You took my lock, without my permission, to secure a hazard that you were responsible for; I later came and took my lock, leaving the hazard exposed. Someone then came along and got hurt; who is responsible you or I?
Surprisingly, the Gemara writes that you are responsible; because being that the lock was not yours, you should have assumed that the owner will take it back; thus it is as if you never protected the hazard at all.
Do you agree with the logic? (Talmud, Baba Kama 30a)
4 comments:
Actually I have a hard time with the logic.
BTW you got to reword the post. "You" in the first paragraph is the lock owner and isn't the one who made the hazard liable? So the "you" in the second paragraph has to be changed.
[Consistently, I hope, “You” are the owner of the hazard; “I” am the owner of the lock.]
I'm glad you disagree with the logic, let's get the debate rolling: the principle of the Gemara premise is that the owner of the hazard must protect it with a “proper protection – Shmirah Meulah”; using someone else’s lock without permission does not meet that standard.
Please present your rebuttal:
What I don't understand is why the second guy is totally off the hook. He just uncovered a hazard.
(You're right about the 'you's and 'I's. I stand corrected)
What does the legal system say, Menachem? Is there any responsibility from the Rabbanan as a gezairah.
If someone makes a Bor in RH"R and therefore is responsible for any damages and a second passes by and doesn't cover it up. Does he have any culpability?
One is allowed to move a dangerous object in RH"R less than 4 amos at a time on Shabbos to help safe guard the public. Does this have any bearing on the subject at hand.
Post a Comment