Bava Kamma 39: Stewards and Safeguarding

Before beginning, a quick note about daf 38, which I did not blog about because I don't blog on Friday evenings.  Part of the Gemara explains blood stains and whether or not they are impure based on whether Gentile or Jewish women created those stains.  Something as unthinkable as blood stains must have been somewhat ubiquitous in ancient societies.  First of all, women menstruate.  Next, people did not have lots of extra clothing if something was stained.  Third, bleach and other highly effective stain removers were not available.  And so we are permitted to see a part of nicety that is ordinarily hidden from historical records.

On to daf 39, today's daf.  A new Mishna teaches that if an ox that gores belongs to a minor, a deaf-mute or an orphan, they are exempt from payment.  However if someone's ox hurts them or their property, they are to be paid damages.  We then learn that if the ox that belongs to a minor, a deaf-mute or an imbecile gores, a steward is provided with a warning.  Finally, we are told that a tam ox could become mo'ed, and a mo'ed ox could become tam, in which cases the warnings are changed, too.  Finally, we are reminded that this only applies to those oxen which are goring based on an innate desire to gore.  Those animals who are induced to gore are not held liable.

Where do the damages come from in these cases: from the superior property of the orphans, for example, or from the superior property of the stewards?  The rabbis are concerned that no one will wish to become stewards if they are forced to give up their own land.  Generally speaking, we are told, payment does not come from orphans, deaf-mutes or imbeciles.  Only in cases where a ketubah must be paid immediately  or in cases where the orphans are paying one of their parents' debts from that land are the damages taken from orphans.  This is to ensure that the orphans are not incurring greater debt over time.  Otherwise, stewards are paid and they are paid back when their charge is able.

Even if the minor grows up, the deaf-mute person is healed, or the imbecile becomes competent, it is not necessary to change the classification of his/her animal as either tam or mo'ed.  

The Gemara wonders about how much should be paid.  Half-damages is the standard payment.  Related to this is a conversation about how the animal may have been safeguarded.  Did the animal receive superior safeguarding or reduced safeguarding?  What would be the circumstances where an animal receives reduced safeguarding?  What would that look like?