Shalom Rav Bloom,
It took me some time to understand what was going on with Bava Kamma 100a so I apologize for the delay in response. I responded inline:
>>there is no real difference between your rule #2 of Ma'aseh and Garmi.<<
- I believe there is a fundamental difference.
Maisa: "caused by you directly and immediately."
Garmi: "caused by you either directly or immediately"
Rav when I first asked you the question above, your response was
>>My initial reaction to this question was that this cannot possibly be an actual Ma'aseh because the person who removed the bottom Shor did not actually touch the top Shor.<<
So then why is it a maisa even though you didn't touch the animal? The answer I am suggesting is because we see in this case the damage you caused was direct (i.e. you caused the animal to fall although you didn't hurt) and immediate (i.e. the delay was not significant enough to be classified as delayed [I have a proof for this quantification of "immediate" as well]. Every other instance of garmi I have seen has either been one of these characteristics. Never both of them.
>> I suggest that the difference between the two categories is the time-delay between the cause and effect; or instance, in Bava Kama (100a) we learn that if the fence between the wheat field and the vineyard fell down, if one does not mend it this is considered Garmi because the wheat and the grapes will inevitably mix together and become forbidden because of Kil'ayim.<<
This is the opposite of what you established before in what can be classified as garmi. In a question I asked on Tosafos DH Zeh Ein on daf 20a, you stated that garmi is when the damage happens immediately. I pasted your response below and I bolded the appropriate section.
>>Rabeinu Asher writes that when the damage starts immediately, this is considered as Garmi and he must pay. Therefore, if B possesses a document which states that C owes him money and A burned this document, this is Garmi and A must pay, because the damage happened immediately since B lost his money on the spot. In contrast, Grama does not start immediately. If A broke a fence in front of B's animal which then went out and did damage, A is exempt because the damage did not start immediately but only later on when B's animal did damage.<<
So we see that a variable that can make an act as garmi is if the damage happened immediately. Then how is it that the Gemara on daf 100a establishes the damage that was caused as garmi because there was a delay (as you pointed out Rav)????????
I realized this case is different than all the other cases of garmi.
All other cases of garmi is when you never did a maisa but you caused the damage. But over here the Gemara is considering the damage that you are doing as a maisa!
I'm not 100% sure why it's a maisa. I can think of two reasons:
1) Is your plant considered like aish and aish is considered like your arrow?
Or
2) Is your plant considered like an animal and created a situation where your animal will definitively damage? We see from daf 54b that anytime you create a situation where your animal will definitely cause damage it's like you did a maisa. My proof for this is on Gemara on daf 54b. It says if you let an animal out of it's pen (even though you are not trying to steal it) and you stand in front of it in a way where you cause it to go in direction where it will pass by food), you are chayav for the food it eats. The reason why I believe the Gemara considers it a maisa when the situation you set up will certainly cause a loss.
So back to our question, how can this case on daf 100a be garmi if the damage done was delayed? I think the answer is as follows.
There are two categories to garmi.
Garmi (when no maisa was done): For your action to be garmi when no maisa was done, the damage you caused must be direct or immediate.
Garmi (when a maisa was done): For your action to be garmi even though you did a maisa, the damage caused must be delayed.
Also Rav Bloom, I also believe this point that "Garmi when a maisa is done" requires the damage to be delayed can also be seen through Tosafos DH Sheani hasam.
The Gemara is trying to understand where do we see that Rebbi Meir holds you chayav on dina d'garmi. So a suggestion is by the fact that R' Meir says a dyer who colors a garment the wrong color that was commissioned to him is chayav. So T presumably is bothered by how can the Gemara suggest that what the dyer did is garmi when he did an actual maisa. So he says because there is a delay between the time the garment is put in the vat and it absorbs the dye, that delay would make a maisa garmi. And he cites the precedent for that opinion the case where you mentioned Rav where the guy did not fix the breach in the wall and his plants sprouted out and caused kilayim.
https://dafyomi.co.il/bkama/tosfos/bk-ts-100.htm
Rav Bloom one more point.
In the final case of the Gemara of the guy who doesn't fix the breach in his wall and his plants spread and causes his neighbor's plants to become kilayim . . . I presumed that the Gemara was considering that a maisa. I see also by the fact that Tosafos compares that case with the case of the dyer incorrectly dying the garment with the guy who didn't fix the breach in the wall demonstrates to me that Tosafos is also learning out that the Gemara is considering the case a maisa. Just like the dyer did a maisa so too when the guy didn't fix his wall, it's like he did a maisa by bringing about the kilayim.
Menachem Zaman, Sherman Oaks
Reb Menachem, this is a big Sugya!
Of course, it is famous that one of the major Inyanim of Bava Kama, and in fact of the entire Seder Nezikin, is to get clear the difference between Ma'aseh b'Yadayim, Garmi, and Grama. The Ramban wrote a whole treatise, "Kuntres Dina d'Garmi," about these topics, and that in fact is where we will start, bs'd.
1) The "Dina d'Garmi" of the Ramban is usually printed in Chidushei ha'Ramban on Seder Nezikin. In the edition I have at home, it comes after the Chidushei ha'Ramban on Bava Basra.
The Ramban begins the Kuntres with the Sugya in Bava Kama 100a. A couple of columns from the beginning, he asks a basic question about the wall of the vineyard that was broken: What has this got to do with the Sugya of Garmi? This would seem to be a totally different issue! Dina d'Garmi is where a person damages, but in a way that is not totally direct. In contrast, the vine branches which are threatening to mix with the wheat and make everything forbidden because of Kil'ayim are "Mamon ha'Mazik." The vine branches of the owner of the vineyard are his property and they are going to damage. The Ramban asks that they should be considered exactly the same as someone who owns a dangerous ox and forgot to close the door to prevent it from running out and damaging. If so, the person who did not mend the fence of the vineyard is the same as the person who did not shut the door in front of his animal, and everyone would agree that he must pay -- even the opinion in the Gemara that maintains that Dina d'Garmi is exempt!
2) The Ramban answers in the name of Rabeinu Yitzchak (one of the authors of Tosfos) that there is a key word on the top line of 100b: "Nitya'esh." It all depends on Yi'ush. When the owner of the vine branches gave up on his plans to fix the fence, this is what finalized the issue. The Ramban cites proofs that Yi'ush is capable of causing the prohibition of Kil'ayim. I will not go into those proofs at the moment, but what I think we can say is that according to the Ramban the vine branches that damage the wheat are really an example of property damaging, not a person damaging, but there is an additional condition involved: it must be that the owner of the vine does not still have intention to mend the fence. The moment he has Yi'ush on any plans of mending the fence, this makes him liable.
3) I found that the very first Tosfos Rid in Bava Basra (where the Sugya of the broken vineyard wall is also cited) also cites Rabeinu Yitzchak as saying that the vine branches are like arrows that damage. As soon as the wall broke down, the damage started and the vine and the wheat are now growing in a forbidden way. According to this, we still can say that Dina d'Garmi is something that happens immediately. However, it is Garmi, not a Ma'aseh, and I can argue that this is because he did not actually touch the vine branches or the wheat.
(I would just point out that the above Tosfos Rid writes that according to the opinion that Garmi is Chayav, it is "k'Man d'Avid b'Yadayim" -- "it is like he did it with his hands." However, it is only " like he did it with his hands" but it is not Mamash a Ma'aseh.)
4) To summarize the above: Not mending the fence is considered Garmi because the damage starts immediately since the vine is starting to damage the wheat as soon as the owner of the vine has Yi'ush and no longer intends to fix the wall. Also, note that the top line on 100b states that he warned him twice to mend the fence. By the time he had Yi'ush, the story was already well-advanced. The damage had already started.
5) I also must make a point clear. Garmi is not a Ma'aseh. A Ma'aseh is where he actually touched the damaged object. In a case of Garmi, he did not actually touch it, but the damage is so immediate that according to the opinion in the Gemara that Garmi is liable it is given the Halachic equivalent of touching it. However, since it is not a Ma'aseh, some Rishonim hold that even according to the opinion that Garmi is Chayav, it is only a d'Rabanan fine.
6) So far, we have dealt with the Sugya on 100a. Now we go, bs'd, to the Sugya on 56b that you cited, Reb Menachem (54b was a typo).
The Gemara, on the last line of 56a, cites the Mishnah on 55b that if the thieves took the sheep out of the pen, they are liable for what happened. The Gemara (top of 56b) states that what happened is that they did not draw it out of the pen, but rather they stood in front of the animal on every side so that it could not move anywhere else other than the pile of food to eat. The Gemara then compares this to what Rav said, that if someone stands up his friend's animal in front of his friend's pile of food, the person who stood up the animal is liable for the food that was eaten.
7) The Rambam (Hilchos Nizkei Mamon 4:3) writes, "Someone who leads an animal to his friend's fruit and places it right on top of it, is liable." The Ra'avad writes, "Kol she'Ken he is liable if Kam Lei b'Apei" -- if he stood in front of the animal, he is certainly liable. The Ra'avad seems to be a support for your argument, Reb Menachem, but let us look into this. The Magid Mishneh there writes that he does not know what the Ra'avad means, because -- on the contrary -- if he stood in front of the animal this is only Grama and is exempt. The Magid Mishneh writes that the Ra'avad himself writes this in his commentary on Bava Kama, and it is obvious.
8) However, I saw in the Chidushei ha'Ra'avad on Bava Kama 56b that he writes something that does not fit in with what the Magid Mishneh writes in the name of the Chidushei ha'Ra'avad. He writes: "After the thieves broke down the fence and the animal went out on its own, they stood in front of the animal and blocked the road. As a result, the animal went to the friend's pile of fruit. Even though the thieves did not pull the animal, and did not acquire it, they are still liable for what it ate."
9) I would like to try to solve this problem with the help of the Chidushei Rebbi Akiva Eiger on Tosfos 56a, DH v'Listim (DH uv'Zeh in Rebbi Akiva Eiger). He writes:
??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??"? ?? ???? ????? ???
The reason why "Kam Lah b'Apah" has to pay is because the animal is totally blocked and has nowhere to go, so it is forced to eat the food. However, Rebbi Akiva Eiger makes it clear that this is Garmi; it is not a full-scale Ma'aseh. Again, I argue that it is not considered a full-scale Ma'aseh because he did not actually touch the animal.
B'Hatzlachah Rabah,
Dovid Bloom