Bava Kamma 62 - January 3, 22 Tevet

Today's daf is sponsored by Devorah Zlochower in honor of her talmidim. Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in honor of their new granddaughter, Shalva Tzofia, born to their children Leora and Zachary Orenshein in Jerusalem. "We pray for her good health and safety and that she follows her parents in their commitment to Torah, am Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael." If one borrows space in another's field to put a stack of grains and hid items in the stack, and the field owner burns it, the owner is liable only for the grains and not for the hidden items, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. What if the borrower asked to borrow space for a stack of barley, but instead put a stack of wheat? The braita delineates several different examples similar to this case and explains that in all cases, the owner only needs to pay the value of a stack of barley and no more in the event of a fire. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one is liable for hidden items. Shmuel explains that according to this opinion, the owner of the stack could take an oath regarding what was hidden and would be able to demand that amount from the one who lit the fire, even though there is no proof of this. The basis for this is takanat nigzal, a takana instituted for those who were robbed to be able to take an oath regarding what was stolen from them. Ameimar asked if the same would apply to an informer who turned in another to the authorities who then confiscated items from that person. The question can only be asked if one holds that one is liable for garmi (partially indirect damages), as the damages caused by an informer are considered garmi. One threw another's safe into a body of water and the owner of the safe claimed there were pearls in there. Was he able to get compensated for them? Was his claim accepted? Why? What is the difference between a gazlan and a chamsan? A gazlan does not pay for the item when stealing while the chamsan does. If so, why is it called stealing? Isn't it true that if one forces another to sell them an item, it is a valid sale (talyuha v'zabin)? One is liable for accidental fires such as a spark coming from the blacksmith as he works or a camel's burden of flax catching fire from a candle from inside a store. Only if the candle was outside the store, is the camel exempt, except for on Chanuka as the candles are there for a mitzva. Is it possible to infer from the Mishna that one needs to place Chanuka candles within ten handbreadths from the ground? The seventh chapter discusses the laws of theft. If one steals an animal and slaughters and sells it, there is an extra payment, beyond the double payment (kefel) for regular theft of four or five times the value. This is only applicable for bulls and sheep, while double payment is for animals and inanimate objects as well. From where is this derived? On what items is there no double payment? Neither payment is applicable if one steals from one who stole. Is the four or five times payment applicable in a case where one kept the item for oneself and claimed it was stolen?