Talmud Bava Kama 19b.
The case is a chicken with a string attached to its foot. A vessel gets caught in the string and breaks.
The Rambam deals with two cases. One is when the string has an owner in which case the owner pays half if someone tied the string on purpose. The other case is when the string has no owner. Then the owner of the chicken pays half if someone tied the string on purpose.
What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the Rambam. One is both pay half. (This would be like Rabi Natan on Bava Kama page 59.) One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.
The problem that I addressed in my notes was that the Rambam does not correspond to our Gemara at all. I did not even bring up the issue of these last two possibilities because there is nothing in that Rambam which fits with our Gemara. The way I dealt with that was at first to try tofind some way to get them to fit together. Then I saw the Gra wrote about this Rambam "it is not understandable" I realized there was no way to get them to fit. [The Gra wrote that in his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch which brings the words of the Rambam word for word.]
So what I wanted to say now was the I thought either the Rambam had a different version or that because of the question I wrote at the end of my notes that he decided himself the true version was different than what was in front of him. Based on that I reconstructed what I thought was the Rambam's version.
This is all old hat. I wrote all of this before. But what I wanted to add was two points. The first I already added to my notes. It is that according the version I think was the Rambam' version it does come out that both would pay half so full damages would be paid. [But this is still debatable. Even in my version it could be that since it is a Not common thing the total amount would be half damages.]
But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like Rabi Natan on page 59 and that is a good result.
________________________________________________________________________________
What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the רמב''ם. One is both pay half. This would be like רבי נתן on בבא קמא דף נ''ט . One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.
But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like רבי נתן on דף נ''ג and that is a good result.
הרמב''ם עוסק בשני מקרים. האחד הוא כאשר לחוט יש בעלים ובמקרה הזה הבעלים משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. המקרה השני הוא כאשר לחוט אין בעלים. ואז בעלים של העוף משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. מה אם החוט ואת העוף לשניהם יש בעלים? ישנן מספר משמעויות אפשריות של הרמב''ם. אחת הוא שכל אחד משלם חצי. זה יהיה כמו רבי נתן על בבא קמא דף נ''ג. האחרת היא כי הבעלים של החוט לבד משלמים חצי. לפי מה שכתבתי שהיא גירסת הרמב''ם יוצא כמו רבי נתן.
The case is a chicken with a string attached to its foot. A vessel gets caught in the string and breaks.
The Rambam deals with two cases. One is when the string has an owner in which case the owner pays half if someone tied the string on purpose. The other case is when the string has no owner. Then the owner of the chicken pays half if someone tied the string on purpose.
What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the Rambam. One is both pay half. (This would be like Rabi Natan on Bava Kama page 59.) One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.
The problem that I addressed in my notes was that the Rambam does not correspond to our Gemara at all. I did not even bring up the issue of these last two possibilities because there is nothing in that Rambam which fits with our Gemara. The way I dealt with that was at first to try tofind some way to get them to fit together. Then I saw the Gra wrote about this Rambam "it is not understandable" I realized there was no way to get them to fit. [The Gra wrote that in his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch which brings the words of the Rambam word for word.]
So what I wanted to say now was the I thought either the Rambam had a different version or that because of the question I wrote at the end of my notes that he decided himself the true version was different than what was in front of him. Based on that I reconstructed what I thought was the Rambam's version.
This is all old hat. I wrote all of this before. But what I wanted to add was two points. The first I already added to my notes. It is that according the version I think was the Rambam' version it does come out that both would pay half so full damages would be paid. [But this is still debatable. Even in my version it could be that since it is a Not common thing the total amount would be half damages.]
But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like Rabi Natan on page 59 and that is a good result.
________________________________________________________________________________
The רמב''ם deals with two cases. One is when the string has an owner in which case the owner pays half if someone tied the חוט on purpose. The other case is when the חוט has no owner. Then the owner of the chicken pays half if someone tied the חוט on purpose.
What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the רמב''ם. One is both pay half. This would be like רבי נתן on בבא קמא דף נ''ט . One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.
But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like רבי נתן on דף נ''ג and that is a good result.
הרמב''ם עוסק בשני מקרים. האחד הוא כאשר לחוט יש בעלים ובמקרה הזה הבעלים משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. המקרה השני הוא כאשר לחוט אין בעלים. ואז בעלים של העוף משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. מה אם החוט ואת העוף לשניהם יש בעלים? ישנן מספר משמעויות אפשריות של הרמב''ם. אחת הוא שכל אחד משלם חצי. זה יהיה כמו רבי נתן על בבא קמא דף נ''ג. האחרת היא כי הבעלים של החוט לבד משלמים חצי. לפי מה שכתבתי שהיא גירסת הרמב''ם יוצא כמו רבי נתן.
