For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 45
To download, click/tap here: PDF
What level of care does the owner of an animal need to provide in order to be perceived as having done what is required of him?
The Mishna presents situations where basic precautions were in place – the animal was tied up or was in an enclosed area – situations where the animal would ordinarily be kept from getting loose but can get loose if it tries. In those kinds of situations we find three opinions on this matter if the animal escapes and causes damage:
R’ Meir says: If an ox owner tied it with its reins, or locked the gate in front of it properly, yet it escaped and damaged, whether it was a tam or muad, the owner is liable. R’ Yehuda says: If it was a tam, the owner would be liable, but if it was a muad, he is not.
This is derived from the verse that says in the context of the liability for a muad in Shemos 21:36 “Its owner did not guard it” and this ox was guarded. R’ Eliezer says: There is no level of guarding that is sufficient for a muad, short of putting it to death.
We review the magisterial monograph by J J Finkelstein who died tragically at age 52.