Description
The sugya in Masechet Bava Kamma 56a-b offers a long list of cases where the plaintiff cannot sue for damages for any number of reasons, yet the damager is obligated to pay. This introduces the concept of חיוב בדין שמים. The Gemora wonders why R' Yehoshua in his listing enumerated four cases and omitted all these other cases. Why did R"Y understand that in each of his 4 cases one can argue that the damager is completely exempt from all payments? The last part of the shiur will address the Mishna's case of one who fenced in his animal per duty and yet the animal broke out. How did that happen? Finally we will discuss the case of the thieves who removed the animal from the property of its owner. Did the thief implement an act of Kinyan?
0 comments Leave a Comment