Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

Rabbi Akiva Moshe Silver

Whoever moved a cage of a parrot that was closed by clinging to the wall, and by doing so the cage opened and the parrot flourished and perished, is he liable for this

In the Gemara in NK Na ev Ita, he who breaks through a fence in front of his friend's animal is exempt by the laws of man and bound by the laws of heaven, and several interpretations and methods were said in the words of the Gem there, since there are 3 judgments here, about the Kotel and the animal and what the animal harmed, and Yaoi' there in Thos And also in Rambam Pd 4 of the Hal' Nazki Mamon 2b and in the Shghagots of the Rabbad and Magid Mishna there, and in fact the Rambam in Hom C' that the order of Sd brought 2 opinions on this, Dish says that he is not obligated on the animal itself, And we were only in the laws of man, while in the laws of Heaven he is obligated, as in the Mash there the Sma'a SQH and Be'er well well SQO, and it also turns out according to the issue of the Gm' there that in the laws of Heaven he is certainly obligated on the part of the Grama.

(And it is true that the intellectual C. Red tends to oblige in such a way that there was a finished act in his act, but for a matter that would benefit a seizure, as the Fatash brought there, but here in moving the cage there was no act).

And the closing of the Rama's words means that the first opinion that the Rama brought forth believes that he is obligated on the hema itself, as is explained in the Gara's commentary there in his opinion, and that the Rama's opinion, as he brought in the Gara's commentary there, is that the interpretation of the issue in the ' To Paz, and 20 the Gra also there that the rabbi decided to oblige in this, and we were what he concluded and also the main point of the first opinion there.

And the author's opinion is not clear from the simplicity of the Rama's words, which means that the author's opinion is that he owes Efi for the damage to the animal and for the loss of the animal itself, in which the first opinion of the Rama is also believed to be binding, [and it should be noted that the language of the Rama means that it is all yes, but in fact There are among the former who took the opposite view that the owner of the animal itself will be liable and in the matter of its damages there will be an exemption as will be stated below], but in practice the 16th adopted that the author did not disagree with the Rama in this, but that the 16 did not land except at the beginning of the Rama's words in this Damiry regarding the damages it caused The animal, in which the 16th brought evidence from section 3 that the author admits to the Harma in this, but in the matter of payment for the animal the author did not arrive in section 3 at all as explained there in Sama 33 SKO, and the 16th also did not arrive at a disclaimer of what The author's opinion on this matter, the RMA Gofia means that there are two opinions in his words, and it is not explained in the words of the 16th what the author thinks about this.

And here in the Rambam's answer to the sages of Lonil, it was brought to Migdal Oz on the Rambam there and in the demand there it is explained that he believes that if the animal was not actually taken out, we would not be bound by human law for the animal itself but only for its damages, but the Rabbi brought in the name of the Maggid a Mishna that the Rabbad and the latter share about This and Soberin to the contrary, who obligates the animal itself and is exempt from its damages, and since the Rambam is the only one on this matter, we will take his words, and his words end as the last ones that obligate the animal, but again I saw that in the halakha of Moses, Pd 12 2 (quoted with glosses and comments on the B'i ibid) He took a Damash there in the B.I. in the name of the Maggid, except that the Rabbad and the latter disagree with the Rambam, it is only for the matter of the exemption for the damager and not for the charge on the animal itself, and is confused about the BAH who did not learn this that the Rabbid agrees as a Rabbi to oblige on the animal itself, and the issue is whether the MM Kai is on the errors of the Rabbid or on another answer that God has for them from the Rabbid and the words of the Halacha to Moshe are clear literally there is no necessity to say that he means another Rabbid than what is mentioned In his words and recalling the words of the Rabbinical Rabbis, who only mentions an exemption for the harmed person and does not mention that the animal itself is liable), and in any case also what the Rabbi ruled, according to the Rabid and the last ones brought by the MM, there is no evidence of the one that obligates the animal itself, Dashma Sal Lahav J As the first opinion in the column which is the opinion of Rashi and Thos.

And the rule of a dilapidated wall explained in the Shu'a does not belong to a dilapidated wall as Rashi Barish Daf no dalmastar kai and it does not belong here.

And it should not be argued that only in the case of a finished act, the above-mentioned Havi is liable. He claimed that if he committed an act in this regard, he must also be fired, but here Meiri did not commit an act, but an opening in Alma.

