Bava Kamma 29: נִתְקָל פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

It was stated: Regarding one who abandons his hazardous objects, Rabbi Yochanan, and Rabbi Elozar dispute this. One of them says that he is liable, and the other disagrees.

The Gemora comments: Shall we say that one of them is saying like Rabbi Meir, and the other like the Rabbis!? The Gemora suggests that they do not argue according to Rabbi Meir (they would agree that the owner is liable). Their dispute is only according to the Rabbis. The one who holds that he is not liable is in complete agreement with the Rabbis. The one who holds that he is liable maintains that when the Rabbis exempted the person who abandoned his hazardous objects from liability, they did so only in a case where its inception was done by accident; however, in an ordinary case, where one abandons his hazardous objects into a public domain, he will be liable.

We explore the legal aspects of hazardous materials in Halacha and modern law.

Bava Kamma 28: פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf ends with a discussion about who is liable and for how much when a rock, a knife or a load is left on a road. If an animal or a person should be damaged by these things, the owner of the objects is liable according to the laws of pit. Further, if those things are damaged in the accident, the one who does damage is liable according to the rules of pit as well.

We explore divine vs human justice in different traditions.

Bava Kamma 27: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Nachman says: A person can take the law into his own hands. If someone is making him lose money which he will not recover if he does not act, everyone agrees he may take the law into his own hands. They argue regarding a case where there is no immediate loss (that cannot be recovered if he waits to go to Beis Din).

Rav Yehudah says: A person cannot take the law into his own hands. Being that there is no immediate loss, let him take the person to Beis Din. Rav Nachman says: A person can take the law into his own hands. Being that he is doing the right thing, he does not have to bother to go to Beis Din.

We explore the notion of taking the law int one’s own hands.

Bava Kamma 26: אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf deals with situations when we cause the damage ourselves? The rabbis teach that we are always mu'ad: we are liable for the damage that we do to others. What about what we do when we are drunk? well, say the rabbis, we put ourselves in the situation that allowed us to become drunk, and so we are responsible for the damages that we have done in that state.

But what about when we are asleep? This seems to be an exception. Unless of course we fall asleep within the range of things that we could damage. In that case, we are fully responsible for damages that we cause when we are asleep.

We return to the literary devices used in the geological strata of the Gemara using the work of Shama Friedman, Jeffrey Rubinstein and, of course, Prof Louis Jacobs.

Bava Kamma 25: דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One case of Nezikin that does not appear in the Torah is a case of keren be-reshut hanizak: an ox that enters a private domain and causes damage by goring or similar actions.

While the Tanna Kamma accepts the kal va-homer to the extent that we must conclude that the owner is responsible for damage done by his animal in a private place, but he rejects Rabbi Tarfon’s conclusion, arguing that we cannot hold him more responsible that he was in the primary case. Thus the Tanna Kamma rules that the owner will pay half damage, just like he does in the public domain.

Limiting the conclusions that can be reached by means of a kal va-homer in this manner is called dayyo – “enough.” It is enough to learn a parallel halakha from a kal va-homer, but not more than the original law itself.

The Gemara explains that the concept of kal va-homer – and dayyo – stem from the story of Miriam who spoke inappropriately about her brother Moshe (see Bamidbar 12).

We explore the evolution of the character of Miriam in Bible, Midrash Philo and Dead Sea Scrolls.

Bava Kamma 24: לֹא אָדוּן קֶרֶן מִקֶּרֶן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new Mishnah discusses the case of the ox that causes damage while on the property of the injured party, mentioned in an earlier mishna (15b) that listed animals that are forewarned? If the animal gored, pushed, bit, squatted upon, or kicked another animal in the public domain, the owner is liable to pay half the cost of the damage if the ox was innocuous, but if it acted while on the property of the injured party, Rabbi Tarfon says: He must pay the full cost of the damage, and the Rabbis say: He must pay half the cost of the damage, as in any other case classified as Goring.

We explore damage of one animal by another from a halachic and modern liability perspective.

Bava Kamma 23: אֵיזֶהוּ תָּם וְאֵיזֶהוּ מוּעָד

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

What is a tam and what is a mu’ad? A mu’ad is an animal that was testified about three days in a row, and (it reverts to being) a tam when it stopped goring for three days. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: A mu’ad is an animal that was testified about three times (even on the same day), and (it reverts to being) a tam when the children play with it and it does not gore them.

We explore th law regarding animal plaintiffs in case law for damages.

Bava Kamma 22: כִּֽי־תֵצ֨אֵ אֵ֜שׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Yochanan said: One is liable for the damage caused by his fire on account of it being “his arrows” (it is as if he shot out an arrow which caused damage). Rish Lakish, however, maintained that fire is regarded as “his property” (just as he is liable when he is negligent and his ox damages, so too, he is liable for the negligence regarding his fire).

