More Discussions for this daf
1. Mu'ad Dog 2. Do we make the ox a Mu'ad or do we make the owner a Mu'ad? 3. Practical application of unusual damage
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA KAMA 24

alex lebovits asked:

If we say that 'Adam Muad Leolam' meaning that the Torah has zero tolerance when a person causes damage. Meaning that there are just NO ExCUSES whatsoever to free a person from paying if he causes damage. Meaning that there is just no such concept as a 'first offender' in Jewish Law.

If a person has to be given Hasroah only once; if it doesn't matter if he's awake or asleep, beonas or berotzon, or even if others force him; he always has to pay. Then what can be the Haveh Amina to say that we have to warn him 3 times to make the owner a 'Muad'? He's born to be a muad automatically! Just like his father was a muad and just like his grandfather was a muad before him!

Sorry, got carried away there a bit.

Kol Tuv

alex lebovits, Toronto, CAnada

The Kollel replies:

We are discussing an ox who damages, not a person. As we know, an ox pays "Chatzi Nezek" -- "half damages" until made into a Muad. The real reasoning behind this is dependent on the famous argument whether "Palga Nizka Memona" or "Palga Nizka Kenasa" (on 15a or 40b). [A full discussion of this is beyond the scope of this discussion.]

In short, however, the Meiri explains that a person would possibly have to be warned three times as the Torah's intent could be to have pity on the owner that he should not have to pay full damages unless his ox gored three times.

[Just to put things into perspective, it is important to remember that oxen (and other animals) were often found in busy areas, especially when they were being taken to be sold or were used for transporting people or cargo. In certain places, outlawing them to walk in these areas would possibly be like outlawing cars in different states because they cause accidents. Moreover, it might be difficult to ensure that an ox does not cause damage in a busy area where he could be easily disturbed. It is therefore understandable that the Torah might say that we cannot obligate a person for full damages when using this necessity unless he is aware that his animal is becoming a constant nuisance, and he therefore must keep it away from the public or pay full price (this is partially getting into the logic of the aforementioned argument).]

All the best,

Yaakov Montrose