Bava Kamma 95: שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 95

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our rabbis' discussions about damages for stolen items in different circumstances. We begin with a reminder about what to do when a stolen item should be given back but is not available - it has been 'used up', it has become part of another structure that cannot be unbuilt, or it is gone. In such cases the thief pays for the cost of the item's value when it was stolen.

If an item has been 'enhanced' - a cow has had a calf or a sheep's wool has been dyed and used - both the stolen item and the enhancement are returned to the owner. Rabbi Yehuda adds that the thief pays additional monies in the amount of the enhancement between the time of stealing and the time of the original's return.

We continue to struggle with how a thief might be “rewarded” and in what circumstances then discuss the historicity of the Temple money changers “שולחני” in Rabbinics and New Testament versions.

Bava Kamma 94: אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 94

To download, click/tap here: PDF

It was taught in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, in a baraita:

There was an incident with regard to one man who desired to repent after having been a thief for many years.

His wife said to him: Empty one [reika], if you repent you will have to return all the stolen items to their rightful owners, and even the belt that you are wearing is not yours, and he refrained and did not repent.

At that time, the Sages said: With regard to robbers or usurers that returned either the stolen item or the interest to the one from whom they took it, one should not accept it from them.

And concerning one who does accept it from them, the Sages are displeased with him.

We explore the case of the repentant thief (not to he confused with St. Dismas).

Bava Kamma 93: סַמֵּא אֶת עֵינִ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 93

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Blind my eye, or: Cut off my hand, or: Break my leg, and he does so, the latter is liable to pay for the damage, even if the injured party explicitly instructed him to do so on the condition that he will be exempt from payment.

The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita. With regard to one who said to another: Strike me, or wound me; and the other asks: Is this on the condition that I will be exempt from payment? And the first one said to him, in the tone of a question: Yes, this is an example of the principle: There is a yes that is like a no. It is as if the victim asked: Even if I give you permission to do it, do you think that I would forgo the compensation?

We explore the Jewish attitude to boxing as well as the controversial Rambam regarding wife-beating.

Bava Kamma 92: אַכְסְנַאי שֶׁבָּא לָעִיר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 92

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah states that although one who damages his friend pays him the required compensation, he does not receive atonement for what he did until he requests forgiveness from his victim. This is derived from Hashem's words to Avimelech, "And now return the man's wife" (Bereishis 20:7). The ME'IRI explains that this is derived from the continuation of the verse, "v'Yispalel Ba'adcha" -- "and he will pray for you" (Bereishis 20:7). Hashem instructed Avimelech to appease Avraham and seek forgiveness from him in order to have Avraham pray for him.

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that all the sums mentioned in the Mishnah (90a) are payments for "Boshes," "embarrassment." Even when all of the payments have been paid, the pain of having been shamed is not forgiven "even if he brought all the choice rams of Nevayos" (see Yeshayah 60:7). Therefore, he must request forgiveness from the person he embarrassed. The Beraisa derives this from Hashem's command to Avimelech, "And now, return the man's wife, because he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live" (Bereishis 20:7).

We explore the Biblical scene and the motives for Avraham’s deception.

Bava Kamma 91: אֲפִילּוּ עֲנִיִּים שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 91

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Someone who embarrasses his friend verbally is Patur from paying Boshes. The Yerushalmi states that if someone embarrasses a Talmid Chacham he is Chayav. Even though a person is Patur from embarrassing someone other than a Talmid Chacham, however it is a grave sin to embarrass someone and Chazal teach us that someone who embarrasses his friend publicly loses his share in the world to come. However, if the intention of the perpetrator was not embarrass him but rather his intention was to rebuke him for his Aveirah in the hope that he will be embarrassed to commit the Aveirah again his act commendable and is permitted. It all depends on the intent of the perpetrator. (Me’iri)

We review comparisons between Roman Law (aniuria) and Jewish Law.

Bava Kamma 90: הַכֹּל לְפִי כְּבוֹדוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 90

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf rules: “Ha-toke’a la-havero noten lo sela – if someone hits his friend, and he remains uninjured, he is obligated to pay him a sela,” because of the embarrassment that he caused. Rabbi Yehuda quotes Rabbi Yossi haGalili as requiring payment of a maneh.

The definition of toke’a is a matter of some dispute. While Rashi says that it means he hit him on his ear, others suggest that he hit him on his neck with his fist, that he shouted in his ear, or even that he did not touch him at all, rather he clapped his hands together in a derogatory manner towards his friend. The payment of a sela or a maneh is understood by Rashi (above on daf 36b) as a standard payment for embarrassment, but if any injury occurred, that would be evaluated and paid for separately.

We explore the concept of rebuke/Tochechah.

Bava Kamma 89: מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת אוּשָׁא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 89

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall of Rav they said: We learned a source for the ordinance of Usha in the mishna (87a): With regard to a slave or a married woman, an encounter with them is disadvantageous, since one who injures them is liable.

Rather, it must be that the mishna is discussing a case where she does not have usufruct property of which she can sell the future rights. So too, there is no source from the mishna for the ordinance of Usha, as the mishna is discussing a case where she does not have usufruct property to sell.

The takanot of Usha formed the basis of some 7 ordinances which we explore, as well as following the footsteps of the Sanhedrin from Jerusalem to Yavneh to Usha.

Bava Kamma 88: לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 88

To download, click/tap here: PDF

“Fathers shall not be put to death for children” (Deuteronomy 24:16), meaning that people shall not be put to death based on the testimony of fathers who do not havecommon lineage [ḥayis] with their children.

This is referring to Canaanite slaves, whose children are not considered to be related to them. For if it enters your mind to interpret the verse according to its straightforward meaning, as we say: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children,” meaning by the testimony oftheir children, then let the Merciful One write: Fathers shall not be put to death for their children. What does the verse teach by stating only: “Children,” without the word their? Learn from this formulation that people shall not be put to death based on the testimony of fathers who do not have common lineage with their children.

We explore the sons accountability for the sins of the fathers in Torah and Ezekiel as well as in Philo and Zaleucus.

Bava Kamma 87: יַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם סְגוּלָּה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 87

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Mishnah two compares payments for injuries caused by an ox with payments for injuries caused by a human.

Mishnah three deals with several laws related to personal injury.

Two baraitot stated that the father makes a safe investment (segulah) for his minor children with the compensation paid to them. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a safe investment?

Rav Ḥisda says: The father should purchase a Torah scroll for his child. Rabba bar Rav Huna, says: The father should purchase a date palm, from which the child will consume dates.

We explore the long and varied history of the term segulah from Ex 19:5 and Deut 7:6 to Kabbalistic amulets.

Bava Kamma 86: זִיקָא כַּרְכִינְהוּ לְמָאנֵיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 86

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, the obligation of boshet only takes effect if it was done with the intention of embarrassing, and it remains in force, even if the person who is embarrassed is naked or sleeping.

A baraita brought by the Gemara points out that although there is an obligation to pay boshet even if the person is naked, the amount that he will have to pay is based on the level of embarrassment, and we can assume that the embarrassment will be less for someone who was already naked than someone who was fully clothed.

We struggle with the compensation fo humiliation and its parameters.

Bava Kamma 85: מִכָּאן שֶׁנִּיתַּן רְשׁוּת לָרוֹפֵא לְרַפּאוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 85

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara derives from the extra phrase of "Rapo Yerapei" (Shemos 21:19)

that a doctor is permitted to heal sick people.

Why would one have thought that a doctor is not permitted to heal a sick person, had the Torah not included the extra word "Yerapei"? The verse refers to a situation in which one person causes bodily damage to another, and the victim needs to pay a doctor to heal him. It is obvious from the verse, even without the extra word, that a person who is harmed does not have to passively accept the fate of being wounded by the other person, but that he may go to a doctor to be healed.

RASHI and TOSFOS seem to understand that the Gemara learns from the extra word that even when a person becomes sick or bruised without human intervention, but rather as a Divine decree, a doctor still is permitted to heal him. One might have thought that this is a matter of faith in Hash-m and that a person should trust that just as Hash-m brought the illness upon him, Hashem will take it away.

The verse teaches that it is not considered a lack of faith to turn to a doctor for healing.

We explore the notion of Medical Healing from traditional and modern perspectives.

Bava Kamma 84: מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 84

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf tries to prove that “an eye for an eye” refers to monetary payment and not any other sort of restitution.

It considers the meaning of the word yitten, and whether it refers to money, giving, or something else regarding a injury/wound given to another person.

One important argument is that the monetary payment represents the value of the person who inflicted the injury as well as the person injured.

Thus a wealthy, older man’s leg would be worth more than a poor child’s damaged leg.

Any system of compensation must follow Leviticus (24:22), where we shall have only one manner of law. מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם

We explore lex talonis.

Bava Kamma 83: וְחׇכְמַת יְוָנִית מִי אֲסִירָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 83

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora had brought a braisa detailing the story that led the Sages to curse anyone who taught their children Greek wisdom (Chachma Yevanis).

The Gemora now brings a braisa that seems to contradict this prohibition. The braisa quotes Rebbe and Rabbi Yosi discussing what languages are superior to Aramaic, due to their fluidity and pleasant sound.

Rebbe says that Hebrew and Greek are superior to Aramaic, while Rabbi Yosi says Hebrew and Persian are superior. [Rashi explains that Rebbe mentioned Greek, due to the Land of Israel’s proximity to Greece, while Rabbi Yosi mentioned Persian, due to Babylonia’s proximity to Persia.]

The Gemora resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between the Greek language, which is permitted, and desirable, and Greek wisdom, which was prohibited by the Sages in the first braisa.

We explore the Rabbinic approach to secular wisdom.

Bava Kamma 82: עֲשָׂרָה תַּקָּנוֹת תִּיקֵּן עֶזְרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 82

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Joshua wasn't the only person with conditions for the Jews entering HaAretz. We learn that Ezra the Scribe instituted ten ordinances.

