Five Minute Daf

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 92



DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 92

דף צ"ב

Mishnah

1. The first law is a continuation from the previous Mishnah.  Although one is required to compensate for humiliation, Hashem does not forgive the perpetrator until he asks forgiveness for the anguish he caused the victim

 Proof:

 The גמרא proves it from Hashem's response to אבימלך after he abducted שרה.  The verse says:
השב אשת האיש כי נביא הוא ויתפלל בעדך והחיה ואם אינך תשיב דע כי תמות

The גמרא infers from the fact that the Hashem says return her because she is the wife of a prophet the verse must be understood as saying two things.  He must return her because abducting especially a married woman is immoral.  He is a נביא and has taught to mankind that a tourist information center helps people find a hotel and rent a car not inquire whether an attractive woman is a sister or a wife.  Therefore אברהם understood that his life was in danger not as אברהם claimed I was innocent because I did not she was his wife.  He forced אברהם to lie and owed him an apology for the anguish he caused him. 

Asking for forgiveness must be done three times accompanied by three people to appease the victim.

2.  One who refuses to forgive one who sincerely apologized is cruel

 Proof:

 אברהם prayed to Hashem to heal his household from illness's related to their orifices,  infertility and child bearing.

The גמרא includes another teaching from this situation.  One who suffers from a certain illness his prayers will be answered first by praying for his friend who suffers from the same illness as the next chapter in the Torah begins with שרה's pregnancy
וד' פקד את שרה
The גמרא digresses to discussions of different adages

1.  Weed out thorns from a cabbage patch sometimes results in weeding cabbage.  The point being is not to associate with evil people.

2. The Torah does not mention which brothers יוסף stood in front of פרעה.  The גמרא tells us it was the brothers mentioned twice by name in משה's blessing to the tribes at the end of the Torah.

3. Poverty runs after the poor.  When the people brought ביכורים the rich took their vessels home the poor did not.

4.  The גמרא associates good or bad health with how much bile the gall bladder secretes.  Eating breakfast consisting of bread and water can neutralize up to eighty three illnesses, the gematria of the word מחלה illness.

5. חברך קרייך חמרא אוכפא לגבך מוש 
If one disparages you by calling you a donkey put a saddle on your back meaning do not answer back.

6. מילתא גנאה דאית בך קדים אמרה
A person who recognizes a personal flaw he should reveal it rather than it be revealed publicly where he would suffer embarrassment.

7. שפיל ואזיל בר אווזא ועיני טייפי
One should be humble like a goose to walk stooped over but keep your vision to the future.  In other words, one's humility should not prevent ones spiritual development.

8. שיתין כאבין מטייה לככה דקל חבריה שמע ולא אכל
One should if at all possible not eat in the presence of one not eating.

8. חמרא למרי וטיבותא לשקייה
One should thank the one who pours the wine not only the giver.  This can also be understood as misplaced appreciation.

9. כלבא בכפניה גללי מבלע
A hungry dog will eat almost anything.

10.  מטיי ואזיל דיקלא בישא גבי קינה דשרבי
Bad trees grow next to bas trees.  People gravitate to those similar to them.

11. קרית חברך ולא ענך רמי גודא רבה שדי ביה
One who criticizes a friend (properly and by way of many attempts) and he does not listen, lift up a large wall and throw it at him meaning push him away.

12. בירא דשתית מיניה לא תשתי ביה קלא
Do not throw dirt in a well you drank from.  Do not minimize those that helped you even once.

13. אי דלית דורה דרינא ואי לא לא דלינא  
One will not lift a burden a (responsibility) without someone helping him.

14. כד הוינן זוטרי לגברי השתא דקשישנא לדרדקי
People do not respect the elderly.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 91



DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 91
דף צ"א

Trying an animal for a capital and monetary crime

According to שמעון התימני the verse mentions באבן או באגרוף to indicate just as the court can examine a fist to determine the extent of its damage it must be able to assess any instrument of damage as well.  Therefore if there is a monetary claim and capital crime against a שור המועד judging the monetary claim must be first.  If it was tried first for its capital crime a court cannot delay execution.  It therefore cannot be tried after for damages. There is no instrument (the animal) for the court to examine.

According to רבי עקיבא, who holds it does the instrument does not require court assessment, the law to judge first damages is where the owner ran away leaving no assets. If he was tried first for damages the victim can rent it out the animal to plow to reclaim his loss before its execution.  This would not work for a תם because plowing is considered a payment מן העלייה.
This leads us to a fundamental question: must there be an assessment for damages meaning how exacting does the assessment have to be.  The verse requiring assessment is concerning a murder weapon,

במדבר פרק לה פסוק יז
וְאִם בְּאֶבֶן יָד אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בָּהּ הִכָּהוּ וַיָּמֹת רֹצֵחַ הוּא מוֹת יוּמַת הָרֹצֵחַ

Is the requirement the same by damages or can the court approximate the damage?  A ברייתא teaches that the payment of damages, pain and humiliation are determinable immediately.  However medical expenses and unemployment depend on how fast he heals.  The court evaluates the time necessary and the victim is paid accordingly regardless whether he heals faster or slower.  This assessment is made in case of damages not to inconvenience the victim to collect these costs daily.  As far as the assessment of the weapon bothשמעון התימני and רבי עקיבא hold it is required.  They differ only if has to be done by the judges.

