Bava Kamma 19 - November 21, 8 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 19 Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Faivel ben Avraham ben-Tzion Halevi on his yahrzeit. "His vocation, avocation and love were centered around Israel. He instilled that love in his children and it has been passed down to the next generation." Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Tannenbaum, Medinah Korn and Caroline Ofstein l'ilui nishmat Sgt. Binyamin Meir ben Zev David ve-Rachel Pessi, HYD, Binyamin Airley, son of our dear friends Jen and Rob Airley. The quality of gevura and modesty personified him in life and even in death, as he fell defending Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, both of which he loved deeply. His sense of mission was borne out of the home of his parents, whose strength and emunah are formidable and a model to all. Yehi zichro baruch. A series of questions are asked regarding indirect damages called tzrorot. Is there a concept of tam/muad if the action was done in an atypical manner (like keren) and a tam would only pay one-quarter damages? Would Sumchus agree that if the act was more indirect, i.e. the animal moves pebbles that flew and hit an object which then damages another object, the owner would be liable only for half the damages? The Mishna set up two cases where one is liable for half damages - the animal kicked  (keren) and caused damage or pebbles from under the animal's feet damaged vessels. In the latter case, were the pebbles kicked by the animal purposely or did they just move as the animal walked? What is the relevance? Is one liable for tzrorot in the public domain (like keren) or exempt (like regel)? What if they were kicked in the public domain but flew into a private domain and damaged? If an animal wags its tail and causes damages in the public domain, the owner is exempt as it is a subcategory of regel. The Mishna stated that the owner of a chicken who caused damage from a rope tied around its leg pays half the damages. Rav Huna limits this to a case where it got tied to the chicken on its own. The Gemara struggles to understand who is responsible according to this reading and is pushed to understand Rav Huna as adding a case and not limiting the Mishna. What are the main rules of the category of shen? If an animal eats atypical foods, the owner only pays half the damages - but where do we draw the line between typical/atypical?