May these words of Torah serve as a merit le’iluy nishmat Menachem Mendel Ben Harav Yoel David Balk a”h.
Bava Kamma 31
A driver suddenly stopped his car; the car behind him crashed into his vehicle and sustained damage. Is the driver liable?
A practical question: Reuven was driving his car and suddenly stopped in the middle of the street. Shimon was driving a car behind Reuven. He did not expect Reuven to stop. When Reuven stopped his car he did not react quickly enough. His car crashed into Reuven’s. His car suffered a significant damage. Was Reuven liable for the damage?
Pischei Choshen (Hilchos Nezikin Perek Alef He’arah 79) argued that it would seem that Reuven is liable. Our Gemara teaches that if two people were walking in the street and the one in front was carrying a beam and the person behind him was carrying a barrel, if the carrier of the beam were to stop suddenly and the man holding the barrel then walked into the beam, the beam carrier is liable. He had no right to suddenly stop. He is responsible for the damage he caused. Shulchan Aruch records this law. He writes (Choshen Mishpat 379:2) that if the beam carrier stopped to rest and as a result the barrel carrier walked into him and the barrel broke, the beam carrier is responsible even if the beam did not fill the street. A man carrying a barrel in entitled to walk straight ahead. He need not walk around simply because the beam carrier chose to suddenly stop fully in the public domain. If so, Pischei Choshen thought that if someone stopped his car suddenly he is like the beam carrier who stopped to rest in the street. He did an unusual act. He should be responsible for the damage he caused to the other car.
One might challenge this thought. The commentators have a problem with the law in our Gemara. If a person digs a pit that causes damage, the Torah exempts him from paying for damage to utensils. Shor v’lo adam, chamor v’lo keilim—“There is liability for an ox, (but) not for (death) of a person; there is liability for a donkey, (but) not for damage to an object.” If a person’s beam damaged, that should be the damager of “bor.” Why then should he pay for the damage to the barrel? Pits never create obligations to reimburse for utensil damage!
Nimukei Yosef answered that since the beam was on the shoulder of the beam carrier, it is considered an extension of the person. The beam carrier who damages with his beam is considered “adam hamazik,” a person who damages, and not “bor.” Rabbeinu Peretz answered that a walking man’s sudden stop is considered an act. Therefore, the beam carrier is an adam hamazik. It was not his stationary beam that damaged. It was his sudden stop, his action, that damaged. Adam hamazik must pay for damages to utensils. Chazon Ish (Bava Kamma 1:1) suggested that a man who stopped and thereby damaged with his beam is a composite damager of both “bor” and “adam.” The responsibility is derived from the fact that there is an obligation to pay both for pit damages and for what a person damages, and he is mostly categorized as “adam hamazik,” which is why there is liability for damages to utensils.
If we accept the answer of Nimukei Yosef, in our case, Reuven should be exempt. A car does not rest on a body like a beam. A car is not an extension of the body like a beam on a shoulder. Therefore, Reuven who stopped his car, according to the Nimukei Yosef, would be someone who created a bor, and not an adam hamazik. Since “bor” has no liability for damage to utensils, Reuven should have no liability for the damage to Shimon’s car which is merely a utensil. Rabbeinu Peretz taught that a sudden stop is considered an action. It would only be an action immediately. After a short period of time would elapse, though, he would agree, that the beam is a bor. Thus, according to Rabbeinu Peretz as well, in our case, when the second car crashes several moments after the first car stopped, it should be “nizkei keilim bebor,” and there should be no obligation. Only the view of the Chazon Ish, who defined the beam carrier as a damager who is a composite of “bor” and “adam,” would convict Reuven who stopped the car for the damages caused to Shimon’s car that crashed into his.
Chashukei Chemed argued that, in our day, Reuven would be exempt. The Gemara taught that if the beam carrier stopped suddenly to rest in the street but he loudly called out a warning to the barrel carrier to stop walking, he would be exempt if the barrel man did not stop and the barrel broke. When a car stops in the street there are brake lights. Those brake lights should have the status of a warning. As a result, Reuven is exempt from the damage to Shimon’s car. Secondly, secular law holds the second car responsible. To maintain safety there are laws prohibiting tailgating. The law demands that a car keep a distance from the car ahead so that if the car in the front were to suddenly stop the car behind would have the time to react appropriately and stop as well. It is therefore the norm to keep a distance and stop in time. Shimon, who was too close to Reuven, is therefore the guilty one. He was acting in an unusual way and would not be entitled to any compensation. (Daf Yomi Digest, Pit’chei Choshen, Chashukei Chemed)
Bava Kamma 32
Why Stand for Friday Night Kiddush?
Rema (Orach Chaim 271:10) taught that one should sit while reciting Kiddush on Friday night. Nevertheless, the Kabbalists guided their students to stand. Why should one stand for Kiddush on Friday night? Shelah Hakadosh (quoted in Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chaim 271:24) taught that it is based on our Gemara.
Our Gemara taught that Isi Ben Yehuda was of the opinion generally that if one man was walking in the public domain and someone else was running, and the runner hurt the walker, the runner must pay for the damages for he had no right to run. However, if he was running on a Friday as the day was coming to a close he would not have to pay for he was entitled to run. The Gemara asked, “What entitled him to run on Friday?” It answered that as Shabbat nears all must rush out to greet the Shabbat Queen. It then quoted Rav Chanina who would tell his students as Friday would end, “Let us dance out and greet the bride who is the queen.” We learn from our Gemara that the Amoraim called the Shabbat the bride. When reciting the blessings for a bride and groom under the chupah, the people making the blessing are to stand to give honor to the bride and groom. Since Shabbat is a bride, Shelah argued that Kiddush on Friday night should be recited while standing to honor the bride.
Based on the explanation of the Shelah, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 5:16) argued that on the nights of Yom Tov all should sit while reciting Kiddush. Yom Tov is not considered a bride anywhere. Therefore, even those who stand for the Kiddush of Friday night should return to the ruling of the Rema and sit for the recital of Yom Tov Kiddush. However, Kaf Hachaim quoted the Ari that one should stand even for the Kiddush recited on the night of Yom Tov. Ketzos Hashulchan (79:14) taught that there is a secret reason for this custom.
By Rabbi Zev Reichman
(Me’orot Daf Hayomi)
