About this episode
Study Guide Bava Kamma 54 Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Adina Hagege's birthday last week (7 Tevet) by her siblings. "The words of Bava Kamma aptly describe her: whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes." Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her father Yoel ben Meir Fromme. "For all his guidance and sage advice, a lone kindertransport survivor he rebuilt his family in Montreal where his Torah life inspired mine, and as a child I sat riveted by his telling of midrashim. His devotion to limmud Torah, we passed down to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren and are zoche to have three children who have done several cycles of the Shas. I know he looks down on us with pride and thanksgiving to Hashem. May he be a melitz yosher for all of klal yisroel and keep us all safe. Yehi zichro baruch ! Today's daf is sponsored by Yael Klempner for the refuah shleima of her dear friend, Sara Shoshana bat Sara, Sara Shiffman. One is not responsible for vessels that fall in but Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says one is responsible. The verse mentions just animals - an ox and a donkey. From there the rabbis derive their position that humans and vessels are excluded from damages. How does Rabbi Yehuda derive his opinion from the verse? Drashot are brought to explain from where it is derived that the owner of a bor is liable for damage caused to all animals including birds. The first two suggestions are rejected but the third is accepted. The Mishna explained that one is obligated for an ox that is deaf, shoteh , or young. That seemed to imply not if the animal was older and not blemished (i.e. with knowledge). Rabbi Yimia suggests that the Mishna also includes that case but after raising difficulties from braitot, Rava concludes that one is not responsible for that case as an ox should also be paying attention (like a person) and therefore the owner is not responsible. The Mishna brings other cases in the Torah where specific animals are mentioned and yet the reference is to all animals, including birds. From where it derived in each situation that all are included?