Compensation for spitting on the victim

This is only where the spittle hits his body.  If he spits on his clothing, it is like embarrassing him verbally.  The רא"ש holds the perpetrator is excommunicated until he appeases his victim.

Compensation for honor

According to the תנא קמא we assess the poor differently than the rich whereas according to רבי עקיבא the assessment is the same.

Delaying paying compensation

One cannot delay paying damage that caused the victim a loss; humiliation can be delayed.  It is unclear concerning other fines.
Injuring oneself

There are conflicting ברייתות concerning רבי עקיבא's opinion. From a verse in the Torah we know suicide is prohibited
בראשית פרק ט פסוק ה
וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ

Actually the גמרא is concerned more with damaging clothing than the body.  One is not permitted to rend one's garment in mourning more than necessary because it is destructive. רב חסדא used to lift his garments when walking through thorn bushes because scratches heal!

A נזיר requires atonement

According to רבי אלעזר הקפר he atones for depriving himself from wine.  Certainly he would require atonement for personal injury.  Therefore רבי עקיבא in our Mishnah follows רבי אלעזר הקפר.

Stealing a mitzvah from the owner

If one kills a שור הנסקל or chopped a tree that was worshipped that belongs to another Jew is liable for stealing the owner's mitzvah.  The owner can prosecute him and collect damages.

Chopping down trees


One is allowed to chop a fruit tree for its wood if it worth more for its wood.  If trees are needed to build scaffolding the army should begin with non-fruit bearing trees unless the wood of fruit trees is worth more than its fruit.  One can also cut a fruit tree if it is detrimental to other trees.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 90



דף צ

Freedom of the wife's נכסי מלוג slaves

There are two conflicting ברייתות whether they go free בשן ורגל.  One ברייתא holds only if she blinds the slave or knocks out his tooth.  The other ברייתא says neither her nor her husband can free them.  Either the argument is that one ברייתא is before the תקנה so she is the principle owner and can free him, the other where she cannot free him is after the תקנה or according to רבא both are after the תקנה.  However, freeing a slave undermines a lien similar to consecrating a lien on a loan or something that became prohibited בהנאה such as chometz as collateral for a loan, undermines the lien.  According to the other ברייתא the תקנה strengthens the husband's lien.  This is similar to another argument betweenרבי מאיר ורבי יהודה where one sold his slave retaining service for an additional thirty days.  The question is who benefits from the law of יום או יומים.  Who in fact is the master of the slave?  רבי מאיר holds since the verse says ומת תחת ידו it is the first master who he presently serves.  רבי יהודה holds it is the new master since the verse says כי כספו הוא.  רבי מאיר holds where the husband has rights to work the slave it is his and the wife's blinding him would not free him.  However רבי יהודה would hold hers is the principle ownership.  There is also the opinion of רבי אליעזר.  He holds that neither have rights to sell נכסי מלוג because no one is an absolute owner.  According to him כי כספו הוא means his sole property.

Laws of Mishnah:

1. One who punches one in the ear or shouts in one's ear according to the ת"ק pays a סלע; according to רבי יהודה pays twenty five times as much a מנה.  The גמרא explains a מנה צורי that were pure silver not מנה מדינה which was one part siver and seven parts copper.

2. He slapped one on the cheek with palm of his hand pays two hundred zuz; the back of his hand pays four hundred.

3.  If one pulled another's hair or ear, spit on his body, removed even his outer garment, removed a woman's hair covering he pays four hundred zuz.

Rule: The greater the honor the greater the compensation.  According to רבי עקיבא even the poor are viewed as those that had and lost money.

4. According to רבי עקיבא, even if a woman were motivated to remove her hair covering in public, it would not exempt the perpetrator.  It is no different than one who mutilates himself, although not permitted, does not exempt another.  One is not allowed to destroy his own trees and if he does so it does not exempt the damage of another.     

Can a witness be a judge

The גמרא brings a מעשה that רבי יהודה נשיאה decided a case to pay a מנה צורי upon witnessing one punch another in the ear.  However there is a ברייתא that says even if the סנהדרין witnessed a murder according to רבי טרפון some have to be judges and others witnesses whereas רבי עקיבא holds all must be witnesses.  The reason is they witnessed this at night.  Since they could not try the murderer at night only during the day when they did not see the incident they must hear testimony from witnesses.  Their witnessing only has value at the time of the trial.  During the day one can judge on the basisשלא תהא שמיעה גדולה מראיה. רבי יהודה נשיאה witnessed the victim being punched during the day.

According to the second answer הא אנא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי means he holds like him, then the distinction of day and night does not apply.  A witness can never be a judge.

