Nuisance versus damage. Towards defining the legal character of Bava Batra chapter two
This article examines different approaches to a mishnaic chapter that discusses a variety of situations in which an environmental disturbance is described and its distancing is required. Within this chapter there are two cases in which, in the opinion of R. Yossi, the person who is suffering from th...
| Άλλοι τίτλοι: | בין מטרד לנזק לאופיו של פרק ב' של מסכת בבא בתרא |
|---|---|
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
| Τύπος μέσου: | Εκτύπωση Άρθρο |
| Γλώσσα: | Εβραϊκά |
| Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Φόρτωση...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Έκδοση: |
2008
|
| Στο/Στη: |
Hebrew Union College annual / Jewish Institute of Religion
Έτος: 2008, Τόμος: 79, Σελίδες: 29-86 |
| Σημειογραφίες IxTheo: | ΒΗ Ιουδαϊσμός |
| Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά: | B
Συγκείμενο
B Babylonischer Talmud B Νόμος (φυσική) Θεολογία (μοτίβο) |
| Σύνοψη: | This article examines different approaches to a mishnaic chapter that discusses a variety of situations in which an environmental disturbance is described and its distancing is required. Within this chapter there are two cases in which, in the opinion of R. Yossi, the person who is suffering from the disturbance should move away, rather than requiring the perpetrator of the disturbance to remove it. At the beginning of the amoraic period in the Talmud it was stated that the law followed R. Yossi's ruling. When other amoraim, a few generations later, discussed another disturbance and decided upon distancing it, they were asked why they had not applied R. Yossi's ruling. The explanation they gave was that R. Yossi himself had agreed that in the case of immediate or direct damage such as that caused by an arrow, distancing was required. Later the rishonim tried to define all of the disturbances in the aforementioned chapter as causing immediate or direct damage in order to preserve the validity of the distancing rulings. This article attempts to prove that R. Yossi and the amoraim of the first generation were not referring in their ruling to all of the disturbances mentioned in the chapter, but rather to two specific instances they had discussed. This exposition enables us to classify all of the laws in the chapter as pertaining to nuisance rather than damage and maintain the validity of the original laws. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0360-9049 |
| Περιλαμβάνει: | In: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual / Jewish Institute of Religion
|
