May these words of Torah serve as a merit le’iluy nishmat Menachem Mendel Ben Harav Yoel David Balk a”h.

Bava Kamma 24

Someone Triggered a Dog’s Response, Is the Dog Owner Exempt?

Two men were walking together. One of them had his dog with him. One tripped and fell onto his friend by mistake. The dog jumped to protect its owner. It bit the man who slipped and tore his suit. Must the owner of the dog pay for the damage his dog caused?

Rav Zilberstein points out that the discussion in our Gemara about one who incites a dog is recorded in the Code of Jewish Law. Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 395:1) rules that if Reuven incited the dog of Shimon to bite and damage Levi, Reuven is exempt in the court of man but obligated by laws of Heaven to pay. Shimon should pay half damage. Since he knew his dog could be incited, he was negligent when he allowed it out unmuzzled. If Shimon incited Reuven’s dog and the dog bit Shimon, Reuven would be exempt. The rule is that when one acts in an unusual and incorrect manner, if others act in an unusual manner back to him, there is no financial liability. Perhaps in our case the man who fell on his friend incited the dog against himself and the dog owner would be exempt from pay?

Rav Zilberstein concludes that the dog owner would have to pay in the scenario we are analyzing. In our case the man tripped and fell. He did not intend to incite the dog. He did not do an unusual act. The rule that one who acts unusually does not get reimbursed when he is hurt should not apply. Furthermore, Yam Shel Shlomo taught that the rule of one who acts unusually does not get paid when others acted unusually to him is not universal. If the damager’s actions were far more unusual than the one damaged, there is liability. It was much more unusual for a dog to bite a man and tear his garments than for a person to stumble and fall into someone. Therefore, the owner of the dog should be liable for a keren action performed by his dog, and he would owe half damages even though his animal’s actions were triggered by his friend. (Chashukei Chemed)

Bava Kamma 25

When Would a Man, in Our Days, Who Is Not a Convert, Have to Recite a Blessing for Immersion in a Mikvah?

Generally, in our days, there is a difference between when a woman immerses in a mikvah and when a man immerses. When a woman immerses she recites a blessing. A man does not recite a blessing for the immersion. He has no mitzvah to immerse. Only a male convert gets to recite a blessing for the mitzvah of immersion. Is there a scenario where a man would have to recite a blessing on immersion?

Rav Zilberstein pointed out that due to concerns of pikuach nefesh, it is necessary for Jewish security professionals to walk on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. One who has tumah due to a discharge from the body may not enter the Temple Mount. Thus, if a man had discharged seed, he would have a tumah due to a discharge from the body and would be enjoined from walking on the mountain. If his presence was needed on the Temple Mount for national security he would be obligated to first go to the mikvah before ascending the holy mountain. His immersion would be halachically necessary and significant. He would have to immerse in a kosher mikvah. He would have to remove all possible chatzitzot, barriers between the water and his body, before immersing. And, he would have to recite a blessing on the immersion.

A zav is an example of someone who is impure with a tumah due to a discharge from the body. Zivah in a man is a discharge of gonorrhea that occurred three times. Bava Kamma 25 teaches that the discharge itself, the spittle of the zav and his urine and seed would create tumah if they were carried. If a soldier in Israel’s army was a zav and he was needed on the Temple Mount, he should watch what he carries. If he went to the mikvah but then carried a plastic tube holding his urine that exited when he was a zav, he would need to go to the mikvah a second time before he ascended the mountain. Transporting the liquid made him impure again and he needs a kosher immersion to become pure and be permitted atop the mountain. (Chashukei Chemed)

Bava Kamma 26

Damage on Purim

On Purim we have a mitzvah to get drunk. What is the law if a person got drunk on Purim and then damaged the property of another person? Would he be liable to pay for the damage? Perhaps one should be exempted from damage caused when one could not control his actions?

Poskim teach that the drunk would be held responsible for the damage. The Mishnah taught, “Adam muad le’olam—Man is always fully liable and responsible.” Whether damage was caused by mistake, or even while a person was sleeping, the damager must pay. Rambam teaches that on Purim one should drink a bit more wine than usual and go to sleep. Therefore, he should never have drunk to the point of being unable to control himself. He could have fulfilled his Purim obligation by drinking a bit more than usual. He was wrong in drinking to the point of being unable to control himself and damaging. He would be held fully responsible for the damage that he caused. (Mesivta).

By Rabbi Zev Reichman