Once the animal is sentenced to death, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Therefore at that point, if one sells it, the sale is invalid and likewise if one dedicates it to the temple, it is not holy and if one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. However before the sentence, all those acts are valid. There is a debate regarding someone watching someone else’s animal and the animal gets sentenced to death – can the one watching it, return it to the owner after the sentence or not? The gemara rejects the option that they are arguing about whether one who steals something that then becomes forbidden can he return the object if does he need to pay the value of it at the time of the sale. The gemara concludes that their argument has to do with whether or not the animal has to appear in court – if he does, then the original owner can blame the watcher for bringing it to court and claim that had he returned it before court, he would have sent the animal away and he never would have been sentenced to death. When it comes to the 4 shomrim who have someone’s animal – what is their level of responsibility? A braita is brought and then it is determined according to whose opinion is this braita. There is a 4-way argument regarding what level of watching is enough to exempt the owner from damages of a shor tam and a shor muad. Is the halacha the same for both or different?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.