vyn mṭrd lnzḳ lʾṿfyṿ shl frḳ v' shl mskht vvʾ vtrʾ / Nuisance versus Damage Towards Defining the Legal Character of "Bava Batra" Chapter Two
בין מטרד לנזק לאופיו של פרק ב' של מסכת בבא בתרא / 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...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | Hebrew |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
HUC
2010
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
Year: 2008, Volume: 79, Pages: כט-מח |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|