Kommentar zu Schemot 22:12

אם טרף יטרף IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — by wild beasts.

IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — “by a wild beast. ‘Y’VIEIHU EID’ — let him bring witnesses that it has been torn in pieces by accident, and then he will be free from paying.” This is the language of Rashi.
But one may wonder. Why did Scripture mention specifically here [in the case of the animal being torn to pieces by a wild beast], the necessity of having witnesses, since in this [very same section of the law of the paid guardian] it has already said above, [in the cases where the animal dies, or is hurt, or captured], The oath of the Eternal shall be between them both²²⁴Verse 10. [i.e., between the owner of the animal and the guardian], and the law in all cases is alike: if there are witnesses that the animal died, or was hurt, or captured, he is free from paying and so also if it was torn in pieces by a wild beast, and if there are no witnesses he must take an oath in all cases, and if he does so, he does not pay? Perhaps Scripture speaks of the customary manner, for when an animal dies in his master’s crib²²⁵Isaiah 1:3. or it goes up to the top of a crag and is hurt, there is usually no man seeing it; so also if it was captured by armed bandits who came upon it and took it from the flock and went away [there are usually no witnesses]. But when a lion or bear attacks, a multitude of shepherds is called forth against it,²²⁶Ibid., 31:4. and therefore Scripture says that he should bring the shepherds to court, and [upon their testimony] he will be freed from the liability of payment.
Or we may explain that Scripture intends to establish the law enunciated by Isi ben Yehudah,²²⁷Baba Metzia 83a. who says, “No-one seeing it — he is free [from payment but he must swear]; but if there are witnesses who could testify in this matter, let him bring the witnesses and only then will he be free.” And the explanation thereof is as follows: If the accident happened [to the animal entrusted to his guardianship] in a place where people are present the whole day, we do not rely upon his oath but instead he must bring witnesses, and where an animal is torn in pieces by a wild beast, it is generally the case [that other people are present besides the guardian], and therefore Scripture required him to bring witnesses.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: y’vieihu eid — “let him bring part of the torn animal as witness, two legs, or a piece of an ear²²⁸Amos 3:12. in proof of his statement.” And I have seen it explained thus in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai:²²⁹In Hoffman’s edition of that Mechilta, p. 147. — See Vol. 1. p. 603, Note 245. “Aba Shaul said, he should bring the carcass, as it is said, Thus saith the Eternal, as the shepherd rescueth out of the mouth of the lion, two legs etc.”²²⁸Amos 3:12.

יביאהו עד, we already explained that whenever the Torah uses the word עד in the singular mode what is meant are two witnesses who are acceptable to the court. אם טרוף יטרף, by some wild beast; presumably someone did witness the occurrence seeing there must have been other shepherds in the vicinity. What kind of testimony is expected of these witnesses?

יביאהו עד, any part of the carcass of the animal which had been devoured by a predator is acceptable as evidence of what had happened to it. We have a verse in Amos 3,12 describing the situation, כאשר יציל הרועה מפי הארי שתי כרעים או בדל רוזן, “as a shepherd rescues from a lion’s jaws two shank bones or the tip of an ear.”

אם טרוף יטרף, “if it is thoroughly torn;” the Torah describes the animal’s death as due to the kind of accidental death that the guardian could neither have foreseen nor prevented. This frees him from the need to compensate the owner, if his claim can be substantiated. The same rule applies if that beast had been kidnapped by armed thugs, or if it died of natural causes. In the event that the custodian claims that the animal in his charge had been killed by a predator, and there are no witnesses, he has to swear an oath in support of his claim. The Torah describes a scenario of, say, a lion attacking a sheep in a flock. Usually, there are more than one shepherd in the vicinity who can testify to what occurred. If the animal sustained a fracture or died of natural causes, this would likely have happened in the privacy of the custodian’s house so that there is hardly a chance to produce a witness testifying to the innocence of the custodian. Hence the Torah writes: אין רואה, there is no outside witness. Ibn Ezra understands the line יביאהו עד, “let him bring a witness,” not as an unreasonable demand, but as referring to part of the mutilated animal. It can be determined by examining the remains how this animal met its death.

He shall bring [two] witnesses. . . There are those who ask: Why are two witnesses needed? One witness [supporting his claim] would exempt him from the oath, and consequently he would also be exempt from having to pay. The answer is: Rashi holds that a single supporting witness does not exempt [from an oath. Rather, a single opposing witness makes one liable for an oath]. Therefore he needs two witnesses. (See Choshen Mishpat ch. 87)

(Exodus 22:12) "If it were torn (by a wild beast), let him bring ed." This ("ed") is its hide. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Even though there is no proof for this (interpretation), there is support for it in (Amos 3:12) "Just as a shepherd can rescue from the mouth of a lion (just) two legs or the cartilage of an ear, etc." R. Yochanan b. Yoshiyah says: "If it were torn, let him bring ed." — Let him bring witnesses ("edim") that it was torn, and he will be exempt from paying. R. Yonathan says: "let him bring him ad the torn (beast)": Let him lead the owner to ("ad" = until) the torn beast, and he will be exempt from paying. "For the torn beast he shall not pay": There is a torn beast for which he pays, and there is a torn beast for which he does not pay. Which is a torn beast for which he does pay? A beast torn by a cat, a fox, or a marten. Likewise, wherever it is possible for him to rescue (the beast, and he does not), he is liable to pay. And which is a torn beast for which he does not pay? A beast torn by a wolf, a lion, a bear, a tiger, a leopard, or a snake. Since the Torah writes (9) "and it die, just as he is not liable to pay in an instance of (natural) death, so, in all instances where he cannot rescue the beast, he is not liable to pay. Thus, "For the torn beast he shall not pay."