שמות פרק כא יח

וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף


שמעון התימני explains the verse as saying just as a fist can be examined so the weapon used like a rock must be available to determine whether it could have done the damage.  רבי עקיבא disagrees.  We must rely on witnesses to assess the weapon used since even the weapon will not suffice since he did not hit him in court.  Apparently if the perpetrator hit his opponent in court the judges could rule!  This contradicts רבי עקיבא's previous assertion that a witness cannot be a judge.  The גמרא answers he argued the illogical aspect of שמעון התמני's exegesis.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 89



DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 89

דף פ"ט

תקנת אושא

According to what was stated on the previous דף the תקנת אושא was only an enactment according to ריש לקיש not according to רבי יוחנן.  He holds that a קנין פירות הוא כקנין הגוף therefore רבי אבא was entitled to block the sale of his wife's נכסי מלוג.  In spite of this רב אידי brought a proof that a תקנת אושא in fact was enacted from a ברייתא.  The ברייתא states although in general the law of כאשר זמם requires full compensation for their false testimony in a case they claimed falsely that a couple was divorced and her כתובה was paid, they pay only טובת הנאת הכתובה.  This amount is what one would pay to buy a כתובה from the wife while she is married.  The amount of payment is minimal since she may predecease her husband.  The ברייתא expresses this by saying:

ואם מתה יירשנה בעלה

There are different elements of a כתובה the marriage document:

עיקר כתובה – The amount he is required to pay, 200 zuz for a virgin, 100 zuz for non-virgin.

תוספת כתובה – This is the amount he voluntarily adds.

נכסי מלוג – This is property she either brought with her at the time of the marriage or inherited or gifted to her during her marriage not recorded in the כתובה.  The husband is not entitled to the principle of these properties only the profits.

נכסי צאן ברזל – This is her property whose value is fixed at the time of the marriage added to כתובה and no matter what their value at the time of death or divorce he must pay her their value as appraised at the time of their marriage.

When it says the "husband will inherit her" it can only refer to the נכסי צאן ברזל because the other כתובה obligations are payments he does not make.  If there was no תקנת אושא why would he inherit her!  She could sell those properties and therefore the עדים זוממים should pay the full amount of the כתובה.  (The assumption being if she could sell the נכסי מלוג she could sell the נכסי צאן ברזל).

However אביי rejects this proof.  The lack of a תקנה would allow her to sell the נכסי מלוג because those properties are essentially hers since their loss or profit accrues to her.  However the נכסי צאן ברזל are essentially his since any loss or gain is his.  Even with the תקנה she cannot sell these during her marriage.  Therefore the עדים זוממים pay her only the discounted value.  

טובת הנאה

The wife is entitled to the טובת הנאה not her husband otherwise אביי explains the עדים זוממים could claim we are not liable since we did not cause you a loss.  רב שלמן says even if the husband received it she will benefit and could claim a loss because there will be money for household needs.  However רבא decides that it is hers based on another consideration.  As long as she sells only the principle that does not interfere with the husbands rights to consume the profits any additional income that is referred to פירא דפירא does not accrue to him.

Proof for the תקנת אושא from our משנה

העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה, החובל בהם חייב, והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין

Why is a married woman exempt from paying damages?  She could sell her נכסי מלוג!  The משנה does not prove she cannot sell her נכסי מלוג because it may be discussing a case where she does not have.  In addition, she cannot sell her כתובה to a buyer in case her husband dies first or divorces her or even sell it to her victim both at a discount because she will eventually forgo her כתובה.  To demand her to pay in this way would cause either the buyer a loss or an unnecessary waste of the courts time.  If she has נכסי מלוג property she can sell it at a discount to pay for her damages.

A wife injures her husband

The previous concerns do not pertain to this case.  The husband can collect damages at nobody's expense.  One could suggest a woman is not allowed to be married without a כתובה to prevent the husband divorcing her and therefore she cannot use it to pay damages.  If there was a surplus כתובה she could pay from the surplus without forfeiting the base amount.  Even the base amount will prevent him from divorcing her if the damage less. If it is equal or greater than the כתובה he will divorce her to collect damages and the כתובה will not deter him. 


If she is forced to sell to pay damages and predeceases her husband, her sons are still entitled to their כתובת בני דכרין, the larger percentage of the father's estate because their mother's כתובה was larger.  The heirs from subsequent marriages cannot say by selling her כתובה she forfeited the rights of her children since she sold due to financial pressure.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 88


DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 87


DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 87

דף פ"ז

A blind man is liable for humiliation

Our Mishnah teaches in the first clause that one who embarrasses a blind or sleeping man is liable to pay for his humiliation.  The second clause mentions the exemption for a sleeping man who humiliates someone else and leaves out a blind man.  Apparently our Mishnah holds a blind man liable for humiliation.  The גמרא infers from this that our Mishnah does not follow the opinion of רבי יהודה who exempts a blind man.  He learns a גזירת שוה from עדים זוממים where it uses similar terminology.  It says concerning the liability for humiliation: וקצותה את כפה לא תחוס עינך do not have mercy on a woman who humiliated a man and concerning false witnesses it uses the same term לא תחוס עינך do not have mercy, prosecute them.  Certainly a blind man cannot be a עד זומם.  He is unable to testify.  Therefore the same exemption applies to humiliation.

As a matter of fact the גמרא states according to רבי יהודה the exemption extends to all monetary liability.  In addition, he cannot be a judge, plaintiff or defendant.  He is not exiled for killing inadvertently, lashed or even executed for murder.  He is actually exempt from performing any mitzvahs. The ראשונים debate whether he is obligated מדרבנן.

