Talmud Insights on Responsibility and Liability in Bava Kamma

Talmud Leat Bava Kamma - 14

Review Mishnah 1:2 Responsibility for watching something Incompetent people Stringencies (= comparisons) Omissions in a Baraita 2 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10a " : " ? " " , , "If I have partially facilitated damage " Our Rabbis taught: "If I have partially facilitated damage, I must make restitution for that damage as if I caused all the damage". How so? The digger of a pit nine and another came and completed it to ten, the last is liable. 3 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10a : , , : , Now this does not accord with Rabbi, for it was taught: The digger of a pit nine and another came and completed it to ten, the last is liable. Rabbi says: after the last for death, after both of them for damages 4 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10a : R. Papa said: for death, and everyone agrees. 5 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10a ? : There are who say: Shall we say that it is not like Rabbi? R. Papa said: for death, and everyone agrees. 6 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10a ? : ; R. Zeira raised a difficulty: Are there no more? Behold there is: one handed over his ox to five persons and one of them was negligent, and did damage; he is liable 7 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10a ? , ? , What are the circumstances? If we say that without was not guarded, it is obvious for he caused it. But without him also is guarded, what did he do? 8 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10a : ? ? ? R. Sheshet raised a difficulty: Behold there is one adds many bundles What is the case? If without him it would not have traveled, it is obvious? But without him it would have traveled, what did he do? 9 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b ' : : ; " " ? ? ? R. Papa raised a difficulty: Behold there is that which is taught: Five people were sitting on one bench and did not break it. And one more came and sat on it and broke it; the latter is liable. And R. Papa added "like Papa b. Abba" What was the case? If we say that without, it would not have broken, is it not obvious? But, without him also, it would also have broken, what did he do? 10 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b ? , In the end how can the baraita be resolved? It is only necessary when, without him, the bench would have broken after two hours, and now it broke in one hour. 11 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " : " : " " They therefore can say to him: "If not for you we would have sat a little while longer and would have risen." But let him say to them: "If not for you with me, it would not have broken" 12 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b It is necessary only where it broke as he was leaning on it 13 Talmud Le'at - 14

Talmudic Terminology It is obvious What is that you would have supposed? After a difficulty was raised that a point in a mishnah or baraita is obvious and need not be stated, this formula presents a solution to the difficulty " It comes to teach us 14 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b ! ? " , It is obvious! What is it that you would have supposed? One's force is not like his body It teaches us that one's force is like his body, for whenever his body causes something to break, his force also does. 15 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b : ? : , ; , Are there no more? Behold there is that which is taught: Ten people beat with ten sticks, whether simultaneously or one after the other, and he died; they are all exempt R. Judah b. Batera says: one after the other, the last is liable, for he brought his death near 16 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b ? It is not dealing with murder. And if you wish, say it is not dealing with cases under dispute. Is it not? But we have established that it is not in accordance with Rabbi? Not in accordance with Rabbi but in accordance with the Rabbis. In accordance with R. Judah b. Batera, and not in accordance with the Rabbis. 17 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " " " " " " "I am liable for payment of his damage" "I am liable for his damage" is not stated but "Payment for his damage" 18 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " " : We have stated what the rabbis taught: '"Payment for damage" teaches that the owners have to deal with the carcass. 19 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " : ' ? " From where is this derived? R. Ami said that Scripture said: "He that kills a beast shall pay for it" (Leviticus 24:18) Do not read yeshallemennah ["he shall pay for it"], but yashlimennah ["He shall complete it"]. 20 Talmud Le'at - 14

Leviticus 24:18 JPS And he that smites a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life. NRSV Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. 21 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " " ; R. Kahana says from here: "If it was torn by beasts, he shall bring it as evidence; he need not replace what has been torn by beasts" (Exodus 22:12) "Up to" the carcass he shall pay; the carcass itself he does not pay 22 Talmud Le'at - 14

Exodus 22:12 : - If it be torn in pieces, let him bring it for witness; he shall not make good that which was torn. 23 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b - " " : Hezekiah says from here: "And the dead shall be his" (Exodus 21:34) - the damaged party. 24 Talmud Le'at - 14

Exodus 21:34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money unto the owner of them, and the dead beast shall be his 25 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b - " ? " : And so taught in the school of Hezekiah: "And the dead shall be his" - the damaged party Do you say "the damaged party" or is it not rather the "damager"? You should say: It cannot be that! 26 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " ! : " " " "? " , " ? - " What does it mean "it cannot be that"? Abaye said: If you thought that carcass belongs to the damager, the Merciful One should have written, "An ox for the ox" and be silent! "and the dead shall be his" - why? To teach to the damaged party. 27 Talmud Le'at - 14

Exodus 21:35-36 - -- - - - - - - And if one man's ox hurt another's, so that it dies; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the price of it; and the dead also they shall divide. Or if it be known that the ox was wont to gore in time past, and its owner has not kept it in; he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his own. 28 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b ," . " ! And it is necessary, for if the Merciful One had written, "He that kills a beast shall pay" because it is not frequent; but an animal torn in pieces is frequent, and I would say not. It is necessary! 29 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b , , And if it had taught us an animal torn in pieces, this is because of itself, but killing a beast by his hands, I would say not 30 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b , " " And if it had taught these two, this because it is infrequent, and this because of itself, but "and the dead shall be his" which is both frequent and itself, I would say no 31 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " " . ! If it had taught "And the dead shall be his" this because property caused the damage. But here, he caused the damage, I would say no. It is necessary! 32 Talmud Le'at - 14

Bava Kamma 10b " " : : " , " " R. Kahana said to Rav: The reason that the Merciful One writes "And the dead shall be his" and were it not for this I would have said carcass belongs to the damager. Now that his several carcasses, he may give to, for Master stated: "He shall return" (Exodus 21:34) to include payment in kind, and even bran. Is it necessary? It is not necessary except for carcass depreciation. 33 Talmud Le'at - 14