Bava Kamma 96

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 042016
 

Shmuel lists 3 people who can demand land that they are owed – even if it’s valued higher now because its value increased – and then need to return the value of the increase to the other.  A contradictory statement of Shmuel is brought and it is reconciled.  When one steals and item and it increases in value while in his possession, the increase goes to him and even to those who he sells it to or to his inheritors.  Rava asks a question based on this regarding a non Jew.  Cases are brought where some sort of change happens to the item and the gemara determines whether this is a significant change that would enable the robber to acquire the item or not.  Based on the mishna, the gemara concludes that if one steals oxen and uses them to work his field and then returns them as they were when he stole them, he is not obligated to compensate the owner for the use of the animal as he fulfilled his obligation to return them.  However in an exceptional case where someone is consistently doing this and abusing the system, he would be obligated.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 94

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 022016
 

Abaye brings halachot of 5 different tannaim and claims that all of them agree that changing an item doesn’t change ownership over it.  Rava disagrees and explains why each case is unique and can’t teach a general principle.  Rabbi Yochanan holds that one has to return the stolen item as is and not the value of it as discussed previously.  The gemara questions his opinion from another source but then explains that when Rabbi Yochanan made his statement, it was a case where the change was reversible.  But if it was an irreversible change, he would only be required to pay the value at the time of the theft.  Robbers and usurers who want to return from their bad ways should return the items they stole/collected but the ones they stole/collected from should not accept it from them in order to encourage them to repent.  The gemara brings various sources that seem to contradict this halacha and reconciles them.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 93

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 012016
 

Rava and Raba bar Meri continue to derive sources from the Torah for various values statements.  The gemara then brings two different reasons for the distinction the mishna makes between a case where one exempts amonther for inflicting upon him bodily damage to a case where one exempts another for destroying his possessions. A contradiction between our mishna and a braita relating to laws of shomrim (where one is exempt if someone gave him an item to destroy) and two different answers are given.  One who is in charge of charity funds is not responsible if something happens to the money.  However an exception to this rule is brought.  The ninth chapter begins with a discussion of a thief and his ultimate ownership over the item he stole in the event that the item changes or he changes it.  Various mishnayot and braitot are brought which seem to contradict the mishna and each other and various possibilities are brought to reconcile them.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 93

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 59

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 292016
 

If a person damages a part of one’s field so that same laws of assessing the field based on 60, still apply?  A braita is brought with different opinions regarding laws of evaluating based on what stage of development the fruits were at the time of the damage.  This leads to a discussion and a story regarding looking at something or someone’s potential.  one who puts a pile of grain in someone else’s field – who assumes responsibility for animals eating it or it causing damage?  It depends on whether it was put there with permission or not.  If someone gives a fire to a person without knowledge, and it spreads – the one who gave him the fire is exempt by law but obligated by the hands of God.  Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the type of fire discussed.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 58

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 282016
 

The mishna said that if an animal falls into someone’s property and benefited, the owner pays what he benefited.   What type of benefit is the mishna discussing – eating or that the produce softened the fall?   Does it make a difference what caused the animal to fall?  What if the animal moved to a different area of the field and ate there – is the owner still exempt from damages and only pays what he benefited?  There are a number of different opinions. How does one assess damages an animal does to someone else’s field?  Different opinions are brought.  The main opinion is that it is evaluated based on a field that is 60 times larger (within that, there are a few varying interpretations).  The rabbis question whether this method of assessing is true also for a person who damages another’s field or only if it is their property that caused the damage.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 57

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 272016
 

If someone finds a lost item that he is obligated to return, what level of obligation does he have for the item – is he considered like a shomer who watches an item for free or like one who gets paid?  Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about this and questions are brought for each side from other sources (mostly tannaitic).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 56

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 262016
 

A braita is brought that lists damages that one causes to someone else and yet is not obligated by the hands of men but is obligated by the hands of God.  The gemara then questions why the list is limited to these four and doesn’t mention others that have the same law.  A distinction is made between the cases listed here as they are cases where one may have thought one wouldn’t even be obligated by God and therefore they are different than the other cases brought.  The next cases in the mishna are analyzed:  if the gate opens at night – what is the case?  What type of wall?  How did it break?  IF the robber takes the animal, he is responsible?  Isn’t this obvious?  The gemara gives 2 explanations what the case is and why it needed to be stated.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 55

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 252016
 

One difference between the wording of the ten commandments in the book of shmot and the book of devarim is discussed – why the word “good” appears in the context of the commandment to respect your parents appears only in devraim (“so that it will be good for you”).  From here, the gemara discusses things one sees in one’s dreams that are a sign of good things to come.   The gemara then goes back to the topic discusses in the mishna about crossbreeding or coworking two animals that are from the same species but not the same type.  The sixth chapter begins with laws regarding one who watched his animal properly but the animal got out and ate of trampled a field.  The gemara connects it back to an argument we saw earlier about what level of watching is needed for an animal who gored three times (shor muad) – would the same apply here for eating an trampling as all animals are considered muad for that behavior as it is expected, or is there a difference?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 54

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 242016
 

Study Guide Bava Kamma 54

Many basic arguments regarding bor are brought.  One is not responsible if a person falls into the pit and dies (but one is responsible for damages).  One is not responsible for vessels that fall in but Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says one is responsible.  The verse mentions just animals – an ox and a donkey.  Drashot are brought to explain from where do we know that all animals are included (even birds).  The mishna explained that one is obligated for an ox that is deaf, dumb or young.  That seemed to imply not if the animal was older and not blemished.  the rabbis at first think that somehow the mishna also includes that case but eventually concludes that one is not responsible for that case as an ox should also be paying attention (like a person) and therefore the owner is not responsible.  There is an argument between the Rambam and Raavad about whether this is only true for death and not damages (as by a person).  The mishna then brings other cases in the Torah where specific animals are mentioned and yet the intent is all animals.  The gemara explains the derivation in each case.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 52

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 222016
 

Study Guide Bava Kamma 52

At what point does one owner pass over responsibility to the other?  This leads the gemara to also question if handing over keys to a house would be a way of transferring ownership.  One of the rabbis says it is and the gemara questions it as that is not one of the methods by which one can acquire land.  Other cases are brought where one covers it and yet somehow it gets uncovered.  If the second owner of the pit sees it and doesn’t cover it, he is responsible.  The gemara questions – at which point would the first owner revert back to assuming responsibility for it together with the second person?  If one covers it and somehow the animal falls in anyway, the owner is not responsible.  The gemara says that it must be when the cover rotted.   From here, the gemara raises a question abotu covering it with something that is protected for an ox but not for a camel.  What if the camel came and weakened it and then the ox fell in.  The gemara tries to answer the question from our mishna but is unsuccessful.  It then suggests a different version of the question and again tries to answer it from our mishna.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries  Newer Entries