Just a fast introduction. The Rambam about that page of the Gemara is hard to understand That is he does not fit the Gemara at all. What I had to do was to suggest the Rambam had a different version.
But furthermore I think there is this coming conclusion that is partly based on my own reading of the Rambam. That is I am suggesting anyway that this halacha goes along with Rabbi Nathan on page 53 that- "This and that causes the damage, then each pays a half." And what seems to me to be clear in any case no matter why the Rambam says what he says, but at least we do know he does not mention the chicken flying. And that is the sole situation when the Gemara says it is חצי נזק. This much we know. Furthermore we know the Rambam holds with Rabbi Nathan. So regardless of what I wrote we can conclude this chicken with the string is a case of full נזק. And thus if the chicken and the string each have an owner then each pays a half. And if it is a case of flying, then the largest amount possible is half, so there too each pays a half, but it comes out to be that each pays a fourth. And now we know why the Rambam did not write the law about the flying chicken. Because it can be easily understood from the law he did write.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Just a fast introduction. The רמב''ם about that page of the גמרא is hard to understand That is he does not fit the Gemara at all. What I had to do was to suggest the רמב''ם had a different version.
But furthermore I think there is this coming conclusion that is partly based on my own reading of the רמב''ם. That is I am suggesting anyway that this הלכה goes along with רבי נתן on page נ''ג that זה וזה גורם the נזק then each pays a חצי. And what seems to me to be clear in any case no matter why the רמב''ם says what he says. But at least we do know he does not mention the chicken flying. And that is the sole situation when the גמרא says it is חצי נזק. This much we know. Furthermore we know the רמב''ם holds with רבי נתן. So regardless of what I wrote, we can conclude this chicken with the חוט is a case of full נזק. And thus if the chicken and the חוט each have an owner, then each pays a half. And if it is a case of flying, then the largest amount possible is half, so there too each pays a half; but comes out to be that each pays a fourth. And now we know why the רמב''ם did not write the law about the flying chicken. Because it can be easily understood from the law he did write.
כלומר אני מציע בכל מקרה הלכה זו הולכת יחד עם רבי נתן בעמוד נ''ג כי זה וזה גורם נזק שלם, כל אחד משלם חצי. ומה נראה לי להיות ברור בכל מקרה לא משנה מדוע רמב''ם אומר את מה שהוא אומר. אבל לפחות אנחנו יודעים שהוא אינו מזכיר את עפיפת העוף. וזה המצב היחיד שהגמרא אמרה שהיא חצי נזק. זה ידוע לנו. יתר על כן אנו יודעים שהרמב''ם מחזיק עם רבי נתן. אז אנו יכולים להסיק עוף זה עם חוט הוא מקרה של נזק מלא. וכך אם העוף ואת החוט אחד יש להם בעלים אז כל אחד משלם חצי. ואם זה מקרה של טיסה, הסכום הגדול היותר האפשרי הוא חצי, אז גם שם כל אחד משלם חצי, אבל זה יוצא להיות שכל אחד משלם רבע. ועכשיו אנחנו יודעים מדוע הרמב''ם לא כתב את החוק על עוף מעופף. כי זה יכול בקלות להיות מובן מהחוק שהוא כן כתב.
Ideas in Shas It also seems to me to add an important point in this book. That is the Rambam does not mention flying in Bava Kama 19b. My thesis is this: The Rambam held flying is a difference [an unusual type of damage as in "half damages of pebbles"] and thus can only be obligated 1/2 damages. Therefore if there are two owners they both pay at the most 1/2/ If it is not flying, they both pay 1/2 each to get to full damages.
_________________________________________________
It also seems to me to add an important point. That is the רמב''ם does not mention flying in בבא קמא י''ט ע''ב. My thesis is this: The רמב''ם held flying is a שינוי כחצי נזק צרורות and thus can only be obligated חצי נזק. Therefore if there are two owners they both pay ביחד at the most חצי. If it is not flying, they both pay חצי each to get to נזק שלם.
