daf bit: Bava Kama 37

[cellio]

The talmud has previously talked about compensation that is due if your animal damages another, distinguishing between those that are known to be damaging (the ox that gores, mu'ad) and those that are not (tam). On today's daf the mishna talks about relationships between the owners. If a privately-owned ox gores an ox consecrated to the temple, or vice-versa, there is no liability, because it says "the ox of his neighbor" -- the temple is not "his neighbor". If an ox belonging to an Israelite gores one belonging to a Cana'anite there is no liability, but if an ox belonging to a Cana'anite gores one belonging to an Israelite, full compensation is due. (37b)

I don't see an explanation here about the asymmetry between the Israelite and the Cana'anite. According to a note in the Soncino edition, Maimonides, centuries later, explains: Cana'anites did not recognize the laws of social justics, and they were thus not entitled to claim protection under a law they did not respect. They could, however, be held liable under Israel's laws for damage they do to Israelites. That doesn't explain, however, why full compensation is due from the Cana'anite regardless of whether the ox is mu'ad or tam; an Israelite would owe another Israelite half damages in the latter case.

Comments

[eub.livejournal.com]

The state of anarchy between temple oxen and private oxen is interesting. Do you know any more specifics of the word being translated as "neighbor"?

My impression just picked up from following along is that there's one level of "basic common sense" rules that apply to everybody, and then on top of that Israelites are subject to additional rules, often more being expected from them (more constraints but also more trust). But I'm a little surprised how this is drawn, would have guessed maybe mu'ad / tam not to be applied to Cana'anites but ox-goring liability to be basic. I think you've posted about liability for general accidents but I don't remember if that had a similar Cana'anite asymmetry.

[cellio]

The citation is from Exodus 21:35 and the word translated "his neighbor" is רֵעֵהוּ. It's sometimes translated "his fellow". It's the same word as in "love your {fellow, neighbor} as yourself". Who exactly is your רֵעֵה is the subject of some discussion (fellow Israelite? fellow human being?), but it's a person, not an institution, according to this.

My impression just picked up from following along is that there's one level of "basic common sense" rules that apply to everybody, and then on top of that Israelites are subject to additional rules, often more being expected from them (more constraints but also more trust).

I think that's the case, yes. The torah holds Israel to a higher standard as part of our special covenant with God.

But I'm a little surprised how this is drawn, would have guessed maybe mu'ad / tam not to be applied to Cana'anites but ox-goring liability to be basic. I think you've posted about liability for general accidents but I don't remember if that had a similar Cana'anite asymmetry.

Yeah. There's a lot about liability, and, for that matter, Israelite/Cana'anite differences, that I don't know, but this surprised me too.

[eub.livejournal.com]

but it's a person, not an institution

Seems coherent as a distinction to draw.

Now I'm thinking about the idea of the "nonporous corporation", the idea that a piece of property can be owned by an institution and the ownership doesn't go on transitively to any person, it stops there with the institution being a root owner. Was corporate personhood in the legal system? I'd learn something surprising!

Though... it occurs to me that the temple oxen may not be a case of general corporate ownership at all, but specifically a case of divine ownership. Reparation given to God would be inappropriate.