|
 Shabbat Parashat Bo| 5764P’ninat MishpatDistancing Damages - Part III
We saw last time that one who causes damages to his friend in an indirect manner is exempt from payment, if it is indirect enough to be categorized as g’rama. One might think that if damage is categorized as g’rama, then there are no limitations on it. However, the gemara (Bava Batra 22b) points out that even when one is exempt from payment, he may still be forced to remove or distance that which will cause his friend damage.
The next question is whether all possible damaging items must be removed. The mishna (ibid. 25b) discusses a case where one wants to plant a tree in his field, but his neighbor complains that the roots of the tree will ruin the walls of his water-storage pit. Rabbanan rule that the owner of the pit is correct, and the tree must be 25 amot away. R. Yossi argues and says that “this one can dig within his own [field], and this one can plant within his own [field].” We accept the opinion of R. Yossi. However, the gemara says that even R. Yossi agrees that indirect damage must be removed if it is in the category of giri dilei. Giri dilei means, literally, “his arrows,” and indicates that even though the damage isn’t fully direct, it is somewhat more direct that other cases of g’rama. Some commentators stress the involvement of the “damager” in determining giri dilei. Others stress the immediacy of the beginning of the process of damaging (see Rashi and Tosafot on 22b). The exact parameters of giri dilei are difficult to determine in each case.
 Top of page Print this page Send to friend |
|
