four kinds of damages שור בור מבעה הבער [ox, a pit fire, man] that each has its own separate laws. That is certainly what I thought based on the famous Tosphot in Bava Kama page 6 that seems to indicate this at first glance. The Gemara learns that a rolling pit is liable because the common side of בור ושור (pit and ox). Tosphot asks ox refers to "foot" which is not liable in a public domain and yet still the rolling pit is liable in a public domain.
It turns out even the Rosh thought that Tosphot answers that once the principle kind of damage is learned then each has its own laws.
The gemara says a proof that a tree or wall that have fallen into a public domain ought to be liable from בור ואש. A pit and fire.
Th fallen tree does not move so it ought not to be liable as fire. So the Gemara learns from pit that does not move and still it is liable. It ought not to be liable since its beginning was not made to cause damage as a pit is. So the Gemara learns from fire that is liable even though its beginning was not made to cause damage.
He brings the opinion that he is disagreeing with there that after you learn different kinds of damages from צד השווה then anything learned from two different kinds of damage can only be liable as the much as either one, not both. That is you go by the least common denominator. So the fallen tree ought to be not liable for טמון hidden things which are not usually hidden in houses or in areas where the fire went. In such case fire is not liable and this other opinion says that though we learn from pit nd fire it ought to have the most lenient aspect of both and thus not be liable for טמון
What I am thinking about is that I discovered that Rav Shach says that the opinion the Rosh is disagreeing with might very well be true. I can not go into the details this minute but I thought it is important at least to bring up this fascinating issue.
In short the main issue where rav shach disagrees with the rosh is the tree that falls. he asks in what way is it like a pit since the beginning of its creation was not for damage? He says thus even though we do learn from pit to say it is not liable for damage to vessels, it still ought to be also like fire which is not liable for damage to hidden things that are not customary to hid in such a place.
[Just for basic background the basic gemara says this: S.T.O.P; Stone, Tree, Open, Pit. are learned from pit and ox (foot) except for Stone which is learned from pit and fire. That is : a stone knife or bundle that he put on top on a roof and they fell by a common wind he is liable because of the common denominator of pit and fire. The beginning was made for damage and another energy was mixed in to make it go and cause damage. A tree or wall that fell into a public domain are liable because of pit and ox. So also פותקים ביבותיהם letting one drains drain off into a public domain which cause damage also from pit and ox. Also a pit that rolls [a revolving black hole with no charge] is liable because of pit and ox.]
The way that Rav Shach suggest to answer for the Rosh is that we in fact only learn from pit alone and the tree that falls is liable because he was warned by the court to chop it down thirty days before hand. That is to say: פשיעה is considered like a מעשה כרייה. That is in נזקי ממון. In chapter 1 law 8 where Rav Shach brings up the question on the Rosh and suggest that the Ramam would disagree with the Rosh, he points to chap 13 law 19 where he brings this alternative explanation of the Gemara in Bava Kama page 6 and says that perhaps that might explain the Rosh
In any case the thing to think about here in my opinion is the chicken with the string attached to his leg on page 19. What I mean in particular is the stone knife and bundle that fell from the roof that we say is obligated from בור ואש because כח אחר מעורב בו.Thus we can see why the owner of the string would be liable because the fact that the chicken is like the כח אחר. But that is just one small point. Rather I am thinking of how to square that Gemara on page 19 {Bava Kama} as the Rambam understands it with the gemara on page 5b and 6a as to how we learn that STOP {stone tree open pit} are liable.
The main issue I would like to think about is how the chicken with the string could be derived in the same way as the gemara derives STOP on page 6.
It turns out even the Rosh thought that Tosphot answers that once the principle kind of damage is learned then each has its own laws.
The gemara says a proof that a tree or wall that have fallen into a public domain ought to be liable from בור ואש. A pit and fire.
Th fallen tree does not move so it ought not to be liable as fire. So the Gemara learns from pit that does not move and still it is liable. It ought not to be liable since its beginning was not made to cause damage as a pit is. So the Gemara learns from fire that is liable even though its beginning was not made to cause damage.
He brings the opinion that he is disagreeing with there that after you learn different kinds of damages from צד השווה then anything learned from two different kinds of damage can only be liable as the much as either one, not both. That is you go by the least common denominator. So the fallen tree ought to be not liable for טמון hidden things which are not usually hidden in houses or in areas where the fire went. In such case fire is not liable and this other opinion says that though we learn from pit nd fire it ought to have the most lenient aspect of both and thus not be liable for טמון
What I am thinking about is that I discovered that Rav Shach says that the opinion the Rosh is disagreeing with might very well be true. I can not go into the details this minute but I thought it is important at least to bring up this fascinating issue.
In short the main issue where rav shach disagrees with the rosh is the tree that falls. he asks in what way is it like a pit since the beginning of its creation was not for damage? He says thus even though we do learn from pit to say it is not liable for damage to vessels, it still ought to be also like fire which is not liable for damage to hidden things that are not customary to hid in such a place.
[Just for basic background the basic gemara says this: S.T.O.P; Stone, Tree, Open, Pit. are learned from pit and ox (foot) except for Stone which is learned from pit and fire. That is : a stone knife or bundle that he put on top on a roof and they fell by a common wind he is liable because of the common denominator of pit and fire. The beginning was made for damage and another energy was mixed in to make it go and cause damage. A tree or wall that fell into a public domain are liable because of pit and ox. So also פותקים ביבותיהם letting one drains drain off into a public domain which cause damage also from pit and ox. Also a pit that rolls [a revolving black hole with no charge] is liable because of pit and ox.]
The way that Rav Shach suggest to answer for the Rosh is that we in fact only learn from pit alone and the tree that falls is liable because he was warned by the court to chop it down thirty days before hand. That is to say: פשיעה is considered like a מעשה כרייה. That is in נזקי ממון. In chapter 1 law 8 where Rav Shach brings up the question on the Rosh and suggest that the Ramam would disagree with the Rosh, he points to chap 13 law 19 where he brings this alternative explanation of the Gemara in Bava Kama page 6 and says that perhaps that might explain the Rosh
In any case the thing to think about here in my opinion is the chicken with the string attached to his leg on page 19. What I mean in particular is the stone knife and bundle that fell from the roof that we say is obligated from בור ואש because כח אחר מעורב בו.Thus we can see why the owner of the string would be liable because the fact that the chicken is like the כח אחר. But that is just one small point. Rather I am thinking of how to square that Gemara on page 19 {Bava Kama} as the Rambam understands it with the gemara on page 5b and 6a as to how we learn that STOP {stone tree open pit} are liable.
The main issue I would like to think about is how the chicken with the string could be derived in the same way as the gemara derives STOP on page 6.
