DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 93
דף צ"ג
We continue with adages of the חכמים begun on yesterday's דף:
בתר מרי ניכסי ציבי משך
One who follows the wealthy will pull away pieces of fat meaning those who associate with the rich some of their wealth will rub off on them.
Asking judgment for a grievance to the heavenly court
One who seeks justice by bringing a grievance directly to Hashem is punished for his sins first unless he has no legal recourse in an earthly court. This happened to שרה אמנו. She brought her grievances towards אברהם who she claimed prayed mainly to have children but not enough to have a child with her. He did not speak up when הגר spoke disrespectfully. Since she could have brought her grievance to the court of Shem or to אברהם directly, she died before אברהם. It is wrong because a heavenly judgment takes into consideration the spiritual state of the complainer or the judgment could be harsher
One should not minimize a curse even of an ordinary person
When אבימלך gave שרה אמנו a large gift to remove any doubt of her innocence he used the term הנה לך כסות עינים. חז"ל explain the term as meaning you caused me anguish by hiding the truth from me so your children should not be able to see . יצחק became blind in his old age.
Escaping or confronting a pursuer
One should be pursued rather than be a pursuer. The גמרא proves this from pigeons and doves birds that cannot defend themselves and are fit for the altar.
Mishnah: One who requests another to blind him or cut off a limb with no liability is liable. One who requests another to damage his property with no liability is exempt
Reason:
1. פגם משפחה – Physical injury is a disgrace to one's family
2. One cannot take seriously a waiver for permanent injury as opposed to infliction of pain.
3. The context of saying yes and no affects one's sincerity. Here the victim makes a request: blind me. The perpetrator responds without liability? The victim responds yes as a question whereas responding no concerning property damage could be sarcastic meaning of course you are not liable.
Question:
Our Mishnah says if the owner requests one to break his utensil he is liable. How can the damager be liable? The Torah's liability for a custodian is to guard an object given to him for that purpose!
Answer:
It depends how the custodian received it. If he took possession of the article before the request to destroy it, the request cannot be taken seriously unless the owner stated without liability. If he was given permission to destroy it before taking possession of the item then we can assume the owner does not care about it.
Liability for losing charity
If the allocation is a specific amount to specific people then the גבאי צדקה is a custodian. If the money is to be distributed to any pauper then we do not view it as a deposit by each pauper.
פרק הגוזל עצים
משנה
The verse in the Torah concerning theft teaches us an interesting law
והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל
The apparent redundancy of אשר גזל teaches that he has to return what he stole. He is not required to return the improvements therefore:
1. If he stole wood and made a chair, wool and made a garment he pays its value at the time of the theft.
2. If he stole a pregnant cow that gave birth, or a ewe laden with fleece that he sheared he pays the value of a cow ready to give birth or a ewe ready to be shorn. He pays the difference in value between a pregnant cow and one not pregnant but acquires the calf that underwent a change from a fetus to a calf. If the cow became pregnant or the ewe laden in the thief's possession, he pays their value at the time of the theft. According to רש"י he returns the cow or ewe.
Difference between a thief who planed wood, whitened wool or stole planed wood to build a chair or stole spun thread to make a garment
1. Torah law limits a קנין גזלה to irreversible changes such as planning wood; rabbinic law extends it to reversible changes such as stealing planed wood and building a chair in spite of the fact that he can remove the nails from the wood to encourage him to return the theft.
3. Our Mishnah refers only to irreversible changes such as plaining wood into a pestle or wool into felt, pressing the raw material together. However whitening would also be a קנין even though it is not a finished product. This is the opinion of רבי שמעון. The חכמים disagree. The law regarding ראשית הגז requires shearing five ewes of one and a half מנה whitened wool can combine to make up the minimum combined amount. According to רבא untangling wool, cleaning by hand does not constitute a change, combing does. A third opinion is bleaching with sulfur is a change; washing is not.
