What is the source of the פטור (exemption) of הקדש by נזקי אדם (damage to property done by a person)?

Tosfos on Bava Kama 7a (continued from 6b sv שור רעהו; on 7a, beginning of narrow lines) teaches that the פטור of all מזיקים when they damage הקדש is from a מה הצד between אדם, קרן, and שור פסולי המוקדשים by בור. Now I know that קרן is פטור from "שור רעהו ולא שור של הקדש" (bottom of 6b) and שור פסולי המוקדשים comes from "והמת יהיה לו" (later on, 10a (before the 2 dots)); but where does נזקי אדם come from?

Note: This question is not a question according to Rashi, because he holds that all מזיקים are פטורים by הקדש because of the פסוק of רעהו -- Rashi on 9b sv נכסים שאין בהם מעילה.

  • Is it so obvious that Rashi holds that there's no nizkei adam for hekdesh? His second explanation sounds very much like there would be, with the exception of karka Jul 9 '14 at 3:37
  • @Matt Which "second explanation" are you referring to?
    – MTL
    Jul 9 '14 at 3:40
  • Rashi gives two explanations for the petur of hekdesh on the bottom of 6b. Sorry if I'm wrong, this is from memory and I can't look it up now Jul 9 '14 at 3:45
  • @Matt Even according to the Maharshal's reading of that Rashi, I think the lishna basra is just saying that shein and regel would be liable, not אדם. A brief discussion of the Maharam's reading vs. the Maharshal's reading can be found on the KBY website.
    – Fred
    Jul 9 '14 at 3:57

Tosafos (Bava M'tzi'a' 99b, s.v. פרט למזיק) indicate that the exegetical basis for the teaching found in the mishna (Bava Kama 9b, נכסים שאין בהן מעילה) and the Y'rushalmi (Gitin 5:1, דתני רבי חייה נזקין להדיוט ואין נזקין לגבוה) that אדם is not liable for damages to הקדש is found in Chagiga (10b, מעילה דילפא חטא חטא מתרומה), where a גזרה שווה is made between a verse about מעילה in Vayikra (5:13, נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִמְעֹל מַעַל וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה) and a verse about תרומה in B'midbar (18:32, וְלֹא תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ; see also Rashi to Chagiga ad loc., s.v. מעילה ילפינן).

Tosafos indicate that just as a person is only liable for benefiting from t'ruma (per Vayikra 22:14), so to is a person not liable for merely damaging hekdesh.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .