Bava Metzia 5 - No Oath in the Case of "Here, it is Yours?" (Finds)

Question against Rav Sheshet from the following ruling:

"Four types of custodians take an oath if they partially admit their fault, and they are the unpaid custodian, the borrower, the paid custodian, and the renter." What does the custodian admit? That the article is intact in his possession. But that is precisely the case of "here, it is yours," which contradicts Rav Sheshet, who says no oath is required! 

And Rav Sheshet? He will tell you that in this case, the custodian borrowed three cows, all of them died, and he admits to being negligent regarding one, so it is not the case of "here, it is yours."

Art: A Barn Interior by David The Younger Teniers

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 Metzia 3 - Borrower Admits Loan In Part (Finds)

If one says, "You owe me $100," and the borrower admits to owing $50, the borrower has to repeat his statement under oath and pay $50. 

There is a presumption that people are not brazen to deny a loan outright since the creditor did them a favor. Likely, the borrower would like to repay but doesn't have the complete amount, so he admits to a part, thinking of repaying the rest later. So, the Torah imposed an oath to force him to tell the truth. Likewise, if witnesses testified that the borrower owes part of the loan, he has to take an oath for the rest.

Art: A Private Letter by Robert W. Wright

Bava Metzia 2 - Two People Found a Garment (Finds)

Two litigants come before the court, holding onto a cloak. One says, "I found it first," and the other says, "I found it first." One says, "It is mine," and the other says, "It is mine." One must swear that he owns no less than half of it, and the other one must swear that he owns no less than half of it, and they then divide it - if possible, or sell it and divide the money.

Why claim "It is mine?" It's another case where they both gave money to the storekeeper and now argue about whose the article is.

Art: Pulling the Favourite - cartoon from Tatler magazine, by Basil Woodhouse

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

Bava Kama 105 - Thief Returns Even Minor Stolen Items (Torts)

If one stole three bundles that were valued at three pruta, and their value decreased and stood at only two pruta, then even if the thief returned two of the bundles to the victim, he is still liable to return the other one, worth nothing (less than a prutah).

This can be deduced from the case of bread stolen before Passover, where he may say to the owner, "Behold, that which is yours is right here before you" - only because it is present. Here, too, he has to return the third bundle or pay what it was worth at the time of theft.

Art: Apple Blossoms in Normandy by Daniel Ridgway Knight

Bava Kamma 104 - A Robber and Perjurer Repents and Seeks to Repay (Torts)

One who robs his fellow in the value of a prutah (5 cents) or more and then swears falsely to him, denying the theft, but later confesses and wishes to repent must pursue him to the farthest land. He may not give it to the victim's son nor to his agent, but he may give it to an agent of the court.

The court then holds the stolen property until the victim calls for it. The Rabbis enacted that this should suffice to ensure that a potential penitent would not be discouraged.

The agent above is informal, but a formal agent appointed with two witnesses can receive the payment.

Art: Miners Wives Carrying Sacks by Van Gogh

Bava Kamma 101 - Thief Steals the Wool, Dyes It, and Returns It (Torts)

If one robbed wool and liquid dye belonging to someone and dyed that wool with the dye and now returns the dyed wool to the owner – is the improvement of dye considered material?

That is, when the thief returns the dyed wool to the owner, is he returning both the dye and the wool? Or, perhaps, that improvement is not considered material, and thus, he is returning only the wool but not the dye – which has, in effect, disappeared?

The question is relevant when the dyed wool became cheap. Does the thief have to pay for the dye? Talmud doesn't resolve the question.

Art: Outside An Indian Dye House by Edwin Lord Weeks

Bava Kamma 100 -Dyer Ruins the Wool (Torts)

If one gives wool to the dyer, and it gets burned in the cauldron, the dyer pays the value of the wool – because he is a paid custodian responsible for accidents.

If he dyed it poorly, the dyer gets the lesser of the improvement to the wool and his expenses. Since he knew that using inferior dye would result in an inferior product, he is a damager. His compensation claim is that he did, in fact, increase the value.

If he was supposed to dye red, and he dyed black, Rabbi Meir says that he pays the value of wool, but Rabbi Yehudah awards the claim as above.

