is ממונו. So we don't need a question of מ"ש! (When we learn it from a מה הצד of קרן [see a later פנ"י on תוס' ד"ה היינו שור] and בור, the דינים are similar to שור because that is what it is most similar to according to רב).
However, this is slightly difficult, as how do we decide which is more important, the fact that it is ממון or the fact that it is תחלה עשייתן לנזק, as it is not exactly like either one.
It is possible to suggest another answer. We don't learn it from קרן (see תוס') or another תולדה of שור, we learn it from a צד השוה of the תולדות of שור! We then learn that as a מה הצד of שור and בור. The qualifications of the צד השוה of שור is then ממונך ושמירתן עליך, which this case has.
[א] אבל עיין בסנהדרין תוס ד"ה "מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית"

No comments:

Post a Comment