{"id":3566,"date":"2016-07-15T08:17:21","date_gmt":"2016-07-15T06:17:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3566"},"modified":"2016-07-15T08:17:21","modified_gmt":"2016-07-15T06:17:21","slug":"bava-kamma-45","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/07\/bava-kamma-45\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Kamma 45"},"content":{"rendered":"

Once the animal is sentenced to death, it is forbidden to benefit from it. \u00a0Therefore at that point, if one sells it, the sale is invalid and likewise if one dedicates it to the temple, it is not holy and if one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. \u00a0However before the sentence, all those acts are valid. \u00a0There is a debate regarding someone watching someone else’s animal and the animal gets sentenced to death – can the one watching it, return it to the owner after the sentence or not? \u00a0The gemara rejects the option that they are arguing about whether one who steals something that then becomes forbidden can he return the object if does he need to pay the value of it at the time of the sale. \u00a0The gemara concludes that their argument has to do with whether or not the animal has to appear in court – if he does, then the original owner can blame the watcher for bringing it to court and claim that had he returned it before court, he would have sent the animal away and he never would have been sentenced to death. \u00a0When it comes to the 4 shomrim who have someone’s animal – what is their level of responsibility? \u00a0A braita is brought and then it is determined according to whose opinion is this braita. \u00a0There is a 4-way argument regarding what level of watching is enough to exempt the owner from damages of a shor tam<\/em> and a shor muad<\/em>. \u00a0Is the halacha the same for both or different?<\/p>\n

\n