Although some פוסקים adopt the view of the חכמים, רבי יהודה's view is not dismissed entirely.

The next Mishnah discusses certain parameters for liability for damages:

1. The first law compares the difference between a human and an animal.   An animal is liable only for damages and not for a miscarriage of a fetus whereas a human is liable for five forms of compensation and for a miscarried fetus.

2. The second law differentiates between one who injures a parent without wounding them who is liable for damages versus one who wounded them who is exempt because of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה.

3. One who injures someone on Yom Kippur is liable for damages.  There is no קים ליה בדרבה מיניה.  He is liable to כרת excision not מיתת בית דין.  However if he damaged him on שבת he is exempt.

4. One who injures a Jewish or Canaanite slave pays all forms of compensation except unemployment if the master injures him.  According to רבי יהודה slaves are not entitled to humiliation.

5. The Mishnah differentiates between the deaf minor or mute.  One who injures them pays compensation.  They do not pay.  They are not mentally competent.  Married women and slaves are not independent and therefore are exempt for damages only as long as they have no money of their own.

A father's right to his minor and נערה daughter's compensation

The גמרא questions his right to her compensation for damages similar to his rights to her earnings and marriage.  The question does not refer to compensation for medical expenses, pain or humiliation.  The question refers to personal injury and unemployment compensation.  He suffers a loss since he is entitled to her earnings and her money for marriage.  Her injury earns him less. The Torah teaches בנעוריה בית אביה that he is entitled to her כסף קידושין her betrothal and earnings.

However רב differentiates the two laws.  He can marry her off to who benefits him the most but he is not entitled to injure her.  The גמרא proves from the משנה just as a עבד עברי is not entitled to unemployment if his master injures him, she should not be entitled as well since her employment is his.  Therefore the גמרא understands that רב entitled her only to damages.  Unemployment goes to the father.

Father’s liability for injuring children

The גמרא differentiates between children he supports and children he does not support.  Concerning sons that he supports he has to pay four out of the five.  Unemployment he does not pay.  If he does not support them he has to pay their unemployment.   The father is entitled to his minor daughter’s unemployment even if he does not support her.  However this law seems strange.  How will she support herself!  It is her surplus income above what she needs to support herself similar to a עבד עברי who does not have to work for his master without being supported.

Third party injury to children

Money that does not come from the father’s pocket, as long as he is not stingy, he does not begrudge them collecting in a case where they suffered.  In the case of a lost object he would begrudge them since they did not suffer in the process.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 87


DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 87

דף פ"ז

A blind man is liable for humiliation

Our Mishnah teaches in the first clause that one who embarrasses a blind or sleeping man is liable to pay for his humiliation.  The second clause mentions the exemption for a sleeping man who humiliates someone else and leaves out a blind man.  Apparently our Mishnah holds a blind man liable for humiliation.  The גמרא infers from this that our Mishnah does not follow the opinion of רבי יהודה who exempts a blind man.  He learns a גזירת שוה from עדים זוממים where it uses similar terminology.  It says concerning the liability for humiliation: וקצותה את כפה לא תחוס עינך do not have mercy on a woman who humiliated a man and concerning false witnesses it uses the same term לא תחוס עינך do not have mercy, prosecute them.  Certainly a blind man cannot be a עד זומם.  He is unable to testify.  Therefore the same exemption applies to humiliation.

As a matter of fact the גמרא states according to רבי יהודה the exemption extends to all monetary liability.  In addition, he cannot be a judge, plaintiff or defendant.  He is not exiled for killing inadvertently, lashed or even executed for murder.  He is actually exempt from performing any mitzvahs. The ראשונים debate whether he is obligated מדרבנן.

Although some פוסקים adopt the view of the חכמים, רבי יהודה's view is not dismissed entirely.

The next Mishnah discusses certain parameters for liability for damages:

1. The first law compares the difference between a human and an animal.   An animal is liable only for damages and not for a miscarriage of a fetus whereas a human is liable for five forms of compensation and for a miscarried fetus.

2. The second law differentiates between one who injures a parent without wounding them who is liable for damages versus one who wounded them who is exempt because of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה.

3. One who injures someone on Yom Kippur is liable for damages.  There is no קים ליה בדרבה מיניה.  He is liable to כרת excision not מיתת בית דין.  However if he damaged him on שבת he is exempt.

4. One who injures a Jewish or Canaanite slave pays all forms of compensation except unemployment if the master injures him.  According to רבי יהודה slaves are not entitled to humiliation.

5. The Mishnah differentiates between the deaf minor or mute.  One who injures them pays compensation.  They do not pay.  They are not mentally competent.  Married women and slaves are not independent and therefore are exempt for damages only as long as they have no money of their own.

A father's right to his minor and נערה daughter's compensation

The גמרא questions his right to her compensation for damages similar to his rights to her earnings and marriage.  The question does not refer to compensation for medical expenses, pain or humiliation.  The question refers to personal injury and unemployment compensation.  He suffers a loss since he is entitled to her earnings and her money for marriage.  Her injury earns him less. The Torah teaches בנעוריה בית אביה that he is entitled to her כסף קידושין her betrothal and earnings.

