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.