Об этом документе

Torah & Horaah — Bo 5783

Выпуск: Torah & Horaah — Bo 5783. Темы: не определены автоматически. a fire he lit, it includes liability for one (The damage in the case discussed in who placed an object such as a stone on the Gemara is where the squatter merely his roof which subsequently was hurled dirtied the walls.) Therefore, perhaps by the wind and damaged someone’s he must pay you for the benefit that he property. B is not liable Tosafos asks that based on the previous for the damages his animal causes, section of Gemoro that we mentioned, as since the Torah said that if a person’s well as other sections of the Gemara, it animal damages by eating food that was would seem obvious that B should have situated in public property he is not to pay A for the benefit he got from A’s liable for damages. animal took the benefit from the bush’s Based on the various cases discussed by owner by falling onto his bush and that is the Gemara, Tosafos derives a rule that why its owner must pay for the monetary if the benefit is delivered in one of two benefit that he realized from the bush. For example the Shach (391, 2) cites One situation where the beneficiary is the Maharshal who notes that according to liable is if the benefactor himself acted this approach of Tosafos, if C took A’s food to benefit the beneficiary, for example, and stuffed it into B’s animal’s throat, B is if A plants a tree in B’s yard without not liable for the benefit he obtained from 3 Questions in all areas of halacha can be submitted to the rabbanim of our Beis Horaah at www.dinonline.org A’s food since neither he nor his animal who damaged and those that do, is if the took B’s food. When an animal falls onto took the food or if someone else put it a bush because it slips, the owner is not into its throat, nonetheless, the rule for blameworthy for the animal’s slip and payment changes if the circumstances the owner is not liable for the damages change. However when A not only damages Returning to your question, it follows that but also derives benefit, then even when according to this approach of Tosafos the he is not liable for the damage, he may still owner of the compressor is not liable since be liable for the benefit he receives. Thus, even though A is not normally liable Just like one is not liable when a monkey for damages caused when his animal eats brought him benefit at the expense of food that is situated in the

Издание

Torah & Horaah

Дата

27 января 2023 г.

Страниц

4