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.

Bava Kamma 9: שׁוֹר קָשׁוּר וּבוֹר מְכוּסֶּה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Whatever I am obligated to guard, I have prepared its ability to damage (and am therefore obligated to pay if it damages). If I caused part of its damage, I am obligated to pay for it as if I prepared the entire damage. One is liable if the damaged property is property that is not subject to the laws of me’ilah (misusing hekdesh, i.e. chullin), property belonging to Jews, and property that has an owner.

We continue the exploration of property liability law.

Bava Kamma 8: עִידִּית וְזִיבּוּרִית

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Jewish law recognizes that formal loans that are recorded in signed contracts create liens of the property of the borrower that effectively guarantee payment of the loan. Therefore, if a borrower cannot pay back his loan, the lender has the right to take possession of real estate that was owned by the borrower at the time of the loan – even if it has subsequently been sold to a third party.

We just learned that a person might have only intermediate and inferior quality land. We were also exploring whether superior quality land was superior compared with itself or compared with land around the world. Our daf begins with the argument that a person who has only intermediate and inferior quality land proves that the quality of land is compared with that of the world.

We explore Rav Among Bazak’s claim that even though Rambam considers laws derived by the Sages "on the basis of their own reasoning," through the hermeneutical rules by way of which the Torah is expounded, as Torah law, it is still possible that he sees some differences between them and prohibitions explicitly stated in the Torah, and perhaps also between them and accepted interpretations received from Moshe.

Bava Kamma 7: מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara follows the rabbis' arguments regarding the payments of a debtor. We have learned that damages are paid with a person's superior-quality, or best-quality land. Land can also be categorized as intermediate quality or inferior quality. In fact we learn that land is used only when payment through money is not possible.

But what if conditions make it difficult to sell one's land? And what if the person receiving payment for damages would prefer the intermediate land -- but perhaps a bit more?

We examine the laws of torts and land liens.

Bava Kamma 6: מַאי שְׁנָא אֵשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah (2a) lists four basic types of nezek (damage) for which a person will be required to pay restitution.

The Gemara on daf (page) 4b quotes baraitot that expand the number of types of nezek by including examples that fit into the broader categories presented by the Mishnah. Rabbi Oshiya enumerates 13 types of avot nezikin (including, for example, people who borrow objects or are given things to watch and then do not return them or allow them to get lost or stolen); Rabbi Chiya finds 24 avot nezikin (including, for example, robbers and thieves).

Another category included by Rabbi Chiya is examples of hezek she-eno nikkar – damage that was done that cannot be seen.

We review the radical innovation in Talmudic analysis that changed the way we analyze a sugya by the work of Prof David Weiss-Halivni.

Bava Kamma 5: וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן רוּחַ חַיִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have seen, the Mishna (2a) lists four basic types of nezek for which a person will be required to pay restitution. The Gemara on daf 4b quotes baraitot that expand the number of types of nezek by including examples that fit into the broader categories presented by the Mishna. Rabbi Oshaya enumerates 13 types of avot nezikin (including, for example, people who borrow objects or are given things to watch and then do not return them or allow them to get lost or stolen); Rabbi Hiyya finds 24 avot nezikin (including, for example, robbers and thieves).

Rava teaches that all of the Avos Nezikin mentioned in the Mishnah, except for Keren, can be derived through a "Tzad ha'Shaveh" from Bor together with any one of the other Nezikin. From Keren together with Bor, all of the Nezikin can be derived. RASHI explains exactly how Shen, Regel, Esh, and Adam are derived through a Tzad ha'Shaveh when one of the other Nezikin is combined with Bor.

We continue to explore the structure of Mishah and Nezikin.

Bava Kamma 4: תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי אָדָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Contrary to the mishna, where four primary categories of damage were enumerated, Rabbi Oshaya taught (Tosefta 9:1) that there are thirteen primary categories of damage. The thirteen categories consist of four bailees, five types of indemnity, and the four primary categories listed in the mishna. The four bailees are: The unpaid bailee, who is liable for damage caused by his negligence; and the borrower, who is liable for all damage; the paid bailee, and the renter, who is liable if the object is lost or stolen.

We continue our introduction to the basic laws of nezikin…

Bava Kamma 3: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַשֵּׁן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf offers some examples of damages that are the toladot of shen (damage done by the animal when it eats).

Shen is defined as a situation where the animal derives benefit or pleasure from its action, and where the animal belongs to a person who is responsible to guard it and make sure that it does not do damage to other people’s property.

Included in the toladot are situations where an animal rubs against a wall to scratch itself and does damage to the wall (nit’hakekhah ba-kotel la-hana’atah) or dirties fruit, getting pleasure by doing so (tinfah perot la-hana’atah).

We continue our introduction to Seder Nezikin.

Bava Kamma 2: שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The introductory Mishnah to Masechet Bava Kamma offers the four avot nezikin (literally “fathers,” the term avot in this context refers to the primary types of damages according to the Torah) – Shor (an ox), Bor (a pit), Mav’eh and Hev’er (fire)­ – each with its own set of rules.

According to Rav, the Mishnah has listed the four types of damages that appear in the Torah, and Shor is a broad term that encompasses keren (damage done with the animal’s horns), shen (damage done with the animal’s teeth, i.e. eating) and regel (damage done by the animal’s hooves while walking). Mav’eh refers to a different type of damage mentioned in the Torah – a person who does damage.

We explore the introduction to this Seder Nezikin and Maseches.

Kiddushin 82: אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶתְפַּרְנֵס שֶׁלֹּא בְּצַעַר

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 82

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On the closing daf of Massekhet Kiddushin we find the following teaching in the name of Rabbi Me’ir: a parent should teach his son a clean and simple profession and should pray to Him that all wealth and valuables belong, since every profession has both poverty and wealth.

The Mishna then quotes other opinions about the need to work and learn a profession, closing with Rabbi Nehorai who said that he put aside all worldly professions and taught his son only Torah.

We explore the modern iteration of the kolel and its impact as well as the curious adage that the best doctors go to Gehinom!

Kiddushin 81: אַתְּ נוּרָא וַאֲנָא בִּישְׂרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 81

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Today we continue the Rabbinic concern with private interactions between men and women lest they lead to sexual impropriety, and the laws of yihud – of forbidding a man and woman from being alone in a secluded place.

Our daf clarifies that in circumstances where the likelihood of impropriety is small – e.g. ba’alah ba’ir (the woman’s husband is nearby) or petah patu’ah le-reshut ha-rabim (there is an open entrance to a public place) – the prohibition of yihud does not exist.

Those exceptions notwithstanding, the text is well aware of the power of sexual drives, and recounts tales of upstanding members of the community who were saved from sinning only at the last moment.

We explore the rabbinic attitudes towards lust.

Kiddushin 80: בִּשְׁעַת אֲנִינוּת תְּבִיר יִצְרֵיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 80

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz (OBM) writes:

The Mishna on our daf introduces the concept of yihud – that a man and woman who are not married to each other should not be in a secluded place together, for fear of sexual impropriety between them. According to the Tanna Kamma, a man should not allow himself to be alone with a woman, or even with two women; a woman cannot be alone with a single man, but if there are a number of men, then there is no problem of yihud. According to the Gemara, we fear that the two women will allow sexual relations to take place between the other man and woman, but that men would be embarrassed about engaging in relations in front of one another.

We start the exploration of this law of seclusion.

Kiddushin 79: להְבִָיא רְאָיהָ עלַ הבַּנָיִם , וְאֵין צרִָי

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 79

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishnah claims that if a father said, “This son of mine is a mamzer,” he is not believed (since the father is related to his son, he is therefore disqualified from testifying about him). And even if both of them (the father and the mother) admit regarding the fetus in her womb (that she became pregnant from some other man), they are not believed. Rabbi Yehudah said: They are believed.

The Gemora explains the Mishna: The father is not believed for he is not certain from whom she became pregnant. And even the mother (who is certain) is also not believed. And even in a case where the son does not have any presumption of legitimacy (in a case where he has not yet entered this world), they are still not believed.

We explore the testimony of parents vs children and the nature of eidus.

Kiddushin 78: “נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 78

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishnah claims that if a father said, “This son of mine is a mamzer,” he is not believed (since the father is related to his son, he is therefore disqualified from testifying about him). And even if both of them (the father and the mother) admit regarding the fetus in her womb (that she became pregnant from some other man), they are not believed. Rabbi Yehudah said: They are believed.

Believing the father

The Gemora explains the Mishna: The father is not believed for he is not certain from whom she became pregnant. And even the mother (who is certain) is also not believed. And even in a case where the son does not have any presumption of legitimacy (in a case where he has not yet entered this world), they are still not believed.

We explore the testimony of parents vs children and the nature of eidus.

Kiddushin 77: מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 77

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Torah forbids a kohen from marrying the following women:

a gerusha (a divorced woman)

a halala (the child of a relationship forbidden to a kohen, e.g. the child of a kohen and a divorced woman)

a zona (usually translated as a harlot, in this context it means someone who has had sexual relations with a man who is forbidden to her, e.g. an incestuous relationship)

In addition, the kohen gadol cannot marry an almana (a widow).

Our Mishnah discusses priests who marry or betroth or have intercourse with women who are not allowed to them. These women might be widows, as suggested in the Torah. They might be chalalot, or mamzerot, chalutzot, or other women who are forbidden to priests by rabbinic law.

We explore the legal status of the chalal and priests unfit …