And since the author did not dwell on this, the people of Spain also practice like the Rama'a in this, and in particular if we learn as the rabbi and the exiled Be'er in the words of the MM that the Rabbad and the latter consider as the Rama'a according to their interpretation, it is found that the rabbi decided on its merits and decided to make it worse, And from Mm also to Rashi Vatus and the Rambam, who are the ones who say in the Rama'a that an exemption according to the laws of man is an obligation according to the laws of heaven. Assault in general and any teaching of the Bible is only what is required by the laws of heaven).

And as to whether there is an exemption here, it is explained in S. Shaach Sai A. D. in the words of his friend, he is liable for rape and is exempted for complete rape, and regarding this matter, Didan, if the cage was open on one side and leaned against the wall and he moved it, it turns out according to the definitions explained there in S.G. He does, and only in a way that according to what he knows to be normal, it should have been fine and something happened that shouldn't have happened, so he died as explained there regarding the core of the ladder. Asa wouldn't have done that, and what happened because Ion saw what he was doing brought the damage.
(And regarding the one who claims he didn't notice, here is a man who has fallen forever, and if we found in some things that there is an allegation of rape in tort, mm in such a way that he moved a cage and opened it and did not pay attention to check that the cage was opened, it turns out that there is no allegation of rape here, but he has a special allegation on the structure of the cage how it was placed), and if it is a different way, it must be decided as the case may be.

And you should check in what way and exactly what happened so that when they come to ask, the BD can rule according to this.

מק"ט התשובה הוא: 6889 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/6889

עד כמה התשובה הזאת היה שימושית?

לחץ על כוכב כדי לדרג אותו!

דירוג ממוצע 0 / 5. ספירת קולות: 0

אין הצבעות עד כה! היה הראשון לדרג את הפוסט הזה.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9703!trpen4 Answers!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

  1. לכבוד הרב שליט"א שלום וברכה ושבוע טוב ומבורך ! פירסמתי את דברי כת"ר שליט"א בין ידידים, וכתב לי חכם אחד על דברי כת"ר, וז"ל: בענין מי שהזיז כלוב ופרח התוכי לחוץ. והנה מה שרצו לחייב מצד הראשונים בסוגיא דפרץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו. נראה לי שלא דומה שהרי שם באמת שיטת המחייבים טעונה ביאור שהרי מבואר שם בגר"א שהחיוב הוא מצד גרמי ולא משום אדם המזיק, ונתקשו רבותינו אחרונים ז"ל למה יש כאן כללי גרמי. הרי לפי השיטות שצריכים ברי היזקא אין כאן ברי היזקא שהרי לא בטוח שתאבד ועוד שהרי אין כאן מעשה בגוף הממון וגם הנזק לא בא מיד והבהמה יצתה מאליה והוא לא הוציא אותה. ועיין בדברי הגרש"ר זצוק"ל (בשיעורים על מס' סנהדרין דף עז.) שהגדר הוא מצד שלקח את השמירה מהבהמה והפך אותה לבלתי משומרת כעין מי שמניח כיסו של חבירו ברה"ר שזה עצמו נזק וכך נראה באמת מדברי הרמב"ן בדינא דגרמי. ואם כך כל זה שייך לומר רק באופן שמיד פריצת הגדר מעמיד את הבהמה ברה"ר ואין לה שמירה אבל כאן התוכי הרי עדיין פתיחת הכלוב לא מהוה אותה כבלתי משומרת כיון שעדיין נמצאת בתוך הבית ואם אח"כ יצאה מהבית אז זה כבר באמת לא מתקיימים כללי גרמי. ורק לפי שיטת רש"י והסמ"ע בדעת הש"ע שאין הבדל בין גרמי לגרמא יהיה חייב אבל צריך שיהיה כוונה להזיק ולא נראה שכאן יש כוונה להזיק. ועוד שהרי גם לפי דברי הב"ח שמבואר בדבריו שהוא מדין מזיק בידים, ועיין במאורי אש לגרשז"א זצוק"ל למה זה יכול ליחשב בידים ומדמה את זה למי שעושה נקב בחבית של יין נראה לי ברור שאין כאן צד שיחשב מזיק בידים. כמובן שאם באמת הכלוב נמצא בקיר חיצוני באויר ולא בתוך הבית אז מובן שדומה לזה למי שפרץ את גדר חבירו ויצאה הבהמה ונאבדה. עכ"ל.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9716!trpenLeave an answer!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9716!trpenLeave an answer!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9723!trpenRelated Questions!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen