About this episode
The month of Tevet is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in honor of his nephews Brian and Michael Racer, and to all the members of tzahal who put their lives on the line to defend our country every day. This week's learning is sponsored by Tal Clein. "I love learning Daf with Hadran." Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen on their 5th yartzeit, who were killed in a terror attack (ה' טבת) at Givat Assaf, and for the continued refuah sheleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack. Today's daf is sponsored in memory of the three hostages killed by mistake on Friday - Yotam Chaim, Alon Shamriz and Samar Talalka. If an animal kills a person and is sentenced to death, one cannot derive any benefit from the animal. Therefore at that point, if one sells it or dedicates it to the Temple, the sale/dedication is invalid. If one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. However, before the court's ruling, all those acts are valid. If someone is watching ( shomer ) someone else's animal and the animal kills a person and is sentenced to death - can they return the animal to the owner after the sentencing or not? The Rabbis and Rabbi Yaakov disagree. The Gemara first suggests that the debate is about whether one can fulfill one's obligation to return a stolen/guarded item if the item is now forbidden to benefit from (are damages that can't be seen considered damages). But this is rejected based on a Mishna in Bava Kamma 96b where it seems that all agree that chametz that was stolen can be returned after Pesach (in the event it was not sold) even though it is now forbidden to benefit from. Instead, the argument is about whether or not the animal has to appear in court - if he does, then the original owner can blame the shomer for bringing it to court and claim that had the animal been returned before the animal was brought to court, the original owner would have sent the animal to a marsh to avoid the death sentence. What is the level of responsibility of shomrim for damages? A braita is brought and then it is determined according to which opinion is the braita holding. There is a four-way argument regarding what level of watching is expected of an owner of a shor tam and a shor muad and is sufficient to exempt the owner from paying damages. Is the halacha the same for both types of animals ( tam and muad ) or different?