An animal owned by one who is deaf, not mentally capable or a minor – they are not responsible for the animal. However a guardian is appointed to be in charge. Exactly what he pays and whose money he pays from and in which case (tam or muad) is debated. A braita is quoted which says that a guardian is not responsible for paying the ransom fee that one pays if the ox kills a person. a discussion ensues about what is the nature of the ransom payment and can it be derived from a tannaitic debate – is it repentance or compensation for the family of the deceased? Some other questions are raised by Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov and he stumps Rav Nachman on them regarding the nature of the repentance of this ransom payment. Can it be shared by joint owners and if so, how? Can we assume one would take it as seriously as one who is obligated in a sin or guilt offering? 2 issues are raised about an animal who is borrowed – one where the borrower thinks he is a tam but he really was muad – the law is that they share the full payment (each pays half). And a second case where he became a muad while he was borrowed but when he is returned to the original owner, he reverts back to being a tam. The logic behind these halachot are explained in the gemara and the seeming contradiction between the two.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.