Bava Kamma 15 - November 17, 4 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 15 Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their co-learner and friend, Debbie Schreiber, on the birth of her grandson this week. "May the new arrival bring the family and the Jewish people much joy and nachat! תזכו לגדלו לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים" Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her new grandson Amiaz, son of Tani and Moriya Sterman. "The name Amiaz - Ami (my people, my nation) and Az (strength, might and bravery) - symbolizes the strength of our nation." Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family "We are so happy to celebrate the birth of so many new grandchildren in this year, תשפ"ד, an acronym for תהא שנת פתיחת דלתות. Mazal Tov to Tina, Sara, Phyllis, Tova, and anyone else we missed. כן ירבו!" Who can testify in cases of damages? From where in the Torah do we derive that women are responsible for damages as men and if one damages a woman or her property, they are liable to pay damages as well? In what way does the one whose property was damaged also have to "pay"? In a case where an ox gores (keren) and is a tam (has not behaved in this way three times), the owner needs to pay half the amount of damages. There is a basic disagreement about the nature of paying half damages. One understanding (Rav Papa) is that an ox is naturally a hazard and it is the owner's responsibility to watch their oxen. Payment for damages is a monetary obligation and the owner should pay in full. However, the Torah reduced the payment by half as the owner was not forewarned. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua understands half payment as a penalty. He believes that an ox is not naturally prone to gore and therefore doesn't need protection. Theoretically, the owner should not be responsible at all if he wasn't forewarned. However, to incentivize owners to watch their animals, the Torah instituted a fine that they pay half the damages. There are four attempts to bring sources to prove Rav Papa's position that half payment is a monetary obligation, but in the end, the Gemara concludes that it is a fine/penalty. Since by law, only in Israel can the courts rule on penalties, cases of shor tam cannot be ruled on in Babylonia. However, if the damaged person were to seize payment from the damager, the courts leave it in his hands. In addition, he can insist that they meet in court in Israel. Furthermore, the court can insist that the one whose animal attacked take action to ensure that the animal does not cause further damage. The Mishna states that there are five shur tam cases and five shur muad. What are they?