An Australian reader was kind enough to send us the following
article by Yossi Aron in the Australian Jewish
News:
Arba'a Avot Nezikin: Hashor, habor, hamav'eh
vehahev'er
There are four basic causes of damage (outlined by the Mishna
in its introduction to the principals of Jewish civil law):
the ox (that kicks, etc), the pit (that is in the way),
damage by animal consumption and damage by fire. (Mishna
Bava Kama1:1) Vechi yigach shor... and when an ox
shall gore... (Shemot 21:1 et al).
How many students of Talmudic law - young and old - have been
introduced to Talmudic principles and concepts through
discussion of this area of the laws of nezikin -
damages. And how many have said to themselves: what are we
talking about? Who cares about an ox that is a tam
(without a history of causing damage) and a mu'ad (one
with a proven propensity to damage)?
What relevance does all this have in this day and age?
And one point quoted by Rashi (Shemot 21:28, citing Bava Kama
24) sounds to us particularly strange. We are told that
although the principles as enunciated apply to other animals
as well, the use by the Torah of the example of an ox is
because diber hakatuv b'hoveh - the Written Law used
an example of that which is practical and occurs.
Most teachers today would answer that we learn principles and
a form of logic even though the actual case law is somewhat
archaic. But is it?
The Australian media recently reported that former Prime
Minister Malcolm Fraser and his family are required to pay
more than $400,000 in damages to a South Australian couple
trampled by a simmenthal bull during a cattle sale at their
property.
On the day of the sale the bull was brought into a fenced
area and paraded before about 100 people. But when it sighted
other bulls in a nearby paddock it made a beeline for them,
scaling the fence and charging between two temporary
grandstands nearby.
In the process it trampled the Tippets, breaking Mr. Tippet's
leg and fracturing Mrs. Tippet's arm and ribs.
"In my view," said the judge who awarded the damages, "there
was a risk of injury here which was plainly forseeable. Such
a risk was not far-fetched or fanciful."
Perhaps former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser would be better
off had he studied Talmud. He would have learned that the
propensity of oxen to cause damage brings about requirements
for care in their handling. He would have also know the
requirements for proper fencing (the principles regarding a
tam or mu'ad).
I wonder if future teachers of Talmud in Australian day
schools might arrange for their classes to study this case as
a practical example in this day and age.
The only problem might be reactions similar to that I
received from a couple of Grade Six boys at Yeshivah College
Melbourne - we know all the halachah you mentioned,
but who is Malcolm Fraser?
