untitled

I. Mishnah Baba Qamma 3:1-3

He who leaves a jar in the public road
and someone else comes along and stumbles on it and breaks it--
he is free (of liability).
And if he is injured by it, the owner of the jar is liable for his injury.
If his jar is broken in the public way
and someone else slips on the water
or is injured by its shards
he (the owner) is liable.
R. Judah says, (if he did it) intentionally, he is liable,
(if he did it) unintentionally, he is free (of liability).

He who pours out water into the public way
and someone else is injured by it
he who poured the water is liable for his injury.
He who puts out thorns and glass
and he who makes his fence of thorns
and a fence which fell into the public way
and other people are hurt by them
he is liable for their injury.

He who brings out his straw and stubble to the public way for manure
and someone else was injured by them
he is liable for their injury.
And whoever grabs them first can keep them.
R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says
Whoever does damage in the public way and causes injury
is liable to pay.

Questions
1. Does this seem like a religious document? Why or why not? What is the source of the document's authority?
2. Is there an organizing principle behind these "laws"? For example, could you use these cases to figure out what the Mishnah would say about other situations, such as:
A. You leave your bike in the sidewalk in front of a building. Someone trips over it and breaks the mirror. Who should pay to fix the mirror? What if the person who trips breaks their glasses? Who pays to replace them?
B. You put garbage out for the collector at night by the road. Someone takes piles of things you have put next to the cans. Is that stealing?
C. The garbage cans are blown into the road that night and someone trips over them. Who pays the doctor bills?

Mishnah Baba Qamma 6:1-2

He who brings his flock into a fold and locked it in properly
and it went out and did damage
he is free (of liability).
If he did not lock them in properly
and it went out and did damage
he is liable for damage done by the flock.
If the fold was broken down at night
or robbers broke it down
and it got out and did damage
he is free (of liability). . .
If he left (the flock) in the sun
or gave it over to someone not in command of his senses, or a minor
and it got out and did damage
he is liable.
If he gave it over to a shepherd
the shepherd stands in the owner's place. . .

Exodus 22

When a man lets his livestock loose to graze in another's land. . .he must make restitution for the impairment of that field or that vineyard.
When a fire is started and spreads to thorns, so that stacked, standing, or growing grain is consumed, he who started the fire must make restitution.
When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man's house--if the thief is caught, he shall pay double. If the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall depose before God that he has not laid hands on the other's property.

Question: Why doesn't the Mishnah refer to excerpts like this from the Torah?

II. Mishnah Baba Mesi'a 1:3-4

If he was riding on a cow and saw lost property
and he said to his friend, "Give it to me"
and the other took it and said "I acquired possession of it first"
he (the other) has acquired possession of it.
If, after he gave it to him, he said "I acquired possession of it first"
he has said nothing.

If he saw the lost property and fell on it
and someone else came along and seized it
this one who seized it has acquired possession of it.
If he saw people running after lost property
after a lame gazelle
after pigeons which were not flying
and said, "My field has acquired possession for me",
it (the field) has acquired possession for him.
If it was a gazelle running normally
or pigeons flying
and he said "My field has acquired possession for me"
he has said nothing whatsoever.

Mishnah Baba Mesi'a 2:1-2

What lost property belongs to him, and what must he proclaim?
These are the kinds of lost property which are his:
If he found
pieces of fruit scattered about
coins scattered about
loaves of bread in the public way
cakes of figs
loaves of bread from a baker
strings of fish
pieces of meat
wool-shearings
pieces of flax
strips of wool
lo, these are his,
the words of R. Meir.
R. Judah says, "Whatever has a mark on it which changes its character,
he must proclaim."
How so? If he found a fig cake and in it is a shard
A loaf and in it are coins
he must proclaim it.
R. Simeon ben Eleazer says, "All new merchandise he does not have to proclaim."

And these he must proclaim: If he found
pieces of fruit in a utensil
coins in a change purse
heaps of fruit
heaps of coins
three coins on top of one another
loaves of bread on private property
loaves of bread baked at home
wool- shearings bought from a wool-worker's shop
jars of wine or olive oil

Questions to consider

1. Does this seem like a religious document? Why or why not? What is the source of the document's authority?

2. Is there an operating principle behind these "laws"? Could you use these cases to figure out what the Mishnah would say about the following situations, such as:

A. Two friends spot a dollar bill on the sidewalk. You see it first, but the friend picks it up first. Who should keep the dollar? Do either of you need to try to find the owner? Why or why not?

B. Two people see a handkerchief with money in it lying on the sidewalk. One puts his/her foot on it, but the other bends down, tugs at the coin purse, and picks it up. Does it belong to either of them? Why or why not?

C. Two people have found a hat on the sidewalk. A gust of wind blows the hat into your yard, where it comes to rest. Could you take the hat?

III. Mishnah Nedarim 9:2

And furthermore did R. Eliezer say:
They untie a vow on account of something which happened later on
And sages prohibit it. How so?
If he said--that I should not derive benefit from so-and-so ever again
And he (so-and-so) later becomes a scribe
Or he marries off he son very soon
And he says, "If I had known that he would become a scribe
Or that he would marry his son off very soon
I would not have taken this vow against him".
Or a vow against his house that I should not enter it.
And it was made into a synagogue
If he said, "If I had known that it would be made into a synagogue
I would not have taken this vow".
R. Eliezer unties the vow
And the sages prohibit (keep it tied).

Questions

1. Does this seem like a religious document? Why or why not? What is the source of the document's authority?

2. Is there an operating principle behind these "laws"? Could you use these cases to figure out what the Mishnah would say about the following situations, such as:

A. You have a serious argument with someone and vow never to speak to him/her again. A few years later, you're the catcher on a baseball team and this person becomes a pitcher. What can you do?

B. Similar situation, but now this person's son or daughter is getting married and you want to go to the wedding. In fact if you don't go, everyone will wonder why you aren't there. What do you do?

C. You have a bad experience in someone's house and vow never to go there again. But a few years later, the house is sold and becomes the synagogue for your community. What do you do?

3. Why is there no resolution of the conflicting opinions?