3338 —ניתוח מלומד של התנהגות אריה בהלכה תלמודית

B"H, 12 Adar, 5715.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"n oseik b'tzt"z Moreinu HaRav Nachmi Bilitzki

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Regarding your question on the Prisha to Tur Choshen Mishpat Siman 329, Sif Katan 3, who explains that when a lion tears and eats, the deviation is in the tearing, but the subsequent eating is its usual way—while you find it more logical to say the opposite. Even though from Rashi's language (Bava Kama 16b s.v. veha'ketiv) it seems somewhat that the deviation is in the eating, nevertheless, since the Gemara there differentiates between when it deliberated before eating and if the deviation was in eating—what difference does it make if it deliberated? Also logically, as per the Prisha's view: a lion tears for its cubs and dens and eats them afterward—that is carrion; but when hungry, it does not wait until they die because it is king among animals etc., as written in Prisha. If one sees that it eats immediately, this is contrary to its usual way. Also in Shevut Yaakov he writes like Prisha.

This is the language of the Gemara Bava Kama 16b: Shmuel said: If a lion trampled and ate in a public domain—exempt. Trampled—meaning it did not kill but ate while alive—exempt because this is its way; tooth in public domain is exempt. Tore and ate—liable. Tore—killed and ate: liable because this is not its usual way; it's a derivative of keren (horn) and pays half-damages in public domain. Trampled and ate—exempt because trampling is its way; it's like eating fruits and vegetables which are tooth in public domain and exempt. Tore—not its way. Does this mean tearing isn't its way? But doesn't it say (Nachum 2): "A lion tears enough for his cubs." For his cubs—it means to feed his cubs; so tearing is his way for his cubs. The Gemara answers: For his cubs—it’s his way to kill and bring back and store away, but to tear and eat himself right after killing like Shmuel’s case—that’s not his usual way. And strangling for his lionesses? For his lionesses. And what about "strangling for his lionesses"—so it's his way to kill? The Gemara answers: For his lionesses. And "he fills with prey his dens?" For his dens. And what about "he fills with prey his dens?" The Gemara answers: For his dens—it’s his way to kill and bring back to store away but not to eat immediately after killing as in Shmuel’s case—that’s not its usual way. And "his lairs are filled with torn prey?" For his lairs. And doesn’t a wild animal that enters another’s courtyard—tears an animal and eats meat—is liable for full damages? Since she pays full damages in another's courtyard implies that's her usual way—a derivative of tooth—and would be exempt in public domain! Here we’re dealing with tearing to store away—to store away means to hide; it's her way to kill. But didn’t it say she ate? When she deliberated before eating. How do we know? Maybe Shmuel also means this? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: It teaches two cases: if she tore to store away or trampled and ate she pays full damages.

This is what Tur says there: Rambam wrote that all are liable for full damages for any type of damage they cause; but R”Y explained that he does not mean all types of damage but each animal is considered forewarned regarding what it usually does damage with—for example, a lion trampling or eating or tearing or goring; therefore for any of these it's forewarned and liable for full damages in another's property but exempt in public domain like regel (foot). But if it tore and ate—not its usual way—and it's like an innocuous horn case so pays half-damages both in public domain and private property; wolves and other animals usually tear so they are forewarned regarding tearing and liable for full damages in another's property but exempt in public domain; but trampling isn’t their usual way so it's like an innocuous horn.

Summary

The Rebbe analyzes Talmudic sources on whether a lion’s act of tearing or eating constitutes “usual” behavior under halachic law regarding damages, clarifying distinctions between natural habits versus deviations relevant for liability.