However רב differentiates the two laws.  He can marry her off to who benefits him the most but he is not entitled to injure her.  The גמרא proves from the משנה just as a עבד עברי is not entitled to unemployment if his master injures him, she should not be entitled as well since her employment is his.  Therefore the גמרא understands that רב entitled her only to damages.  Unemployment goes to the father.

Father’s liability for injuring children

The גמרא differentiates between children he supports and children he does not support.  Concerning sons that he supports he has to pay four out of the five.  Unemployment he does not pay.  If he does not support them he has to pay their unemployment.   The father is entitled to his minor daughter’s unemployment even if he does not support her.  However this law seems strange.  How will she support herself!  It is her surplus income above what she needs to support herself similar to a עבד עברי who does not have to work for his master without being supported.

Third party injury to children

Money that does not come from the father’s pocket, as long as he is not stingy, he does not begrudge them collecting in a case where they suffered.  In the case of a lost object he would begrudge them since they did not suffer in the process.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 86



Daf Yomi Summary | Bava Kama 86

דף פ"ו

Yesterday the גמרא stated that one who deafened a person has to pay full compensation.  Since he is incapable to work, the court cannot assess any reduction in value.  רבא asked if the victim was injured in stages from less to more severely without a court assessment each time does the perpetrator pay for pain and embarrassment for each time.  If not, then what if there was an assessment without payment is the law different.  The גמרא leaves it unresolved and decides based on the rule ספק ממון לקולא.  However if the victim manages to extract payment for each individual injury he can keep it.

Temporary reduction in value

The law is an argument between אביי ורבא.  According to אביי, he pays temporary disability and unemployment the amount paid to a cucumber watchman.  רבא holds he pays no injury compensation since it is temporary but he pays full unemployment.

One cuts off the hand of his fellow's slave

אביי holds the payment for personal injury is made to the slave and loss of employment to the master to the tune of a cucumber watchman.  רבא holds the personal injury compensation is used to purchase land whose proceeds go to the master reducing his loss.

הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש

The גמרא concludes our Mishnah follows the view of רבי שמעון.  The court assesses the wealthy as those who once had wealth and lost it; the poor are assessed according to the most indigent that experience little if any humiliation.  Both payments as a result are heavily reduced.

Intent to embarrass one and embarrassed another

The גמרא holds one is liable only for intentional embarrassment.  If one for example embarrassed a free man thinking he is a slave he pays the value of a slaves embarrassment.  According to a second opinion if one embarrassed an adult thinking he was a child he pays the embarrassment of a child such as when reminding him of something that distresses him.

Embarrassing a naked person

The Mishnah says one is liable because the victim's garments were lifted by a wind and the perpetrator lifted them more.  Similarly one standing by the river lifted his garment to wash his feet and another lifted it more.

Embarrassing the dead

The גמרא concludes one cannot be held liable because the factor is humiliation not degradation or a stigma to the family.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 85



____________________________________

SYNOPSIS OF DAF YOMI (ENGLISH) | BAVA KAMA 85

דף פ"ה

The סוגיא begins on פ"ד ע"ב.  The subject is the source that one pays for causing someone pain even without injury.

שמות פרק כא פסוק כ"ה

כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה


The wording of a ברייתא is unclear.  רבי says the verse mentions a burn first; בן עזאי says an injury.  רבא explains the opinion of  בן עזאיis one pays for pain alone.  רבי understands the verse as the mention of a burn separate from an injury to indicate even without an injury one is liable.  The verse ends with the term injury to indicate there is no liability for pain without injury.  בן עזאי explains it in an opposite manner.  The fact that the verse ends with a separate requirement to pay for injury indicates that pain is a separate liability.  רב פפא explains the argument in an opposite manner. 

Another explanation is whether to learn a כלל פרט וכלל when the כלל ופרט are separated by words in between.  רבי holds they are not connected therefore one is liable for inflicting pain without injury.  The end of the verse that mentions injury separately indicates he has to compensate for both.  בן עזאי holds to learn the כלל ופרט and holds one liable only for pain with injury.

Assessment for pain

Shmuel's father explains that we assess on the basis of a person who for example was sentenced by a government to have his amputated.  How much would he pay to have it amputated in a less painful manner as by way of a drug rather than by surgical means!  According to the רא"ש, this assessment is regardless whether there is an injury as well.

Sores that develop from the injury

If the sores developed as a result of the injury according to all opinions he pays medical expenses and loss of employment.  If they developed as a result of excessive bandaging the ת"ק holds he pays both since he is entitled to both.  The extra expression to heal includes compensation for loss of employment.  According to רבי יהודה he is entitled to medical expenses not to unemployment.  According to the חכמים אחרונים he is exempt from both payments as they depend on one another.  Since he is not liable to unemployment he does not pay medical expenses.  If the sores developed not as a result of the injury such as he did not follow the doctor’s advice the word רק exempts him.

Perpetrator recommends doctor

1. Even if he is a doctor he can refuse him.
2. He offers him a doctor for free the victim can refuse him.
3. He offers him a doctor not from the vicinity he can refuse him.

The perpetrator does not have to give him money.  He can arrange for him a doctor.

