Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

Study Guide Bava Kamma 50

A few cases are brought in which a convert dies and questions are asked regarding his property – a document saying property is liened to him or a collateral in his possession or a collateral of his in the lender’s possession.  Is the person whose possession it is in (or the one who the collateral belonged to) immediately gain ownership over the object or is it up for grabs?  Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael debate what the classic case of bor is – in public property or in private property that was made public but he retains ownership of the bor?  Raba and Rav Yosef each think that they agree in one domain and disagree about the other.  Rav Yosef’s opinion is questions by a few braitot but they are answered up.  A story is brought about a reservoir digger whose daughter fell into a pit and was saved.  A theological statement is made about why she never would have died in that way because of her father’s actions.  However a counter argument is brought by showing that his son died from thirst even though he dug the reservoirs so people would have water to drink on the way to Jerusalem for the holidays.    Another interesting statement is made regarding that even though we think that our own private property is our and public property is not, public property will always belong to us as it is for our use whereas private property may be sold.  Rav and Shmuel argue about whether one is responsible for bor because of the airspace of the bor or because of the impact of the hit on the floor of the bor.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Study Guide Bava Kamma 48

Rav’s opinion is that if one puts fruits in another’s property without permission, one is not responsible if an animal eats it and gets sick/dies from it.  His opinion is questioned by various tanaitic sources that seem to indicate otherwise.  Each one is answered up to fit in with Rav.  If one brings in an animal or item with permission and the owner therefore accepts responsibility, is he also responsible in a case where the item/animal gets damaged by someone else’s animal that was trespassing?  Rava brings 2 other laws about related cases where the animal case turns into a bor (pit) case.  And one more case where a person comes into one’s property without permission.  If the owner attacks him, is he responsible for damages or not?  The next case in the mishna is analyzed – when the animal falls into a pit in the owner’s property and contaminated the water or kills a person inside the pit.  Exactly in what scenario is the water case – when he contaminates on the way down or after having fallen there?  In the case of killing, he pays ransom – is it because it is a shur muad?  Or maybe a shor tam according to the opinion that you pay half the ransom or according to the opinion that goring in the owner’s property pays full damages and would thereby pay full ransom upon death.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

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

A husband inherits his wife’s property that was owned by her but not money that will be coming to her after her death.  Therefore the ransom payment goes to her inheritors and not her husband.  There is a discussion about money that is owed to the woman – is that considered in her hands or not?  Does it depend on if it is money or property?  There is a 3 way argument about whether in a case where the animal killed without intent is there ransom payment and if one killed a slave, is there the payment of the fine of 30 shekalim?  Is it integrally connected to the animal being stoned (if he is not stoned, there is no ransom or fine)?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Can a bull who was used in bullfight and killed someone be used as a sacrifice?  Rav and Shmuel argue about this.  If a shor tam who kills get stoned according to the Torah, how can you have a case of a shor muad who gets stoned?  The rabbis give several different scenarios of how this can be – however many of the answers are rejected.  The gemara then brings a braita that discusses whether or not it is forbidden to eat the animal who killed if one slaughtered it before it was stoned.  There are different derivations from the verse which leads to different conclusions.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS