Bava Kamma 40

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 102016
 

Study Guide Bava Kamma 40

An animal owned by one who is deaf, not mentally capable or a minor – they are not responsible for the animal.  However a guardian is appointed to be in charge.  Exactly what he pays and whose money he pays from and in which case (tam or muad) is debated.  A braita is quoted which says that a guardian is not responsible for paying the ransom fee that one pays if the ox kills a person.  a discussion ensues about what is the nature of the ransom payment and can it be derived from a tannaitic debate – is it repentance or compensation for the family of the deceased?  Some other questions are raised by Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov and he stumps Rav Nachman on them regarding the nature of the repentance of this ransom payment.  Can it be shared by joint owners and if so, how?  Can we assume one would take it as seriously as one who is obligated in a sin or guilt offering?  2 issues are raised about an animal who is borrowed – one where the borrower thinks he is a tam but he really was muad – the law is that they share the full payment (each pays half).  And a second case where he became a muad while he was borrowed but when he is returned to the original owner, he reverts back to being a tam.  The logic behind these halachot are explained in the gemara and the seeming contradiction between the two.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 38

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 082016
 

If either the injured animal or the one that injures is hekdesh, there is no payment.  If the animal who is injured belongs to a Canaanite, there is no payment.  However if the reverse is true, the Caananite must pay.  The Meiri limits this halacha and explains that the Caananite reference in the mishna would not be applicable to non Jews in his day (and not in ours either).  The sources of these laws are derived from verses.  Does a non Jew get rewarded for learning Torah or keeping the seven Noahide laws?   What is appropriate and not appropriate to be said to someone mourning a loss?  A difference of opinion is brought.   A discussion of the merits of Amon and Moav is brought and what lesson can be learned from them.  How do we treat the Samaritans in terms of laws of damages – like non Jews or like Jews?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 37

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 072016
 

Can we derive from our mishna whether or not when the mishnyaot refer to a sela, they mean the higher valued currency (sela tzuri) or the lower valued (sela medina – one eighth of the other sela)?  If an animal is muad for one type, does that make him muad for all types of animals?  If he is muad for people, then is he also muad for animals?  For small animals, is he muad for large animals?   Depending on how you read the mishna on this page, affects how you answer this question.  It all depends on a single letter “vav“.  The two different readings are brought and analyzed.  Other situations of determining patterns are brought and questions are raised and comparisons are made to nidda where also patterns are used for determining whether a woman has a set menstrual cycle or not.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 36

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 062016
 

The gemara tries to establish what type of claims each of the sides had in the cases mentioned in the mishna.  Were they each claiming definite claims or was one side’s claim a doubtful one.  The new perek starts with an argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon about a shor tam who attacks 4 or 5 times in a row.  Who gets paid what?  Then the gemara tries to establish the logic of their arguments and how they fit in with the broader approaches of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael regarding whether the owner of the damaged one has rights to the animal who caused the damaged or not.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 35

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 052016
 

The mishna brings cases comparing situations where an animal and a man may do the same damage but one would be obligated to pay damages and the other would not.  In the context of these cases, there is one of a man burning a field on Shabbat where a man would be exempt because when one is liable to death, he is exempt from monetary payment.  This mishna raises a question to Rabbi Yochanan’s view that one who burns as a destructive act, has not desecrated Shabbat since the act is destructive.  Two alternative readings of the mishna are brought to answer this question.  If there is a debate between the two sides about did the animal cause the damage or not or whose animal caused the damage or did a larger animal or a smaller animal damaged or was it the smaller or the larger animal that he caused the damage to, we say that the burden of proof lies with the one trying to claim the money from the other.  Rabbi Chiya bar Abba holds that Sumchus would disagree in these cases and say that the money is question is split between the two sides.  the gemara then tries to assess whether the cases is where each is confident in his claim or one is confident and the other is not.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 34

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 042016
 

Study Guide Bava Kamma 34

What rights does the owner of a shor tam or a shor muad have to sell their animal after it caused damage or to designate it to the beit hamikdash or to slaughter it or give it as a gift?  Does it matter if it is before they came to court or after?  What if someone he owed money to came and collected the animal as payment?  Does it matter if he had a lien on the animal before or after it damaged?  Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree on how to explain the classic case of shor tam described in the Torah – it says that one halves the amount of the animal that damaged and halves the amount of the dead animal.  They disagree about whether the owner of the shor tam has rights also to the animal he killed.  There is a discussion regarding what is the practical difference between the 2 opinions (since both agree that in a typical case, the bottom line payment is the same).  Also some ridiculous cases are raised in which if we take the verse at face value, the owner may either gain on the deal or on the other extreme pay more than the damage he caused.  Therefore it is explained that in those cases, we do not take the verses at face value.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 33

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 032016
 

Study Guide Bava Kamma 33

If one enters a store and gets injured by the store owner (e.g. a carpenter’s studio and gets injured as the carpenter is working, is the carpenter obligated in the 4 damages and if he accidentally kills him, does he need to go to a refuge city?  Does it depend on whether he entered with permission or not?  Would it be the same if he went to his employer’s house to get paid and was attacked by an animal? What else may it depend upon?  How do we calculate damages in a case where 2 animals attacked each other or two people to a person and an animal?  If a shor tam attacks, since the owner needs to pay up to the value of his animal that damaged, does that mean that his ox is designated payment for the loan or not.  There is an argument about this between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and the ramifications of this argument are discussed and carious sources are brought to try to see whose opinion they fit in with.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 31

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jul 012016
 

Study Guide Bava Kamma 31

Rav and Zeiri debate: if one leaves his garbage in the street to fertilize, do we penalize him all allow others to take it or do we allow them just to get the value of the improvement of the garbage (of it turning into fertilizer) but not the object itself?  Their opinions are analyzed.  If one person trips over another and a third over the second, they are both help responsible according to the tannaim.  However Rava distinguishes between the damage caused by the first adn the damage caused by the second.  The gemara attempts to understand exactly the distinction that Rava makes and why.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 30

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Jun 302016
 

The gemara states that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about one who renounces his property in the public thoroughfare – is he responsible for damages or not.  The gemara doesn’t know who holds which opinion and brings different statements of theirs to be able to conclude who help by which opinion.  In doing so, they analyze different cases and make distinctions between cases where one may or may not be held responsible.  The gemara brings 3 opinions advising people how to become a pious person – one should fulfill either nezikin, avot or brachot.  One can attempt to suggest theories as to the uniqueness of each of these categories.  Taking out garbage or putting out garbage to become fertilizer in the time of the Mishna/Talmud raised various questions about the level or responsibility of the one who took it out in the event it caused damage.  Does the fact that one is allowed to do something, remove him from responsibility for damage it may cause?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries  Newer Entries