The term in the verse פצע תחת פצע teaches he pays for pain in addition to injury.  The term ורפא ירפא teaches he pays medical expenses in addition to injury.

Case of compensation without injury

Pain without injury is where he burns his nail.  Medical expenses without injury are where the perpetrator gave him too strong a medication that whitened his skin.  Loss of employment is where he locked him in a room.  Embarrassment is where he spits in his face.

Loss of employment


He gets paid as a watchman for cucumbers.  This compensation is appropriate even if he worked previously at a higher paying job because his compensation for injury will be appropriate for his loss.  The evaluation is based on his capability after the injury.  If in addition his foot was broken he gets payed only as a doorman.  He cannot walk around the garden.  If he blinded him he pays him to grind a millstone.  A deaf man gets full compensation since he cannot work unless he did skilled work that he can return to.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 84


 SYNOPSIS/ SUMMARY DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 84

דף פ"ד

The גמרא continues its previous discussion as to how we know when the Torah says עין תחת עין it means monetary compensation and not removing an actual eye

1. רב שמעון בן יוחי – He attempts to prove it by way of the eyes or the limbs not always being the same size.  Therefore the punishment is not equal.  The גמרא rejects this.  In both cases the equality is the loss of sight.

2. רבי ישמעאל – The word in the Torah for compensation is נתינה.  The giving refers to money.

3. בי רבי חייא – Concerning the punishment for הזמה the terminology is עין בעין not תחת עין.

4. אביי – It says עין תחת עין not עין ונפש.  One may die from the removal of the eye as punishment. The גמרא rejects this.  The courts will evaluate the perpetrators state of health as in administering lashes.

5. רב זביד – The additional terminology in the verse פצע תחת פצע requires the perpetrator to pay for the victim's pain.  If his eye is removed he suffered pain as well.  However, the גמרא rejects this proof because perhaps the Torah means the difference in pain.

6. רב פפא – Since it says ורפא ירפא it requires the perpetrator to pay his medical expenses.  If the courts remove his eye he needs medical care.  Again the גמרא answers it means if the victim heals slower then he pays the difference.

7. רב אשי – A גזירת שוה is learned from the verse concerning a single girl who was raped.  It says תחת אשר ענה.  We learn damages from a human to human.

8. רבי אליעזר – He holds עין תחת עין refers to the value of the perpetrators eye and not that of a slave.

רבא: נזקי שור בשור וששור באדם גובין בבבל אבל לא נזקי אדם באדם ולא אדם בשור


Since the verse says in relation to נזקי אדם: עד שאלוהים יבא דבר שניהם meaning he requires special judges, סמוכים.  רבא explains that the judges of בבל carried out their judgements as representatives of the judges in ארץ ישראל.  

 This representation was limited to common cases such as animals damaging animals and where the victim stands to lose money.  Therefore personal injury that is not so common or fines such as humiliation that was not compensatory were not adjudicated in בבל.  Concerning damage of animals to one another only cases of שן ורגל that were commonplace were judged in בבל.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 83


  SYNOPSIS

דף פ"ג 

Teaching Greek to One’s Child

The ban was on its wisdom not its language.  רבן גמליאל’s family was given a special dispensation since they dealt with the Roman monarchy who conversed in Greek wisdom.

Raising Dogs

One could keep a dog but only leashed except on the border he could unleash them at night.  נהרדעא is a border town in בבל.  The people were permitted to raise dogs.

Spreading Nets to Catch Pigeons

Even though one is required to distance a dove cot only fifty amos this is because they eat their fill from the grain they find in the first fifty amos but setting nets but they can fly a greater distance therefore one must distance the nets four mil.  If there are vineyards or dovecots in between, they can fly even more than four mil.  If the dovecots belong to Jews then our concern is not only the distance birds fly, but spreading the net would be prohibited because of the dovecots.  However, if they belong to gentiles or הפקר or they belong to the trapper then the concern is only for the distance the birds fly.

פרק החובל

One who injures a fellow Jew is required to pay five forms of financial compensation.  He is liable for damages, for the pain the victim suffered, medical expenses, unemployment and humiliation.  The גמרא begins with a fundamental question.  If the Torah defines the payment for damage as עין תחת עין, how do we know the compensation is monetary?

The גמרא suggests two answers from a ברייתא:

1. We compare the damage of a human being to an animal by way of a גז"ש מכה מכה

2. The Torah concerning the murder of a fellow Jew says do not exonerate the murderer by way of payment.  We can infer that the laws of damages are different.

Although a verse states איש כי יכה כל נפש אדם מות יומת the גמרא explains this as there is no provision for a poor man to make less restitution so he should no perish from poverty.  In addition a verse states כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו the גמרא explains this to mean the giving of money.

Still the גמרא is not satisfied because a verse says מכה אדם יומת.  Even though that verse applies to a parent perhaps we compare humans to humans and not humans to animals therefore the second reason, the distinction between injury and death is needed.  This verse suffices because it does not have to teach that the Torah does not require both.  

The Torah clarifies that in the verse כדי רשעתו אחת ולא שתי רשעיות.  Still we need the first reason to teach that the perpetrator does not have a choice to give his eye or any other limb.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 82



DAF YOMI SYNOPSIS | Bava Kama 82

דף פ"ב

The subject of this page is the ten enactments of עזרא

1. In addition to משה's תקנה to read the Torah Mondays and Thursdays not only שבת, he instituted the reading of the Torah on מנחה שבת for storekeepers who cannot make it during the week.

