Photo Credit: Jewish Press
In another case of a tame dog that attacked and injured a person in the street, Rabbi Avraham Dov Levine, president of the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court, reached the same conclusion as the Ashkelon magistrate court above. A tame dog, he ruled, is not a muad and therefore the owner is not liable to pay compensation. However, based on the dictum of Rabbi Natan quoted above, the court ruled the dog should be removed from its owner.
It should be noted that the Israel secular civil law of torts holds a dog owner strictly liable to compensate the victim for all damages caused, irrespective of the nature of the dog. The rabbinical courts however, following the law of the Talmud and poskim, differentiate between a tam and a muad.
Advertisement