The Gemara considers whether or not Ezra in fact created some of these ordinances. Perhaps some of them originated in rabbinic literature or even in Torah text.

The Gemara then returns to our original Mishna. First - are chickens permitted in the city? What would cause a city to become idolatrous? How is Jerusalem different from all other cities? Next - pigs cannot be found anywhere in Jerusalem. How does this operate in practice? Who was in power when these rules were actually instituted - long before Ezra the Scribe?

We end our daf with a phrase said by the Sages: Cursed is one who raises pigs and cursed is one who teaches his son Greek wisdom.

We explore the history of Ezra’s institutions as well as the relationship between Jews and Jewish texts and pigs.

Bava Kamma 81: עֲשָׂרָה תְּנָאִים הִתְנָה יְהוֹשֻׁע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 81

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As part of the Gemara’s discussion about rabbinic ordinances established in order to encourage the settlement of the land of Israel, our Gemara quotes a baraita that enumerates a number of conditions that Joshua established upon entering the land.

In his commentary to Rambam he explains that although our Gemara does not mention that Yehoshua set these rules as conditions to the division of the land, Rambam understood that this was the case based upon the discussion later (81b) regarding other conditions and stipulations that were set among the tribes regarding the division of the land.

We explore these enactments as well as the mitzvah of Aliyah in our day.

Bava Kamma 80: שֶׁהָיוּ מַרְעִין בָּחוֹרָשִׁין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 80

To download, click/tap here: PDF

"In the meantime, while all this was going on, a cat [shunara] came and severed the hand of the baby.

Rav emerged from the house and taught: With regard to a cat, it is permitted to kill it even if it is privately owned; and it is prohibited to maintain it in one’s possession; and it is not subject to the prohibition against theft if one takes it from its owner; and, in the case of a lost cat, it is not subject to the obligation of returning a lost item to its owner."

We explore the history of cats and its role in the plague (blaming Jews) down to the disappearance of the Jerusalem cats.

Bava Kamma 79: לֹא הִשְׁוָה כְּבוֹד עֶבֶד לִכְבוֹד קוֹנוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 79

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Throughout this chapter – we focused on fines – the punishments that a thief will have to pay over and above returning the stolen object or its value.

It is important to note that these fines apply only to a ganav – a thief, who looks for an opportunity to steal when no one will see him.

A gazlan – a robber, who brazenly steals in broad daylight – is not obligated to pay kenasot.

This seeming anomaly is addressed in our Gemara, where we find the question of why the Torah was more strict with a ganav than with a gazlan presented to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai by his students.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explained to them that the ganav appears to fear people, yet he has no fear of God.

Which leads us to explore a more lightheaded review of religious approaches to dogs!

Bava Kamma 78: חוּץ מִגִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ, חוּץ מִקַּרְנָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 78

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishnah deals with several different scenarios in which a thief will not be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. First of all, if he sells only part of the animal, and even if he sells is 99% of the animal, he is still exempt. Second, if he steals something that he already owns part of, for instance he steals from his partner, he is exempt. Third, if the slaughtering causes the animal to become unfit to eat, because it was not done properly, he is exempt. Piercing the animals windpipe or tearing out its gullet makes the animal not kosher and therefore the thief is only obligated for twofold restitution.

The Gemara continues to question the meaning of "an ox or a sheep". In their search to understand whether or not this refers to diverse kinds, the rabbis question which animals can mate with other animals. They understand that oxen cannot mate with sheep, but which other animals might be indicated?

We examine the the laws regarding fencing and the novel Moll Flanders that illustrates the intersection of poverty and morality in 18th century Britain.

Bava Kamma 77: וּטְבָחוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 77

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The shortest amud in the Shas, Bava Kamma 77a, has just nine words.

It continues Rabbi Shimon's argument that animals that are redeemed are as if they had always been redeemed. He argues that the Red Heifer can impart ritual impurity of food because there was a time before it was named as the Red Heifer when it was "fit for consumption”.

We are prohibited from deriving benefit from its meat, but its original status was that of 'potential food’.

Was Rabbi Shimon referring to one redeeming the Parah Adumah through its sale after it was on the pyre? Reish Lakish tries to defend Rabbi Shimon's opinion, but Rabbi Yochanan wonders about other similar situations, like unblemished sacrificial animals.

We explore the mystery of the Parah Adumah.

Bava Kamma 76: מָה לִי מְכָרוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Speaking about the ox that is stolen and consecrated, the rabbis consider the serious implications of timing. Timing determines ownership, and ownership determines liability.

The consecration could be decided before or after the animal was stolen. When does ownership actually transfer? And if the animal is consecrated, does it matter when the blood is sprinkled at the Altar?

When is the ox replaced? When is it replaced with four or fivefold payment? How does consecration change the halachic mandates?

Weexplore the work of Pro Ephraim Urbach with respect to slavery during the rabbinic period.