2. He added to משה's תקנה of Monday and Thursday.  משה had one read three or three each reading one verse כנגד כהנים לוים ולישראלים.  He enacted the reading of ten verses corresponding to the עשרה בטלנים ten righteous men who devoted themselves to the community to make sure there was always a minyan.

3. He established official court days, Monday and Thursday, corresponding to the days of reading the Torah.

4. He instituted laundering Thursday for שבת so people would have sufficient time to prepare food and bathe for שבת on Friday.

5. He instituted eating garlic on Friday night to increase the strength of the semen of Torah scholars that cohabited Friday nights with their wives.

6. He instituted if a woman is baking bread for her family she could get up early so it will be ready for the poor seeking food.

7. A woman should wear undergarments as a sign of modesty.

8. He instituted a woman cannot rely on an examination of her hair but she must wash and comb it out to make sure there are no knots or dirt that interposes.

9. He instituted that peddlers should distribute cosmetics to make them available to women so they will look appealing their husbands.

10. He instituted an immersion for טומאת קרי in order to learn or pray not only to be able to touch טהרות food that cannot become טמא.  This תקנה never took hold.
Read more »

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 82


DAF YOMI SYNOPSIS | Bava Kama 82

דף פ"ב

The subject of this page is the ten enactments of עזרא

1. In addition to משה's תקנה to read the Torah Mondays and Thursdays not only שבת, he instituted the reading of the Torah on מנחה שבת for storekeepers who cannot make it during the week.

2. He added to משה's תקנה of Monday and Thursday.  משה had one read three or three each reading one verse כנגד כהנים לוים ולישראלים.  He enacted the reading of ten verses corresponding to the עשרה בטלנים ten righteous men who devoted themselves to the community to make sure there was always a minyan.

3. He established official court days, Monday and Thursday, corresponding to the days of reading the Torah.

4. He instituted laundering Thursday for שבת so people would have sufficient time to prepare food and bathe for שבת on Friday.

5. He instituted eating garlic on Friday night to increase the strength of the semen of Torah scholars that cohabited Friday nights with their wives.

6. He instituted if a woman is baking bread for her family she could get up early so it will be ready for the poor seeking food.

7. A woman should wear undergarments as a sign of modesty.

8. He instituted a woman cannot rely on an examination of her hair but she must wash and comb it out to make sure there are no knots or dirt that interposes.

9. He instituted that peddlers should distribute cosmetics to make them available to women so they will look appealing their husbands.

10. He instituted an immersion for טומאת קרי in order to learn or pray not only to be able to touch טהרות food that cannot become טמא.  This תקנה never took hold.
Read more »

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 81



SUMMARY
דף פ"א

Ten decrees issued by יהושע בן נון

Although the tribes and their individual members were entitled to private ownership, they were required to consider the collective needs of כלל ישראל as well.

1. They were required to allow others to let their small domesticated animals graze in their privately owned dense forests.  Any damage would be minimal.

2. An owner of a field must permit another to gather prickly trees and shrubs that were still moist and not cut down as long as not uprooted.  Removing them benefits their owners.

3. An owner of a field must permit another to gather grasses that grow wild with what is planted except in a fenugreek field that is grown for their seeds or if they are for human consumption because the grasses weaken the seeds.  If it is for the stalks the grasses reinforce their growth by supporting them or for animal consumption the grasses can be fed to them as well.

4. Cutting shoots from another's trees is permitted for planting or grafting.  One is permitted to cut shoots from another's olive trees as long as he leaves the stump the height of an egg.  Grapevines and reeds one can cut from the knot closest to the vine.  Other trees from soft and thin branches that have not as of yet produced fruit and are not exposed to the sun.

5. One can draw water from a private spring without paying for it.

6. Any tribe can fish in the Kinneret even though it is part of the inheritance of Naftali as long as they do not construct a wall in the water to trap the fish that would impede the movement of boats.  However they may use nets.  Actually this was agreed upon by the tribes without a special תקנה.  Naftali was given an additional area on the south shore to pull in its nets which was not part of their inheritance.

7. Wayfarers were permitted to defecate behind a privately owned fence.  They were permitted to use a stone from the fence to clean themselves even on שבת.  According to רש"י, even cemented in the wall since it was not ע"מ לבנות.  Others hold only placed one on top of the other.

8. People could shortcut through others fields until the second rainfall of the season when the grain begins to sprout.  In בבל it was after the first dew.  This was תקנה instituted by שלמה המלך. 

9.  People were permitted to walk on the sides of the road after the winter because it was difficult to walk through the main thoroughfare.

10. One who was lost in a vineyard was permitted to cut his way through to the road rather than going around the perimeter.  According to the מאירי he has to compensate the owner.

11. A מת מצוה one who has nobody to bury him acquires the spot where he died unless it is in the middle of the road.  He can be moved to an area at the side of the road that will be the least damage to the owner such as if on one side there is a plowed field and the other is fallow he is buried in the fallow field.