Art: Untitled by Mark Rothko

Purpose of "Talmud Illuminated"

Summarize a page of the Talmud and illustrate it with the world's art.

I assume that I am talking to extremely intelligent and knowledgeable audience. For this reason I do not explain the terms every time they occur, such as, for example, Get meaning a divorce document. People either know it or will figure it out.

I am by no means sufficiently qualified, but my friends will forgive me my mistakes.

Bava Kamma 99 - Craftsmen are Responsible for their Work (Torts)

If one gave an article to craftsmen to fix, and they ruined it, they are liable to pay. If a builder contracted to demolish a wall damages a passerby – he, and not the homeowner, is liable. If he was demolishing from one side and it fell, against his best estimate, from the other side, he is not liable. But if it fell because of his blow, he is liable.

An expert slaughterer who was given an animal to slaughter for a fee and bungled by slaughtering it improperly is liable to pay the animal's owner. Therefore, one should give him money before he slaughters the animal.

Art: Capriccio Of A Man Scaling A Wall by Giovanni Antonio Canal Canaletto

Bava Kamma 98 - Does Burning the Mortgage Cancel the Loan? (Torts)

If one knocks a coin out of his fellow's hand, and the coin falls into the sea, but it is possible to retrieve it, he can say, "There's your coin, go get it," and not be liable. Similarly, one who burns a loan document of his fellow so that the loan can't be collected is not liable to pay, for he says to his fellow, "I burned a mere paper of yours." In both cases, the damages are not direct but causative, for which one doesn't pay.

However, the final law distinguishes between causing the loss directly or indirectly and makes one liable in the above cases.

Art: Man Seated by a Stream by John Singer Sargent

Bava Kamma 97 - Seizing the Slave and Making Him Work (Torts)

In the household of Rav Yosef Bar Chama, they would seize the slaves of people who owed them money and have the slaves do work for them. His son Rava inquired about the legal basis for this. The justifications were:

It costs more to feed the slave than his work is worth, and the master uses it only as a convenience.

Rav Yosef was feeding the slave, thus performing a favor.

• The master is glad that the slave works in the off-time because he is not habituated to laziness.

Rava said, "True, but when people owe you money, it looks like usury," and his father agreed.

Art: Boy Eating an Apple by Albert Anker

Bava Kamma 96 - A Thief Keeps Stolen Bread Through Passover (Torts)

If one stole an animal and it grew old and weak while in the robber's possession, he pays its cash value as at the time of the robbery.

If one stole a coin and it cracked, or fruits and they rotted, or wine and it soured – he pays the value as at the time of the robbery.

If one stole Chametz (leavened food) and it remained in the robber's possession throughout Passover – which rendered it prohibited for all benefit – the robber can say to the original owner, "Behold, what is yours I right here before you, take it back as is."

Art: Baking Bread by Helen Mary Elizabeth Allingham

Bava Kamma 95 - One Stole a Pregnant Cow, and it Gave Birth (Torts)

If one stole a pregnant cow, and it gave birth, or a wool-laden ewe, and he sheared it, he pays the value of a cow ready to give birth, or the value of a ewe prepared to be shorn.

Other opinions:

If one steals an ewe and he sheared it, or a cow and it gave birth...

* Rabbi Meir – He pays it, its shearings, and its offspring;

* Rabbi Yehuda – the stolen animal returns to the original owner as is;

* Rabbi Shimon – We view it as an article appraised and placed with him according to its cash value at the time of the robbery.

Art: Sheep Shearing by Alexander Mann

Bava Kamma 94 - Repentant Robbers and Bankers (Torts)

Robbers and lenders on interest who wish to return their illegally acquired monies to their victims should not accept the proffered funds from them. If one does take it from them, a spirit of wisdom and piety does not reside in him.

This enactment was promulgated by the court of Rabbi Yehudah The Prince to make it easier to repent for those who want to do it. It applies only to long-term transgressors who can't return all money. Still, they need to try to return the funds to fulfill their Biblical obligation. It is a disagreement whether this enactment applies nowadays.

Art: The Repentant Peter by El Greco