V. 12. טרפה steht in der Mitte zwischen מיתה und מיתה .גנבה kann er nie verhindern, es ist גנבה ,אונס גמור kann er immer durch seine Gegenwart verhindern. טרפה ist zweifelhaften Charakters, es gibt Anfälle von Raubtieren, denen ein Hüter gewachsen, die auch schon durch seine bloße Gegenwart verhütet werden; es gibt aber auch solche, die völlig als אונס zu begreifen sind. Daher יביאהו עד (vergl. oben: Kap. 18, 19. והבאת אתה את הדברים וגו׳, und 22: והיה כל הדבר הגדול יביאו אליך; ebenso Sam. I. 27, 11: להביא גת. Chron. I. 21, 2: ספרו את ישראל וגו׳ והביאו אלי): hat er es, den ganzen Vorgang, durch Zeugnis dem Gerichte darzustellen, damit dieses beurteile, ob durch ihn Rettung möglich gewesen wäre. Stellt es sich entschieden als טרפה, als dem Raubtier unrettbar verfallen heraus, so ist er ersatzfrei. (מכילתא, so auch B. K. 10 a: יביא עדים שנטרפה באונס.) — In ähnlicher Weise unterliegt es auch bei andern unter der Hand von Hütern zu Grunde gegangenen Gegenständen, z. B. bei Lastträgern, המעביר הביות ממקום למקום der richterlichen Erkenntnis, ob der Unfall als unverschuldetes אונם, oder als Fahrlässigkeit zu behandeln ist (B. M. 82 b). Als דרך טובים und אורחות צדיקים wird aber dort gelehrt, armen Lastträgern nicht nur keine Ersatzpflicht aufzulegen, sondern ihnen auch noch ihren Tagelohn zu gewähren. — Es tritt bei solchen Beurteilungen auch noch der weitreichende Grundsatz: תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס in Anwendung, d. h. eine hinsichtlich des wirklich eingetretenen Unfalls genügende Vorsicht befreit nicht von der Ersatzpflicht, wenn dieselbe hinsichtlich anderer, wenngleich nicht eingetretener, jedoch möglich gewesener Fälle als Fahrlässigkeit zu beurteilen ist, und es, wenn auch nur entfernt, anzunehmen ist, eine solche pflichtgemäße Vorsicht hinsichtlich nicht eingetretener Fälle hätte auch dem wirklich eingetretenen Schaden vorgebeugt. Es hätte z. B. ein nichtbezahlter Hüter den Gegenstand wohl normal vor Dieben, nicht aber vor Feuersgefahr geschützt, er wird gestohlen, der Diebstahl wäre aber wahrscheinlich nicht möglich gewesen, wenn der Gewahrsam auch pflichtgemäß feuerfest gewesen (B. M. 42 a).

אם טרוף יטרף יביאהו עד, “if it had sustained fatal injuries, he must produce the torn animal as proof (in order to be exonerated) The “proof” referred to are the remains of the animal or animals in question. The condition of these remains will speak for themselves. This is what the shepherds do when having to account for animals missing from the flocks under their care. We have proof of this from Amos 3,12, 'כאשר יציל הארי מפי הדוב שתי כרעים או בדל אוזן וגו, “as the shepherd saves from the mouth of the bear, or a leg or part of the ear, etc.” If this was not what is meant, why would the prophet mention such small parts of an animal?

יביאהו עד THEN LET HIM BRING WITNESSES that it has been torn in pieces by accident and he shall be freed from liability.

הטרפה, that the situation in which the animal had been mauled or eaten was the kind of accident which the shepherd guarding it could not have been prevented by exercising greater care.

But who whispered to you to come to these conclusions? The Re’m explains: But who whispered to you to differentiate between torn apart by a lion and torn apart by a cat, when the Torah only writes a general phrase: “If it was torn apart”? True, it is written הטריפה with a ה , implying that a distinction is to be made. Nevertheless, from this we cannot know what sort of tearing apart makes one liable and what sort of tearing apart causes one to be exempt. Therefore we need the hekeish [that Rashi mentions].

Dem bezahlten Hüter steht der Mieter gleich, שוכר כשומר שכר, die Benutzung des Gegenstandes wird als Äquivalent für das Mietgeld und die zu leistende Hut betrachtet, im Gegensatz zu einer andern Ansicht, die die Benutzung gegen das Mietgeld aufgehen lässt und die Hut als frei übernommene Leistung beurteilt (B. M. 80 b).

הטרפה לא ישלם HE SHALL NOT PAY THAT WHICH HAS BEEN TORN — It does not say טרפה לא ישלם “one which has been torn he shall not pay for” — but it says “the torn one”, (the one mentioned here, viz., that which was torn without him being able to prevent it). Because there is a torn beast for which he has to pay and a torn beast for which he has not to pay. For an animal torn by a cat, a fox or a marten he has indeed to make restitution; but for one torn by a wolf, a lion, a bear or a serpent he is not liable to pay. But how do you come to make such a distinction (lit., who whispered to you to draw such a conclusion)? Because, you see, it states, “and if it die or be injured, or be captured”. Now what is the characteristic of natural death? One cannot save from it! Thus, also, the injury and the capture must be such that he was unable to save the animal from it (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:12).

לא ישלם, the shepherd does not have to make restitution. If, however, the predators had eaten the animal under discussion due to insufficient supervision on the part of the shepherd, the shepherd has to make restitution. (compare Baba Metzia 93) In determining a reasonable fight which the shepherd has to put up against predators, Rashi quoting the Mechilta says that a solitary wolf is not something against which the shepherd is defenseless, neither are two dogs. Naturally, smaller animals and rodents are not considered as posing a threat to man.