daf bit: Bava Kama 39

[cellio]

The mishna teaches: if the ox of a normal man gores one belonging to a deaf-mute, an idiot, or a minor then the owner is liable (as expected), but if the latter's ox gores one belonging to the former there is no liability. However, if the ox of a deaf-mute, idiot, or minor gores, the court appoints a guardian who can testify, so that if the ox keeps this up it will eventually be declared mu'ad (an ox that gores, which increases liability). (39a)

The g'mara seems to suggest that this is not out of pity for the disadvantaged person, but rather because the presumption is that he took precautions but didn't do a good-enough job (so he gets a guardian to help correct matters?). Once the ox is declared mu'ad, it doesn't matter if the owner is disadvantaged -- he's liable anyway.

Comments

[ticklethepear.livejournal.com]

In the texts are people with disabilities considered less than a "whole" person? I'm impressed they can own oxen!

[cellio]

The disabled are most definitely whole people with the same rights as everyone else. They are disqualified from certain jobs, some for logical reasons (no blind torah readers) and some for reasons only God knows (certain disabilities disqualify a priest from serving in the temple even if they don't seem to us to interfere). But if you harm a disabled person, for instance, you suffer the same penalty as if you'd harmed someone without that disability.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Incompetence as a legal defense?

Suggest it to the Bush administration . . . .

[cellio]

If they're willing to be bound to all of rabbinic law to get that benefit, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

Keeping in mind that they didn't really know how to communicate well with deaf-mutes (and therefore educate them re abstract ideas), the category of deaf-mutes, idiots, and minors is basically a class of people whose judgment is expected to be off at least sometimes. So while they are definitely people, they often aren't held responsible for their (in)actions.

As for purely physical disabilities... like Cellio said, depending on the disability there might be a logical reason to disqualify someone from something, or a "because God says so" re something religious, but in general people are people according to Jewish law.