About this episode
Study Guide Bava Kamma 10 The week's learning is dedicated by Phyllis and Yossie Hecht. "With hakarat hatov l'Hashem for finishing Masechet Kiddushin and having our first grandchild, Liam Yisrael. Born in these days of much needed tefillot, Liam Yisrael should continue to bring light and have the zechut to be a guardian for Am Yisrael as he continues to grow l'chuppah, l'Torah and l'maasim t ovim - as this is the sustenance of our Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael- ad mesh v'esrim shana . May we be zoche to the geula in his days and continue to hear only bsorot tovot ." Today's learning is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shlomo Gavriel ben Esther and David Yosef ben Esther. In what way is the law regarding an ox who damaged more stringent/unique than the other cases? In what way is the law regarding a pit more stringent? In what way are the laws of fire more stringent? The Mishna stated a case: "If one is partially responsible for damages, one needs to pay full damages." A braita explains the case: If one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and someone digs it one more (which now makes it fit to kill) and then an animal falls in and dies or is injured, only the last person is responsible. Can this explanation match Rebbi's opinion as well or does it only fit with the rabbis? Different rabbis suggest other cases that have a similar possible joint responsibility and question why the braita did not mention them as well. The language of the Mishna in the above-mentioned case stated: "One is responsible for tashlumei nizko. " The Gemara derives from the use of the words tashlumei , that the intent is to complete the payment, and this supports a braita which rules meaning that if one's animal was damaged, one gets to keep the carcass of that animal (which has value) and the payment is only meant to be the difference between the value of the animal when it was alive and its value now. There are three potential sources from which one can derive this law. Why is there a need for all three? The Gemara questions why is there even a need for a verse to prove this law, shouldn't it be obvious!?