Insights from Talmud Bava Kamma 29 and 23a
Delve into intricate discussions on liability for damages caused by animals and fire in Talmudic texts, showcasing scenarios like a dog causing destruction and the owner's responsibility. Explore nuanced interpretations regarding who should pay damages and the complexities of property ownership.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Talmud Leat Bava Kamma 29
Review The dog that took a cake and went to a haystack, ate the cake and burned the haystack; For the cake he pays full damages, and for the haystack he pays half damages Fire is not like other primary Damagers (Ox, Pit, Crop Destroying Beast) Is Fire arrows or property? Three parallels Camel in the marketplace Kid & Slave Not responsible people Fire & Fences Five types of damage Mishnah 2:3b 2 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23a ' ! ? ? For the cake he pays Who is liable? The owner of the dog! But let the owner of the coal also be made liable? Where he guarded his coal 3 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23a ? , : If he guarded his coal, what is the dog doing there? Where he burrowed R. Mari the son of R. Kahana said: This is to say that ordinary doors are vulnerable to being burrowed by a dog 4 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23a ? " ? " , , Where did he eat it? If we say that he ate it at a stack belonging to another, we require And he devours in the field of another (Exodus 22:4) and that is not? No, it is necessary where he ate it at the stack belonging to the owner of the cake 5 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b , " "? Conclude that the mouth of the cow is like the domain of the damaged party. For if it was like the domain of the damager, let him say to him, Why is your bread in the mouth of my dog? 6 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b , : For it was asked: The mouth of the cow, is it like the domain of the damaged party or the domain of the damager? 7 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b , And if you say that it is considered to be in the domain of the damager, how can you find Tooth, where the Merciful One makes liable? 8 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b : R. Mari the son of R. Kahana said: For example where it scratched up against the wall for its own benefit or it dirtied produce for its own benefit 9 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b : " : : ? " Mar Zutra raised a difficulty: Do we not require, As consumes the tooth until it all be gone (I Kings 14:10) and it is not? Ravina said: When it rubs out images R. Ashi said: When it treads on 10 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b , , : " ? , " ?" Come and hear: If he incited a dog against or he incited a snake against, he is exempt Who is exempt? The one who incited is exempt, but the owner of the dog is liable And if you say that it is like the courtyard of the damager, let him say: "What is your hand doing in the mouth of my dog?" 11 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b Say even the inciter is exempt And if you want, say that he extended his teeth and scratched him 12 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b : Come and hear: If a man caused a snake to bite R. Yehuda makes him liable and the Sages exempt him " 13 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b , : ' ; , , ; , And R. Aha b. Jacob said: You will find that according to the statement of R. Yehuda, the poison of a snake is ready at its fangs; therefore, as one who strikes with the sword, and the snake is exempt and the words of the Sages, the poison of the snake is secreted of its own free will; therefore the snake is stoned, and the inciter is exempt 14 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b " And if you say that the mouth of the cow is like the damager s courtyard, let him say to him: What is your hand doing in the mouth of my snake? " 15 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b We do not say this with regard to killing 16 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b ? : , And from where do you say? For it was taught: One who enters another's courtyard without permission and the owner s ox gores and he dies, the ox is stoned and the owner is exempted from the ransom 17 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b ? ", " " " : , " ?" ?" The owner is exempted from ransom , what is the reason? Because he can say, On my premises, what were you doing? With his ox also, he could say, What were you doing on my premises? But we do not say this with regard to killing 18 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b ? , : : " These goats of the Tarbu family who were doing damage to R. Joseph He said to Abaye: Go and tell their owners that they must keep them He said to him: Why should I go? For if I go, they will say to me Let the master put a fence around his land 19 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b ? But if he did fence, how can you find Tooth, for which the Merciful One obligated? When it burrows Or when the fence fell at night 20 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 23b : , , ; , ' R. Joseph, and some say Rabbah, would proclaim: Those that go up as well as those that go down these goats of the market do damage, we warn two and three times. If he heeds, he heeds; if not, we say to him: Sit next to the butcher's shop and take your money'" : - . ' 21 Talmud Le'at - 29
Mishnah 2:4 ? ; ' Which is Tam and which is Mu'ad? Mu'ad, where it was testified on three days and a Tam where it reverses for three days; these are the words of R. Yehuda Rabbi Meir says: a Mu'ad where it was testified about three times And a Tam that children can touch it and it will not gore : 22 Talmud Le'at - 29
Exodus 21:36 Or if it was known that the ox gored in time past, and its owner has not guarded it; he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his own 23 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 24a ? ' : ; - ; - ; " - " " " " " " - " What is the reason of R. Yehuda? Abaye said: Yesterday - one; from yesterday - two; the day before yesterday - three; "and its owner has not secured it - fourth 24 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 24a ; - " : " - - " " ; " " , Rava said: Yesterday from yesterday - one; the day before yesterday two; and has not secured it - now, he is liable 25 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 24a ? , : ? : , " " " , ; , : ; , , And R. Meir, what is his reason? For it was taught: R. Meir said: If it spreads his gorings, he is liable; concentrating his gorings, how much more so? They said to him: A zavah disproves, for if her sightings are spread, she is impure; if her sightings are concentrated, she is pure 26 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 24a " : " He said to them: Behold, it surely says: And this shall be his impurity when he has a discharge (Leviticus 15:3) The verse associates the zav with sightings and the zavah with days 27 Talmud Le'at - 29
Leviticus 15:25 - And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days 28 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 24a ? " " ! , , ", " But how do we know that the word, And this is to exclude a zavah from sightings? Say to exclude a zav from days! The verse says, And concerning one who has a discharge, male or female (Leviticus 15:33), comparing a male to a female Just as a female by days, so too a male by days 29 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 24a , " ? " But let us compare female to male Just as a male is by discharges, so also a female by discharges? But the Merciful One excluded and this 30 Talmud Le'at - 29
Bava Kamma 24a ? " " " , ? " And what do you see? It makes sense that it deals with "sightings", excludes sightings, but it deals with "sightings" to exclude days? 31 Talmud Le'at - 29
