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 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

Bava Metzia 8 - One Lifts a Found Object, Intending to Acquire it for his Fellow (Finds)

If one lifts up an object he found, intending to acquire it entirely for his fellow, then his fellow acquires it. This is true even though he deprives other potential finders of the object. It can be proved from the case of two people who have found a garment.

There, each one is holding his end of the garment, and should his fellow drop it, the garment would partially rest on the floor, which would mean that our claimant has yet to acquire it since complete lifting is required. We must conclude that when they lift the garment, both intend to help the other acquire it.

Art: Maidens Picking Flowers by a Stream [Study] by John William Waterhouse

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 119 - Stealing is a Serious Matter (Torts)

One should not buy items from someone who tells him to conceal his purchase because they may be stolen.

An informer may be killed if he informs habitually or is on his way to inform. However, his possession may not be destroyed because he may have righteous descendants.

Anyone who robs a prutah from his fellow is as if he took his soul from him, for at times, he will not have any money left to buy food and will starve to death.

Insignificant leftovers of materials given to the craftsman for work belong to him.

Art: Chimney Sweeps Stealing Bread by Paul Charles Chocarne-Moreau

Bava Kamma 118 - Thief Returns Stolen Object and Tells the Owner (Torts)

If a river inundated a stolen field, the thief can say, "Here is your field," but Rabbi Eliezer obligates him to pay.

If one stole a lamb from a flock and returned it without notifying the owner, and that lamb subsequently died or was stolen, the thief is responsible for it.

If the owner was aware of the theft but then counted the flock and found it complete, the thief is not liable for any future mishap. But if the owner was unaware of the theft, counting does not help since the thief has taught the lamb to go astray, and the owner needs to know which lamb it was.

Art: Self Portrait by Elisabeth Sophie Cheron

Bava Kamma 117 - Extortionists Take A Field Away from the Robber (Torts)

If one steals a field from his fellow, and the extortionists then take it from him, then if it is a province-wide plague, meaning that the extortionists have appropriated the fields of others as well, the robber can say to the owner, "Behold, what is yours is in front of you." But if the field was taken on the account of the robber, then the robber is obligated to provide the owner with another field.

But we already understand that "if not, the thief pays!" Rather, it is yet another case where he did not take the field away but showed it to the extortionists.

Art: Christina's World by Andrew Wyeth

Bava Kamma 116 - Saving Your Friend's Honey by Losing Your Wine (Torts)

One was with a barrel of wine, the other with a jug of honey, and the barrel of honey cracked. If the wine owner poured out his wine and saved the honey, he received only the laborer's fee. If he said, "I will save your honey, but you must pay me for my wine," - the other is obligated to pay.

But compare this to the one fleeing from a prison, who can promise the ferryman an inordinate amount for taking him over the river and then say, "Just kidding," and pay only the fair?  - That's different because the ferryman loses only his time.

Art; Judith Leyster - A Youth With The Jug

Bava Kamma 115 - One Sees His Utensils and Books in the Possession of Another (Torts)

Suppose one recognizes his utensils and books in the possession of another, and a report of burglary concerning him was circulated in the city. In that case, the alleged purchaser must return the property to the claimant and swear to him how much he paid, and the claimant pays. Otherwise, the claimant is not believed, for we can say that he sold them to another, and this person purchased them from him.

If a river swept away his donkey and a more expensive donkey of his fellow, and he abandoned his and saved the donkey of his fellow, he receives only his rescue fee. If he stipulates payment for his donkey, he gets it.

Art: Books, Mug, Pipe and Violin by John Frederick Peto

Bava Kamma 114 - Objects That The Owners Despaired to Retrieve (Torts)

If (illegitimate) customs collectors confiscated someone's donkey but then, out of compassion, gave him an inferior one, or if bandits seized his garment and gave him another garment, they are his because it may be assumed that their owners have despaired of retrieving them. However, if he wants to return these out of piety, he can return them to the original owners and not the robbers.

In the case of one who rescues things from a river or from bandits, if it is known that the owners have despaired of retrieving them, they are his.

