Bava Kamma 115: אֶרֶס שֶׁל נָחָשׁ דּוֹמֶה לִסְפוֹג

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 115

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our sugya explains that our sages forbade use of water that remained exposed lest a snake drank thereof and left venom in it. The prohibition remains even if someone drank thereof and was unharmed as the specific gravity of one snake’s venom differs from another’s. Some types of venom sink to the bottom of a vessel while others float above or in the middle. Till all the water is drunk, therefore, we cannot know if it contains venom and danger persists (Tur, Y.D. 116).

What is the meaning behind the specific gravity of snake venom and its chemical properties? We explore the history and mythology of poison and its current uses for recreational drug purposes.

Bava Kamma 114: יֵאוּשׁ כְּדִי קָנֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 114

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new Mishna teaches that when a customs collector seizes a person's donkey and replaces it with one stolen from another Jew - or if a bandit does the same with a garment - then the stolen item now belongs to that person. The Rambam and the Rosh argue about whether or not such an item must be returned to its original owner or not. Similarly, it is permitted to keep items salvaged from a river or a fire. As long as the original owner considers the item to be lost to him/her, then the item need not be returned.

The Gemara opens by quoting a baraita that teaches that when the person receives an object in exchange for his own from the mokhes, he should return it to the original owner. The explanation for this ruling would be that simple ye’ush does not suffice to allow for transfer of ownership.

An alternative reading of the baraita suggests that although the recipient can keep the object because of the owner’s ye’ush, he would likely return it to the original owner, since a person does not want to keep property that does not really belong to him.

We focus on testifying, loyalty and secular courts.

Bava Kamma 113: בְּמוֹכֵס שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 113

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishna teaches that a person cannot exchange money with tax collectors, implying that we must work with the assumption that the money they have is stolen.

With regard to this ruling, our Gemara points to Shmuel’s ruling that, “Dina d’malkhuta dina – we must follow the rules of the government,” and questions how the Mishna can assume that a person who works as a tax collector is likely involved in criminal activities.

The situation of a mokhes – a tax collector – was different in Talmudic times than it is today. In those days (and in some places this was true until fairly recently) the right to collect taxes was leased by the government to individuals who would then collect taxes in the name of the government. The individual who purchased this right from the government would then assign others to collect the taxes and pay him a percentage of the receipts. There was a lot of room for cheating and dishonesty given the situation that tax collection was a business, and the more that was collected, the more profit was made.

We explore the history of tax collection and the halachic vs moral duties to pay.

Bava Kamma 112: יַחֲזִיר כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּזַל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 112

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes:

While discussing the level of responsibility that children have regarding returning an object that their father stole, the Gemara turns its attention to other responsibilities that children may inherit from their father regarding things that belong to others. Rava teaches that if the father passes away and he has in his possession an animal that he has borrowed, the children can continue to use the animal for the duration of the agreed upon period. If the animal dies, they are not obligated to repay the owner, even though as a sho’el – a borrower – their father would have been responsible for any accidents that took place.

We continue discussing the burden of parental debt following loss.

Bava Kamma 111: כִּי שָׁכֵיבְנָא – רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא נָפֵיק לְווֹתִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kama 111

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The tenth perek of Massekhet Bava Kamma begins on our daf. Entitled ha-gozel u-ma’akhil (“he who steals and feeds”) it deals with a wide range of subjects but focuses on what is considered to be gezel (stolen) – when it must be returned and when it need not be returned.

The first Mishna in the perek teaches that when a man steals and feeds his children with his ill-gotten gains, his children will not be obligated to return the theft.

We discuss the morality of stealing a loaf for the sake of one’s starving children and the effect of the novel les Miserables on French society.

Bava Kamma 110: נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 110

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If one steals from a convert and swears falsely to him, and he (the convert) died (without leaving any heirs), he pays the principal and chomesh (the extra fifth) to the Kohanim and he brings an asham to the Altar, as it is written: But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt which is made shall be for Hashem, for the Kohen, aside from the ram of atonement, whereby atonement shall be provided for him. If he was taking the money and the asham up (to Yerushalayim), and died, the money shall be given to the robber’s sons, and the asham shall graze until it gets a blemish, and it will be sold and its money shall fall to the free offering coffer.

If he gave the money to the men of the mishmar and he died (without bringing the asham), the heirs cannot take the money from their hands, as it is written: Whatever a man gives to the Kohen shall be his. If he gave the money to (the first mishmar of) Yehoyariv and the asham to (the second mishmar of) Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation (for the money is supposed to be given before the asham is brought on the Mizbe’ach).

We explore the history of the mishmarot from the Chumash and Tanach through to the medieval Piyutim until the Cairo Geniza fragments.

Bava Kamma 109: גֶּזֶל הַגִּיּוֹרֶת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 109

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Someone stole from a convert, swore falsely that he did not steal from him, and he then heard that the convert had died. While bringing up his money to Yerushalayim (to give to the Kohanim in lieu of the dead convert who had no relatives), he meets the convert (who is actually alive as well).

The convert tells him that he can owe the money to him as a loan. If the convert then dies, the thief can acquire the loan. These are the words of Rabbi Yosi ha’Glili. Rabbi Akiva says: He has not repented until he has the stolen money leave his hands.

We explore the exceptional case of stealing from a Ger with no relatives and compare our system with that of Aristotle’s utilitarian ethics.

Bava Kamma 108: וְכִי יֵשׁ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֲלִים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 108

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara questions the mishna’s ruling that one who robs his father must return the stolen item to others even if he is the sole heir. Why must he do this? Let him forgive the debt to himself; as the heir, to whom payment is due, he should be able to forgive it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:16) that the verse (Num 5:8) states with regard to one who steals from one who then died:

וְאִם־אֵ֨ין לָאִ֜ישׁ גֹּאֵ֗ל לְהָשִׁ֤יב הָאָשָׁם֙ אֵלָ֔יו הָאָשָׁ֛ם הַמּוּשָׁ֥ב לַיהֹוָ֖ה לַכֹּהֵ֑ן מִלְּבַ֗ד אֵ֚יל הַכִּפֻּרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְכַפֶּר־בּ֖וֹ עָלָֽיו׃

If that party [is deceased and] has no kin to whom restitution can be made, the amount repaid shall go to יהוה for the priest—in addition to the ram of expiation with which expiation is made on their behalf.

The baraita asks: But is there any Jewish person who has no kinsmen?

Since every Jew descends from Jacob our forefather, all Jews have relatives to inherit from them.

Rather, it must be that the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert.

We explore recent genetics connecting Jews with the Ancient Israelites.

Bava Kamma 107: מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה יִשָּׁבַע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 107

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes: "One enigmatic rule in Jewish law is the law that distinguishes between two different responses to an accusation that one person owes money to another. The halakha is that if the defendant denies it entirely, we believe him without requiring him to bring any further proof; if he denies that he owes all of the money, but admits that he owes part of it, then he must pay the amount that he admits to and then take an oath that he does not owe any more.

Why do we trust the individual who denies it all, while making the person who admits that he owes some of the money take an oath?

In answer to this question, Rabba teaches, “Hazakah en adam me’is panav lifne ba’al hove – we work with the assumption that a person will not have the temerity to deny his obligation to the face of the lender.”

We review Yaakov Elman’s work on The Mishnah's Anthological Choices.

Bava Kamma 106: מהו לפדות בבן פקועה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 106

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already learned that someone who steals an animal will have to pay back twice its value; if he sold it or killed it, he will have to pay back four or five times its value. Our Gemara investigates whether this same law will be true also in cases where someone did not steal the animal but received it to watch and then claims that it was stolen from him, intending to keep it for himself.

Another situation raised by the Gemara is of an animal that can actually be eaten without shehita – the case of a ben peku’ah. A ben pekua’ah is an animal that was still in its mother’s womb when its mother was slaughtered (as opposed to a yotze dofen, which is an animal that is delivered by way of a Caesarian section when the mother is still alive). Just as all an animal’s internal organs become kosher at the moment of shehita, similarly a viable animal that is removed from its mother after slaughter is considered by Jewish law to be a living, breathing kosher animal that can be eaten without shehita.

We explore the halachot of Ben Pakua as well as the ignorance of this Halacha when Joseph falsely accused his brothers of eating Ever min Hacahi.

Thomas mann’s adaptation of the Joseph cycle and his possible indebtedness to midrash.

Bava Kamma 105: דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן – כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 105

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara wonders if our last Mishna demonstrated concern about a stolen item that is worth less than one peruta appreciating in value. If the item gains in worth until it is more than one peruta, that could change whether or not the victim has to find the robber him/herself. In their discussion, they refer to Rava who wonders whether an item worth less than one peruta can in fact be stolen.

In a noteworthy exchange Rabba chides Rav Amran with a תְּדוֹרָא!! "Fool, when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a case where the robber said to the owner: Here you are, and presented the ox to him immediately, so that he did not profit by claiming that he was a bailee.”

Whichleads us to examine rabbinic humiliation and humor.

Bava Kamma 104: מְשַׁלְּמִים קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 104

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel says (104a) that one may not give over money on the basis of a Deyukni even if witnesses are signed on it.

RASHI (DH b'Deyukni) explains that a person deposited his money with a Shomer (guardian) and now wishes to appoint a Shali'ach (agent) to retrieve the object. He gives the Shali'ach identifying signs which the agent uses to prove that he is acting on behalf of the owner of the money.

Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel and maintains that if witnesses sign the document, the Shomer may rely on the Deyukni.

Rashi (and most of the other commentaries, as well) understand the Gemara’s discussion to be a debate about establishing agents in general, although the Bartenura suggests that it is limited to the case of our Mishna and discusses only returning stolen objects.

In light of the recent discussions of Takanat Hashavim I thought we might explore the Sin of King David in rabbinic literature.

Bava Kamma 103: לֹא זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ מוֹצִיאָתוֹ מִידֵי עֲבֵירָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 103

To download, click/tap here: PDF

How much effort must a thief expend in returning something that he stole?

According to the Torah (Vayikra 5:21-26) if someone steals from his friend and then lies, swearing that he did not do so, he is obligated to return the money (plus a penalty of an additional fifth) and bring a special sacrifice called an asham gezelot.

The Torah emphasizes that it must be returned to the victim, from which the Mishna on our daf, concludes that if someone steals from his friend something that is worth at least a peruta and swears falsely, he is obligated to follow him even to Madai – also known as Medes, part of the ancient Iranian Empire – to return it.

We explore the different possible rules regarding theft from Non-Jews and the recent debate regarding the explosive publication of Prof Shahak’s book and the debate in its aftermath.

Bava Kamma 102: מַחֲכוּ עֲלַהּ בְּמַעְרְבָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 102

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The braisa states: If someone gives money to his messenger (meaning partner, and they will split the profits) to buy for him wheat, and instead he buys for him barley, or vice versa, one braisa states that if they lost money, the lost money is from the portion of the messenger. If they gained money, the original sender gained. Another braisa states: If they lost, it is from the portion of the messenger. If they gained money, they split the profits. [This is a contradiction!]

The Gemara tries to reconcile the contradictory texts and notes that they laughed at it in the West (Eretz Yisrael), at the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, stating a deviation by an agent from the terms of his assignment does not result in the acquisition of the item for the agent himself.

Rabbi Abbahu resolves the issue: The case of an agent who was assigned to purchase wheat and purchased wheat is different, as the agent is performing his assignment and, as such, he is like the customer, i.e., the one who appointed him, and it is as though the latter has purchased the grain himself.

This laughing at the scholars of Eretz Yisroel is found elsewhere in seas and allows us an exploration of the two Talmuds and the relative weight given to the Bavli and Boyarin’s tribute to his teacher Professor Shaul Lieberman and his scholarship on the Yerushalmi and Tosefta.