The Gemora explains: Rish Lakish differed from Rabbi Yochanan, for he contends that one’s arrows emerge directly from human force, whereas fire does not emerge from human force (it spreads by itself). Rabbi Yochanan differs with Rish Lakish, for he may say that his property contains tangible substance, whereas fire has no tangible substance.

We explore the history of flaming arrows and the halachic implications of forest fires.

Bava Kamma 21: כֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁקָּפְצוּ מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a dog or a goat jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels while doing so, their owners must pay the full cost of the damage. Thus saith the Mishnah and an exact Braitah.

This indicates that if they fell off the roof, they would be exempt from all liability despite his obligation to keep them from climbing onto the roof and jumping down from there.

The Gemora infers from the Mishna that the reason for liability is because the dog or goat jumped from the roof but were it to have fallen down from the roof (and then broke utensils), the owner would be exempt. It can thus be inferred that the Tanna of our Mishna accepts the view that when a situation begins with a negligence (for the owner was not guarding his animal on the roof) and results in a mere accident, the owner is not liable to pay.

We explore the curious history of punishing animals in the medieval period for crime committed against humans.

Bava Kamma 20: הַמַּקִּיף חֲבֵירוֹ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹתָיו

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf states if produce is left in the public domain without specification with regard to its ownership, it is assumed that the owner has rendered it ownerless. The owner does not expect to derive benefit from the produce, and therefore when the animal ate it he suffered no loss. Consequently, it is a case where this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss, and it is comparable to the case of the squatter in the courtyard.

In order to prove whether or not one must pay for the benefits he gains in a case of "Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser,"our Daf brings a proof from a mishna (Bava Metzia 117a): If a house and its upper story, which belonged to two separate people, collapsed, necessitating that the entire structure be rebuilt, and the owner of the upper story told the owner of the lower story of the house to build the lower story again so that he could rebuild the upper story, but the owner of the lower story does not want to do so, the owner of the upper story may build the lower story of the house and live in it until the owner of the lower story will pay him for his expenses, and only then will he be required to vacate the lower story of the house and build the upper story.

We explore Alex Ozar’s essay on Towards a Jewish Theology of Democratic Citizenship.

Bava Kamma 19: כִּשְׁכְּשָׁה בְּאַמָּתָהּ מַהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One of the most intriguing forms of property damages is a scenario of indirect damage, otherwise known as tzerorot. Based upon a Halakha Le-Moshe Mi-Sinai, payment for this type of damage – which would typically classify as regel – is discounted to half payment

Consider an animal damaging a vessel by swishing its male organ. Is this similar to horn damage (done of malevolence) or to foot damage (done by just passing by?) Unresolved.

We explore weird animal behavior and the physiology and pathology of male bulls.

Bava Kamma 18: תַּרְנְגוֹל שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט רֹאשׁוֹ לַאֲוִיר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Another example tells us about chicken who run, sending pebbles flying which damage another object. This example eventually becomes one about a chicken who leaves excrement on a loaf of bread or on dough. Is it the nature of a chicken to leave excrement on dough if the chicken is not forced into a closed space with dough? Should chickens be expected to do such things?

At the end of our daf, new examples are suggested. The rabbis speak of a rooster, a horse, or a donkey whose voices might break a vessel because of the power of the sound waves. What if the animal has done something like this three times before? Is the owner now fully responsible for the damages done by his/her chicken?

We explore the notion of resonant frequency from braying donkeys on our daf to the opera singer smashing a wine glass.

Bava Kamma 17: תַּרְנגְוֹליִן שׁהֶיָוּ מפַרְִיח

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Regarding severance gifts for servants: Rav Sheshet said: With what are we dealing here? This concerns a case where he fled and the Jubilee Year arrived immediately afterward, and therefore he did not complete the six years of servitude. The novelty of this halakha is as follows. Lest you say: Since the JubileeYear released him, he is considered sent away by you, the master, and therefore we should not penalize him but grant him the severance gift, the baraita teaches us that once he flees, he forfeits his right to the severance gift.

We explore essays by Rav Ammon Bazak comparing Midrsah Yotzer vs Midrash Mevakem and mere Asmachta in the force of law as well as claims of Jewish participation in the slave trade.

Bava Kamma 16: וַיִּשְׁכַּ֨ב יְחִזְקִיָּ֜הוּ עִם־אֲבֹתָ֗יו

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara offers an interpretation of another verse about the burial of a king of Judea, King Asa:

“And they buried him in his own sepulchers, which he had hewn out for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the resting place, which was filled with perfumes and spices [zenim] prepared by the perfumers’ art” (II Chronicles 16:14).

What is meant by “perfumes and spices”? Rabbi Elazar says: It means many different types [zinei] of perfumes. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The word zenim sounds similar to the word zenut, licentiousness, and should therefore be understood about types of perfumes that anyone who smells them is led to licentiousness.

We examine the history and archeology informing us on the reign of Hezekiah and compare with rabbinic historiography.

Bava Kamma 15: לֹּא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם כֶּלֶב רַע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Should the plaintiff, however, seize the property of the defendant (in a case of a fine that could not be collected in Bavel), they cannot be taken away from him. Furthermore, if he asks for a date to present his case to a Beis Din in Eretz Yisroel, we set it up for him, and if the defendant does not go with him, we place a ban upon him. Either way, however, the defendant is to be placed under the ban, for we tell him: Remove your damaging animal.

This follows the opinion of Rabbi Nosson, for we learned in the following braisa: Rabbi Nosson said: How do we know that a man may not raise a vicious dog in his house, nor shall he place a shaking ladder in his house? It is written [Devarim 22:8]: You shall not place blood in your house.

We look at the history of pets and dogs and when they became domesticated.

Bava Kamma 14: שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The new Mishna on our daf states that when determining damages, monetary appraisal is used and money is paid before a court.

The testimony must be based on witnesses and those witnesses must be free and Jewish. They can be women, too.

Damages can be paid both by the injured person and the person responsible for the damages.

What is monetary appraisal? The appraisal should be stated in monetary terms. An example is shared where a cow injures a talit (also translated as a cloak); the talit gets wrapped in the cow's legs, causing it to trip and become injured. Monetary appraisal focuses on the worth of each item first, the monetary damage done to each item, and then how much each cost offsets the other.

We explore the incidence of injuries by cows.

Bava Kamma 13: נְכָסִים הַמְיוּחָדִין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The mishna teaches: One is liable only for damage caused to property that belongs to members of the covenant.

The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? If it serves to exclude the property of a gentile, isn’t that already explicitly taught in the mishna below (37b): In the case of an ox of a Jew that gored an ox of a gentile, the Jew is exempt.

We explore the differences between ancient near eastern codes (Hammurabi) vs the laws of Mishpatim.

Bava Kamma 12: מִשֻּׁלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf deals with various manners of acquisition. Torah is also something that is acquired.

Once it (the Torah) is acquired, it becomes part of us. Harav Yehudah Halevi in his classic Sefer Hakuzari (Kuzari 2 79) written more than 9 centuries ago addresses the question why is it that Klal Yisroel sway their entire bodies while learning Torah.

We explore the custom of shockling, its sources as well as the difference between davening and praying with a description of the Buber Jung controversy.

Bava Kamma 11: סִימָן וָלָד בְּאִשָּׁה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf cites another ruling from Ulla in the name of Rabbi Elozar: When a placenta comes out from a woman (during a miscarriage) partly on one day and partly on the next day, the counting of the days of tumah (even without blood; if it is a male child, she is tamei for seven days – for a female, it is fourteen) begin with the first day (when the placenta starts to emerge).

Rava said: Since we are concerned (that the majority of the fetus emerged on the first day), we rule her to be tamei from the first day, but the actual counting only begins with the second day.

The Gemora asks: What is the novelty that Rava is teaching us? It cannot be that even a portion of an emerging placenta contains part of a fetus in it, for we have already learned in a Mishna: If a partial placenta came out of an animal (before it was slaughtered), the entire placenta is unfit for consumption.

This is because the placenta is a sign of a fetus in a woman and it is similarly a sign of a fetus in an animal (and we are concerned that a majority of the fetus emerged from the animal; accordingly, we would consider that the fetus was born already and it will not be permitted for consumption by the slaughtering of the mother).

We explore the history of the placenta in antiquity and nomenclature as well as the recently discovered critical role it plays in maternal immunity and genetics.

Bava Kamma 10: הָאָב זַכַּאי בְּבִתּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf struggle with What does Cohabitation Accomplish?

The Gemora inquires: Does cohabitation effect marriage (nisuin), or does it affect only betrothal ()?

The difference would be whether he inherits her, can become impure to her (if she dies and he is a Kohen, who may only become impure to dead close relatives, and this would include a wife after nisuin), and annul her vows. If it effects nisuin, then he inherits her, he may become impure to her and he annuls her vows, while if it effects only erusin, he does not inherit her, he may not become impure to her and he may not annul her vows.

What is the law?

We explore ancient parallels as well as the insistence of virginity as a late antique construct.