Art: A Pat For The Donkey by Charles Hunt

Bava Kamma 113 - Not Taking Charity from Stolen Money (Torts)

A messenger of the court who delivers a court summons is believed to say that the defendant refused to come, and the court can excommunicate him based on that. But for money matters, two witnesses are required.

One may not change his larger coins into smaller coins that are known to be stolen. One may not take charity from stolen money – because it encourages the thieves to steal since they erroneously believe that giving stolen money to charity justifies their wrongdoing and exempts them from compensating the owner. Examples are money from unjust arbitrary customs and tax collectors, who bought rights to collect what they want.

Art: Charity by Fernando Botero

Bava Kamma 112 - Defendant Needs to be Summoned and Present in Court (Torts)

When one lends money to another Jew, he should "...not take from him interest and increase..." and refund any interest if taken "...so that your brother may live with you."

Suppose the father leaves his children interest money, and they know it is interest. In that case, they are not obligated to return it – because they have acquired it through the combination of the owner losing hope to recover it and the change of ownership domain.

The court can't accept witnesses' testimony in the absence of the defendant – unless he refuses to come and there are pressing circumstances.

Art: The Moneychanger (detail) by Rembrandt Van Rijn

Bava Kamma 111 - Stealing for One's Children (Torts)

Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, and they were presented with a "generalization-specification-generalization" rule. One who upholds these gifts is considered as though he upheld the whole Torah, which is exposed with this rule.

If one robs something and feeds it to his children, they are not liable to pay. If he left the item as an inheritance, they must return it. Once the stolen property is no longer extant, they are not liable to return it unless the father also left real estate property – for it is then mortgaged for his theft.

Art: The Afternoon Meal by Evert Pieters

Bava Kamma 110 - One Who Robs a Convert Pays to the Priests (Torts)

A convert to Judaism is considered a newborn child, not part of his old family nor yet of any new one.

If one robs a convert and swears falsely to him in denial of the robbery and the convert dies without leaving heirs, the robber pays the principal and the one-fifth surcharge to the Kohanim and brings a guilt offering to the Altar.

Suppose the robber was bringing up the money and the guilt offering to Jerusalem, and he died en route. In that case, the money shall be given to the robber's sons because restitution to the Kohanim is only to atone for his guilt - while alive.

Art:  Baby at Play by Thomas Cowperthwait Eakins

Bava Kamma 109 - Son Robs His Father and Swears that He Didn't (Torts)

Imagine one robs his father and swears falsely to him, denying the robbery, and the father dies. The son then admits his guilt – he pays the principal and the one-fifth surcharge (for false oath) to his father's other sons or to the father's brothers – who are the next in line to inherit.

Although the robber is his father's heir, he may not keep what he stole – for he must fulfill the dictate to return stolen property.

If he doesn't wish or can't pay, he may borrow from others, repay, and his creditors may then come and collect the debt from his inheritance.

Art: Thomas Rowlandson - Fathers Displeasure

Bava Kamma 107 - People Are Not Brazen to Deny Loans Given to Them (Torts)

One who admits that he owes a part of the loan but not the complete amount has to swear to this effect, and after the oath in court, he is not liable to pay the rest. 

There is a presumption that a person is not brazen enough to deny his obligation to the face of the creditor, who did him a favor by loaning money without interest. If he partially admits, that is because he is trying to evade part of the claim until he has money. Therefore, the Torah imposed an oath.

Later, people became more brazen, and the Rabbis imposed an oath for complete denial as well.

Art: Give Me A Bite by Henri-Jules-Jean Geoffroy

Bava Kamma 106 - One Who Swore Falsely May Not Have to Pay (Torts)

If one says to his fellow, "You have my maneh (100 zuz, or $5,000) in your possession," and the other responds, "I do not have anything of yours," - and he swears to that effect, and afterward witnesses come and attest to his guilt, he is exempt from payment:

"...and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not pay..." teaches that once the owner has received an oath, the defendant no longer pays money.

This is logical regarding a loan, that is given to the borrower to be spent, but it is true even regarding deposit because the quote is about a deposit.

Art: Old Man In Sorrow by Van Gogh