Bava Kamma 101: הַנּוֹתֵן עֵצִים לֶחָרָשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 101

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:8): With regard to one who gives wood to a carpenter to fashion a chair from it and he fashioned a bench from it instead, or one who gives him wood to fashion a bench and he fashioned a chair from it instead, Rabbi Meir says: The carpenter gives him the value of his wood and keeps the chair or bench, as he has acquired it due to the change.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not acquire the item. Rather, if the value of the wood’s enhancement exceeds the carpenter’s expenses the owner gives the carpenter the expenses, and if the expenses exceed the enhancement of the wood, he gives him the value of the enhancement. Since the carpenter deviated from the customer’s order, he is entitled to either his expenses or the enhancement, the smaller amount of the two.

We explore the trade of craftsmanship in antiquity and the use of the term in the vision of the 4 craftsmen in Zecharia II.

Bava Kamma 100: צְבָעוֹ כָּאוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 100

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses cases where someone gave wool to a dyer to color, and the wool was not dyed properly.

According to the Mishna in the case of hikdiho yorah – if the wool was boiled at too high a temperature and was burned – the wool is considered entirely ruined, and full restitution will need to be made to the owner.

If the dye came out uneven, the owner would pay either the added value of the poorly dyed wool or the dyer’s expenses – whichever is less.

We explore the history of dyes including recently discovered dye industry in Ancient Palestine.

Bava Kamma 99: יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 99

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have just learned that a craftsperson is responsible for damages made to an item that s/he was hired to repair or build. Our daf brings in the question of payment. We are obliged to pay a craftsperson for their work on the day that that work is done.

It is forbidden to wait even until the following morning to pay someone for their work. Would it be permitted to restrict or delay payment to a craftsperson who damaged one's property? The rabbis consider this question.

We explore the ethics of business employment specifically timely compensation in Halacha.

Bava Kamma 98: גָּזַל מַטְבֵּעַ וְנִפְסַל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 98

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our sugya describes how already in ancient times it was the custom to honor great people by engraving their likeness on coins. So it was with Dovid and Shlomo, and before them with Avrohom and Yitzchok.

Tosafos (S.V. Matbeya Shel Avrohom) contends that it was not their image on the coins, as it is forbidden to forge a human image, rather it was their names that were inscribed.

The Yavetz’s father, the Chacham Tzvi, was extremely strict for himself and would not even allow his face to be drawn.

We know this from his son who describes with great emotion how, “The true saint, my father and rebbe, our great master, may Hashem be with him forever… went to visit the Sephardic Kehilla in London. He was greeted with great respect the like of which is unheard of. He was escorted into town in a royal floatilla amidst great jubilation.”

The kehilla, relying on the majority of poskim had commissioned an artist to draw his countenance.

We explore the teshuvot and life of this great Chacham, the father of Reb Yakov Emden.

Bava Kamma 97: שֶׁיָּצָא מוֹנִיטִין שֶׁלּוֹ בָּעוֹלָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 97

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz "The Gemara on our daf discusses the return of money in cases where the value of the currency – and, in particular, the coinage – changes while a loan is taking place.

To clarify the question about how to establish the value of coins that have gone out of circulation, Rava brings a baraita that discusses the case of pidyon ma’aser sheni. On certain years of the agricultural cycle, a farmer is obligated to bring ma’aser sheni – to tithe his crops and take them to Jerusalem where they must be eaten in holiness within the city. “

We explore the history of coinage from ancient times.

Bava Kamma 96: נִיטְּלָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת – פָּסוּל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 96

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara teaches that when one steals a Lulav from his friend and plucks off the leaves one by one from the spine, he thereby acquires the leaves because their name has changed. Originally, they were called a "Lulav" and now they are a different object, "Hutzei" (leaves).

Rav Papa asks, if one steals a Lulav and splits the "Tiyomes," does this also represent a change in the name of the object such that the thief acquires it?

The Gemara attempts to answer Rav Papa's question from a statement of Rebbi Matun in the name of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that if the Tiyomes of a Lulav was removed the Lulav is invalid for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim on Sukos.

The Gemara suggests that the law is the same if the Tiyomes was not removed but only split.

What exactly is a Tiyomes? The Rishonim and Acharonim discuss the definition of a Tiyomes at length. Some of their definitions are unclear, and thus there is additional discussion about what exactly they mean.

We explore the halachot of this curious split as well as the mythic meaning of the palm in different cultures.