Halachos of the Daf - Bava Basra 87

A Minor as a Shliach

A non-Jew cannot be made a shliach (agent), for any type of shlichus. Nor can a Jew be made a shliach for a non-Jew for any type of shlichus.

All Jewish men and women, and non-Jewish slaves and maidservants, may be used as a shliach. A deaf-mute, a deranged person and a minor (boy younger than 13, girl younger than 12), may not be made a shliach. Therefore if the father sent a minor to a store with a dollar and a flask in order to buy oil which costs 50 cents, and then the storekeeper measured for the child 50 cents worth of oil, and gave him 50 cents change, and on the way home, the child lost the flask of oil and the change, the storekeeper is liable to pay the father for the flask, oil and the 50 cents change.

The reason being, since the father only sent the child to the store to let the storekeeper know that he needs 50 cents worth of oil, and the father expected the storekeeper to send it with someone else. According to the Rema the storekeeper is liable to pay for the flask only if the storekeeper took the flask from the child and measured the oil. However if the storekeeper merely poured the oil into the flask which never left the child’s hands, then he does not have to pay for the flask.

The S”ma and others disagree. They maintain that the storekeeper is never liable for the flask, since by giving the flask to the child, the father essentially was mafkir it, and the storekeeper is not required to guard it. Rather the storekeeper is liable for the dollar (50 cents change, and 50 cents worth of oil), since he should have either sent back the dollars worth (the oil and change) with someone else, or waited until he met the father and then given him back the money. If the storekeeper gave back the dollar to the child, then he is not liable at all.

Read more!

Laws of Heaven

By: Rabbi Avrohom Adler

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 56) cites a Mishna: If one sends out a fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor (and it consequently burned someone’s haystack), he is not liable to pay according to the laws of man, but he is liable according to the laws of Heaven. If, however, he sent out the fire in the hands of a competent person, the competent person is liable to pay for the damages.

It would seem that in the case where the sender sent the fire with a competent person, the sender is not liable at all, even under the laws of Heaven!

The Ram”a (C”M: 32:2) rules that if one sends out false witnesses to testify against someone, and they cause that fellow a loss, the sender is not liable at all, even under the laws of Heaven. This is because we say that there cannot be a shliach to commit a transgression.

The Sha”ch disagrees and maintains that the sender will be liable to pay under the laws of Heaven. He explains the distinction between the two cases. The sender will always be liable under the laws of Heaven. The only reason that the sender is not required to pay at all in the case of the fire is because once the competent person is liable to pay, there is no place for the sender to be liable as well!

Read more!