AngryIndy

Dear Vudes and Tus,

My pet corndog and I were going for a walk in the park when we saw what we thought was a stray elephant roaming through the park. Corny got excited because he saw that the elephant had a bunch of fruits strapped to his back. Corny jumped up and absorbed the fruits through his rough, corn-based exterior. The Indian man that was sitting on the bench got up angrily and shouted that I owed him for the fruits that my pet ate from the back of his pet. Not to be too stereotypical towards Indians, but I should've seen this coming since everyone knows that Indian men they like to leave their baskets of fruits laying around on the backs of various circus animals. What do I do?

Sincerely,

AngryIndy

Dear Indy,

How dare you assume that man’s state of absentmindedness, that’s offensive. That being said, Ilfah would say that you’re obligated for this, because the other animal’s back is considered private property. This, as described by Rava, is a case of Kopetzet, or jumping, where the animal didn't just eat from another animal’s back, but jumped up to do it. According to Rashi, you’re obligated for jumping because it’s abnormal for an animal to jump up and eat off another animal’s back. This means that the act was Keren, and therefore always obligated for half damages. This implies that Rava is arguing with Ilfah because Ilfah’s argument was based on the fact that the animal’s back was private property, but for Keren it doesn't make a difference. On the contrary, the Rash says that they aren’t arguing, rather Rava supports Ilfah. Rash interprets Ilfah to mean that even if the animal eats off another animal’s back, it’s only obligated if it doesn't jump. However, if the animal does jump, it is considered in private property, and is therefore obligated for the damages.

Hope this helped,

Vudes and Tus