Bava Kamma 108 - Unpaid custodian (Torts)

When one entrusts an item to his fellow, the fellow becomes an unpaid custodian. If one then comes to retrieve the object and his fellow says, "It is lost," the fellow is not obligated to pay since he was doing a favor. But if one insists and asks his fellow to swear and the fellow accepts an oath, things become more complex.

If witnesses come and testify that the custodian consumed the deposit himself, he is obligated to pay for it double what he stole. If the custodian repents and confesses his false oath, he must pay the total amount, plus one-fifth of the value, and bring a guilt offering to the Temple.

What if one robs his father and swears to him that he did not do it, the father dies, and the son then repents his false oath? The son pays the principal plus one-fifth to his father's heirs (his brothers and uncles.) If he does not have the money to repay, he can borrow from others and give it to his brothers; his creditors will come and collect from his portion of the inheritance.

Art: The Last Moments of Christopher Columbus by Claude Jacquand

Bava Kamma 105 - Flaky Humans (Torts)

We remember that one who robs his fellow of money, either by stealing, robbing, or not returning something deposited with him - and swears that he did not do it - but then repents, needs to fix it in a special way. He has to find the victim, restore what he stole, add one-fifth, and bring a guilt offering to the Temple.

What if he returned the principal but not the fifth and now swears that he returned the fifth? If he then confesses that he again took a false oath, he must restore the amount, add one-fifth, and bring another guilt sacrifice. This process can continue until the principal amount is reduced to less than a prutah (about five cents.)

Art: Train Robbery by Frederick Morris

Bava Kamma 103 - Title insurance using the name of the king (Torts)

A cryptic ruling: if one buys a field in the name of his fellow, we do not force him to sell; if he said "on condition," we force him to sell. Rav Sheshet explained it.

One comes to buy a field and says that he is buying it for the Exilarch (who was given a semi-royal authority over the Jews in Babylon.) He is really buying the land for himself, but he wants the deed to be written in the name of the Exilarch. He is doing it to discourage protesters to the sale, who might claim that they are the true owners of the land and not the seller. 

The ruling then says we do not force the seller to write another bill of sale with the buyer's name. The seller might not want to write two bills of sale because it may look like he is selling the field twice. However, if the buyer stipulated that he would want two bills of sale, the seller has to produce them. But that is obvious? The seller can say that he thought the buyer was talking to the witnesses.

Art: The Ploughed Field by Van Gogh

Bava Kamma 8 - What is considered the best land? (Torts)

If one causes damages to his fellow, he must compensate for it. Furthermore, "He shall pay from the best of his land." With that instruction, we still have many questions open. We already discussed whether it should be the damaged party's best land or the damager's best land.

The next question is this. When the court assesses land to determine which one is superior, do they look at the damager's lands and choose the best? Or do they look at the land quality in general? Perhaps the damager's lands are so excellent that even his worst land is still the best by the world's standard. 

Rav Abba gave an answer. Since the Torah said, "His best land," the quality of the world's lands has nothing to do with it! Still, they challenged his answer, contrasting it with the rule of paying to different categories of people: creditors, damaged parties, and widows claiming their Ketubah payment. But Rav Abba deflected their questions.

Art: Landscape with a Stone Bridge by Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn

Bava Metzia 4 - The case of "here, it (your money) is yours" (Finds)

A plaintiff claims to a defendant, "You owe me a hundred zuz  ($5000)," and the defendant says, "I owe you only fifty zuz, and here, it is yours – I haven't spent them, and they are in your legal possession."

Rabbi Chiya says that the defendant has admitted part of the claim and has to take an oath.

Rav Sheshet says the fifty zuz are viewed as if the lender is holding them. The defendant admits nothing about them and completely denies the other fifty. Thus, there is no oath, and he is not liable for anything else.

Art: The Argument by Norman Rockwell

Bava Kamma 102 - Question about the laws of Shmita year (Torts)

Every seven years, a farmer in Israel is supposed to give rest to the land. Foodstuff that grew of itself can be collected and eaten, but after the harvest is over, one cannot keep it in his home but should put it out in the street for everybody's consumption. Wood is included in the laws of shmita.

However, Rava noticed a contradiction. A rule about cane reeds and grapevine leaves states that if these are gathered for food, then they have the laws of shmita, but if they are gathered for kindling - they do not have the laws of shmita. He resolved the contradiction: the laws of shmita apply to produce where the benefit and consumption come simultaneously, just like with food. 

For example, wood is burnt (and destroyed) in an oven, but the benefit (baking) comes later. On the other hand, dyestuff is destroyed when dissolved in water, and the benefit - dying the cloth - comes simultaneously. The laws of shmita apply only to stuff that is destroyed simultaneously with giving benefit.

Art: Harvest Camille Pissaro