גם נראה לי להוסיף נקודה חשובה. הרמב''ם אינו מזכיר מצב שהתרנגול עף בבבא קמא י''ט ע''ב. התזה שלי היא זו: לרמב''ם עפיפה נערכת כשינוי (היינו כחצי נזק צרורות) ולכן יכולים להיות מחויבים רק חצי נזק. לכן אם יש שני בעלים אחד לתרנגול ואחד לחוט, שניהם מחוייבים לשלם ביחד לכל היותר חצי. אם התרנגול לא עף, שניהם מחוייבים לשלם כל אחד חצי להגיע לנזק שלם.
But furthermore I think there is this coming conclusion that is partly based on my own reading of the Rambam. That is I am suggesting anyway that this halacha goes along with Rabbi Nathan on page 53 that- "This and that causes the damage, then each pays a half." And what seems to me to be clear in any case no matter why the Rambam says what he says, but at least we do know he does not mention the chicken flying. And that is the sole situation when the Gemara says it is חצי נזק. This much we know. Furthermore we know the Rambam holds with Rabbi Nathan. So regardless of what I wrote we can conclude this chicken with the string is a case of full נזק. And thus if the chicken and the string each have an owner then each pays a half. And if it is a case of flying, then the largest amount possible is half, so there too each pays a half, but it comes out to be that each pays a fourth. And now we know why the Rambam did not write the law about the flying chicken. Because it can be easily understood from the law he did write.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Just a fast introduction. The רמב''ם about that page of the גמרא is hard to understand That is he does not fit the Gemara at all. What I had to do was to suggest the רמב''ם had a different version.
But furthermore I think there is this coming conclusion that is partly based on my own reading of the רמב''ם. That is I am suggesting anyway that this הלכה goes along with רבי נתן on page נ''ג that זה וזה גורם the נזק then each pays a חצי. And what seems to me to be clear in any case no matter why the רמב''ם says what he says. But at least we do know he does not mention the chicken flying. And that is the sole situation when the גמרא says it is חצי נזק. This much we know. Furthermore we know the רמב''ם holds with רבי נתן. So regardless of what I wrote, we can conclude this chicken with the חוט is a case of full נזק. And thus if the chicken and the חוט each have an owner, then each pays a half. And if it is a case of flying, then the largest amount possible is half, so there too each pays a half; but comes out to be that each pays a fourth. And now we know why the רמב''ם did not write the law about the flying chicken. Because it can be easily understood from the law he did write.
Ideas in Shas It also seems to me to add an important point in this book. That is the Rambam does not mention flying in Bava Kama 19b. My thesis is this: The Rambam held flying is a difference [an unusual type of damage as in "half damages of pebbles"] and thus can only be obligated 1/2 damages. Therefore if there are two owners they both pay at the most 1/2/ If it is not flying, they both pay 1/2 each to get to full damages.
_________________________________________________
It also seems to me to add an important point. That is the רמב''ם does not mention flying in בבא קמא י''ט ע''ב. My thesis is this: The רמב''ם held flying is a שינוי כחצי נזק צרורות and thus can only be obligated חצי נזק. Therefore if there are two owners they both pay ביחד at the most חצי. If it is not flying, they both pay חצי each to get to נזק שלם.
גם נראה לי להוסיף נקודה חשובה. הרמב''ם אינו מזכיר מצב שהתרנגול עף בבבא קמא י''ט ע''ב. התזה שלי היא זו: לרמב''ם עפיפה נערכת כשינוי (היינו כחצי נזק צרורות) ולכן יכולים להיות מחויבים רק חצי נזק. לכן אם יש שני בעלים אחד לתרנגול ואחד לחוט, שניהם מחוייבים לשלם ביחד לכל היותר חצי. אם התרנגול לא עף, שניהם מחוייבים לשלם כל אחד חצי להגיע לנזק שלם.
