Bava Metzia 82. a person is hired to carry a barrel and he drops it on a path that is flat. [If the path iss at an angle then everyone agrees he does not paybut takes an oath that it was by accident.]The Tur says he is obligated to pay because stumbling is negligence, like R. Elazar. But the Tur also decided in the case with two people carrying their own barrels and one falls and the other bumped into him and breaks hiss own barrel, the first does not have to pay because it was not his fault that he fell.
to Rav Shach the difference is there is a level of obligation when one is hired to carry the barrel of someone else. He is required to guard it. That is a different level of obligation when one is carrying in a public domain. There he doe not have a special obligation to guard other's things.
Rav Chaim of Brisk says that the the one who was hired to carry a barrel is obligated because a person is always liable to cause damage unless they are especially careful.
i was thinking that the one who was hired did an act and thus obligated. the second case is where the one who fell did no act. The other person stumbled over him. And so the first does not have to pay, The second should have been more careful.and
I am not saying that I have a different answer. rather that Rav Chaim of Brisk is right that in some cases making a pit or other kind of obstacle in a public domain is not obligated and that Rav Shach is right that one hired does have an extra degree of responsibility that any other person. But that here there is a further reason to be obligated since he did an act.
I also would like to mention here the opinion of the Ramban Nahmanides who holds all that cause damage must pay even if it is by accident as Rav Shach brings his opinion.[This is quoted in the sshita Meubetzet in Bava Metzia] The case of one who is hired to carry a barrel and breaks it in which case the mishna brings that he is not obligated, the Ramban says that is not the same case. A worker who causes damage in the course of his work is not considered as one who causes damage. So how would the Ramban explain the case of two people carrying barrels and one slips and falls and the other stumbles over him where the first is not obligated even in the case of smooth ground, not at an incline. The Ramban would have to explain that is also referring to two people that are hired to carry barrels. But why would the opinion of R Elazar be left out there? The Ramban would have to say that is simply the same opinion as the Mishna where on who is hired and breaks the barrel by accident is not obligated even in the case of a straight path not at an inline. _________________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא פ''ב. a person is hired to carry a barrel and he drops it on a path that is flat. The טור חושן משפט ש''צ says he is obligated to pay because stumbling is negligence \[נתקל פושע], like ר' אלאזר. But the טור also decided in the case with two people carrying their own barrels and one falls and the other bumped into him and breaks his own barrel, the first does not have to pay because it was not his fault that he fell. To רב שך the difference is there is a level of obligation when one is hired to carry the barrel of someone else. He is required to guard it. That is a different level of obligation when one is carrying in a public domain. There he doe not have a special obligation to guard other's things. רב חיים מבריסק says that the the one who was hired to carry a barrel is obligated because אדם מועד לעולםa person is always liable to cause damage unless they are especially careful. i was thinking that the one who was hired did an act and thus obligated. the second case is where the one who fell did no act. The other person stumbled over him. And so the first does not have to pay, The second should have been more careful.
I am not saying that I have a different answer. rather that רב חיים of בריסק is right that in some cases making a בור or other kind of obstacle in a public domain is not obligated and that רב שך is right that one hired does have an extra degree of responsibility יותר that any other person. But that here there i a further reason to be obligated since he did an act.
I also would like to mention here the opinion of the רמב''ן who holds all that cause damage must pay even if it is by accident as Rav Shach brings his opinion.[This is quoted in the שיטה מקובצת in בבא מציעא] The case of one who is hired to carry a barrel and breaks it in which case the מששנה brings that he is not obligated, The רמב''ן says that is not the same case. A worker who causes damage in the course of his work is not considered as one who causes damage. So how would the רמב''ן explain the case of two people carrying barrels and one slips and falls and the other stumbles over him where the first is not obligated even in the case of smooth ground, not at an incline. The רמב''ן would have to explain that is also referring to two people that are hired to carry barrels. But why would the opinion of ר' אלאזר be left out there? The רמב''ן would have to say that is simply the same opinion as the משנה where on who is hired and breaks the barrel by accident is not obligated even in the case of a straight path not at an inline.
בבא מציעא פ''ב. אדם נשכר לשאת חבית והוא מפיל אותה על שביל שטוח. הטור חושן משפט ש''צ אומר שהוא חייב לשלם כי מעידה היא רשלנות \[נתקל פושע], כמו ר' אלאזר. אבל הטור הכריע גם במקרה שני אנשים נושאים חביות משלהם ואחד נופל והשני נתקל בו ושובר את החבית של עצמו, הראשון אינו חייב לשלם כי זה לא באשמתו שנפל. לרב שך ההבדל הוא שיש רמת התחייבות כאשר אדם נשכר לשאת חבית של מישהו אחר. הוא נדרש לשמור עליו. זו רמה אחרת של חובה כאשר אדם נושא ברשות הרבים. שם אין לו חובה מיוחדת לשמור על דברים של הזולת. רב חיים מבריסק אומר שמי שנשכר לשאת חבית חייב משום אדם מועד לעולם, [אדם תמיד עלול לגרום נזק אלא אם כן הוא זהיר במיוחד]. חשבתי שמי שנשכר עשה מעשה ובכך התחייב. המקרה השני הוא שבו הנפל לא עשה מעשה. האדם השני מעד עליו. ולכן הראשון לא צריך לשלם, השני היה צריך להיזהר יותר.
אני לא אומר שיש לי תשובה אחרת. אלא שרב חיים מבריסק צודק שבמקרים מסוימים עשיית בור או סוג אחר של מכשול ברשות הרבים אינה חייבת וכי רב שך צודק שלאדם שנשכר יש מידה נוספת של אחריות יותר מכל אדם אחר. אלא שכאן יש עוד סיבה להתחייב כיון שעשה מעשה.
כמו כן, ברצוני להזכיר כאן את דעתו של הרמב''ן המחזיק בכל הנזק חייב לשלם גם אם זה במקרה כפי שהרב שך מביא את דעתו. [הדבר מובא בשיטה מקובצת בבא מציעא] המקרה של מי שנשכר לשאת חבית ושובר אותה שאז מביא המשנה שאינו חייב, אומר הרמב''ן שאין זה אותו מקרה. עובד הגורם נזק במסגרת עבודתו אינו נחשב כמי שגורם נזק. אז איך היה מסביר הרמב''ן דין שני אנשים נושאי חביות ואחד מחליק ונופל והשני מעד עליו במקום שאין חייב הראשון אפילו בקרקע חלקה, שלא בשיפוע. הרמב''ן יצטרך להסביר שהכוונה גם לשני אנשים שנשכרים לשאת חביות. אך מדוע תישאר דעתו של ר' אלאזר בחוץ? הרמב''ן יצטרך לומר שזה פשוט כדעת המשנה שבו על מי שנשכר ושובר את החבית בשוגג אינו חייב אפילו במסלול ישר שלא שיפוע.