The גמרא questions the number ten.  There was a תקנה for one to leave his refuse in the street by people walking on it for thirty days to make it into fertilizer.  Also one was permitted to cut off a branch from another's tree to retrieve his bees that left the beehive.  Also one was required to spill out his barrel of wine to save another's honey as long as he would be compensated for the wine.  These represent minority opinions.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 80


SUMMARY
דף פ

Raising animals in ארץ ישראל

In order to facilitate the settlement of ארץ ישראל, the חכמים instituted a תקנה not raise small domesticated animals in ארץ ישראל.  They would damage fields belonging to others by wandering off to graze.   Large domesticated animals, although the same concern existed, the חכמים did not institute a prohibition.  They did not institute decrees thatרוב הציבור אינן יכולים לעמוד בו, the majority of people could not uphold.  These animals were needed for work as well as food.  This prohibition did not include Syria.  

Although conquered by דוד המלך, it did not attain full status of holiness.  It classified as a כיבוש יחיד, a place conquered by an individual.  Exceptions to this law were places that were uncultivated places such as deserts and forests.  One could import them in advance of a wedding or holiday thirty days.  Any leftover animals were sold to a butcher who could keep them until the market day.  רבן גמליאל disputed the חכמים.  He held one could maintain them longer than thirty days as long as they were confined to the house.  A shepherd who violated this decree and regretted his action did not have to sell them immediately but little by little.  The same decree applies to small non-domesticated animals such as deer and foxes but cats, monkeys and weasels were permitted because they prevented mice and worm infestation.

רב instituted this decree in בבל because it had a large Jewish population.  He also prohibited white cats that were vicious and attacked humans. Chickens were not permitted in ירושלים.  כהנים were not permitted to raise them anywhere.  They peck in dung heaps and transfer טומאה.  Fierce dogs had to be chained.  One was not allowed to raise pigs.  Spreading bird nets was permitted only outside the city limits.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 79



SUMMARY

 דף ע"ט 

 תקנו משיכה בשומרים 

The Torah does not require a buyer to take possession in order to acquire his purchase. Paying the money acquires it for him. The Rabbis instituted a קנין משיכה. He must take possession שמא נשרפו חיטך בעלייה. They were concerned the seller would not every precaution to prevent damage to the purchased item since it is no longer his. A custodian guards it on behalf of the owner. Is he required a משיכה or he becomes responsible when he agrees to watch it.

The גמרא proves it from our משנה. נתנו...לשומר חינם...והיה מושכו ומת ברשות בעלים...פטור...הוציאו חייב. The thief instructed a custodian to watch the animal he stole he is liable if something happened to it outside the domain of the owner. We see that a custodian has to take possession. Non-movable property Just a land is acquired by either the payment, bill of sale or a proprietary act such as plowing, locking a gate, a rental is consummated in the same way even where there is no transfer of ownership.

הכישה במקל If one prods the animal causing it move it is an Acquisition. Difference between a גנב וגזלן One who hides from the owner of the stolen item such as the law of רבי אלעזר that hid in the forest to steal animals pasturing in the area is a thief that pays a fine. A גזלן that does not pay a fine according to רבי אבהו is one who confronts the victim head-on; according to רבי יוחנן if they hide not to chase away their victims that is also a גזלן.

 The גנב pays a fine because he fears man and not Hashem. He pays more for a work animal such as an ox for he caused the owner an additional loss. Another perspective is the thief carrying the lamb embarrassed himself he pays less.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 78



SUMMARY

דף ע"ח

This דף begins with the conclusion of דף ע"ו ע"ב.  The גמרא yesterday established according to ר"ש, the thief is liable to four and five because the slaughter is legal based on the ruleכל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי.  The גמרא proves both of these rules.  In respect to sprinkling, the גמרא proves it from the law of נותר.  Sacrificial meat left beyond its allotted time becomes contaminated as long as there was enough time to sprinkle the blood of the קרבן before sunset even if the sprinkling was not actually done.

The law of redemption is learned from the פרה אדומה.  It can be redeemed even after its slaughter if a nicer one is found even if it did not become disqualified.  Therefore at that time it becomes susceptible to טומאת אוכלין even if it is not actually redeemed.

The גמרא explained two opinions how ר"ש holds one pays four or five as a thief for an animal consecrated that he is responsible to replace.  He should not be liable because slaughtering outside the Temple disqualifies its use making it an illegal slaughter.  According to רבי יוחנן he slaughtered it unblemished in the Temple.  ריש לקיש explains it as blemished and he slaughtered it outside the temple.

The argument is based on the verse.  ריש לקיש understands the juxtaposition of טביחה ומכירה to teach only an animal that can be sold can be liable for slaughtering.  Therefore he explains the case of הקדש as שוחט בעלי מומין בחוץ whereas רבי יוחנן holds they are not dependent on one another.  Therefore he explains the case of הקדש according to רבי שמעון as even שחיטת תמימים בפנים that cannot be sold.  Their explanation impacts on slaughtering a טריפה as well.  According to רי יוחנן one is liable to four and five even though it is a שחיטה שאינה ראויה, it can be sold; according to ר"ל since he cannot be liable for slaughtering, he cannot be liable for selling.  


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)