Talmud for Bava Kamma 7:1

From where comes this¹²This refers to the Mishnah, that if the case came to court after the father’s death the fine is not part of the inheritance but belongs to the girl even if she still is supported by the brothers and her earnings go to them.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine¹⁶In Babylonian sources, this is a tannaitic statement: Ketubot 43a, Qiddušin 16b; Sifra Behar Parašah6(5). The verse, Lev. 25:46, speaks of Gentile slaves. The main import of the verse is that slaves can be bought or inherited following the rules of real estate. As a side remark, it is stated that income due because of daughters does not become part of the estate.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They¹⁷The father’s heirs. have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment¹⁸The act of rape creates the obligation to pay the fine.; Rebbi Yose said, at the end¹⁹The judgment of the court creates the obligation to pay the fine.. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’²⁰If this is an argument of R. Yose against R. Jonah, the reference must be to the Mishnah in general and in particular to the last part, not quoted here, which gives the fine to the girl if court proceedings start after the father’s death. If the fine was due from the moment of rape, it should be part of the estate.”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.²¹Cf. Note 13. The exclusion of the fine from the estate is a biblical decree, independent of when the obligation starts.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state²²An enlarged version of Mishnah 2.: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult²³It is not that an adult rape victim can claim a fine but the verse gives the adult the right to sue for what was done to her as an adolescent.. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there²⁴Mishnah Baba Qama 7:2.: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold²⁵The fine for stealing is double restitution; the fine for selling or slaughtering stolen livestock is fourfold or fivefold restitution. The Mishnah requires the thief to pay fourfold or fivefold to the estate (unless he is the sole heir); but if the obligation does not start with the act of larceny then the fine should depend on the relative times of selling/slaughtering and the father’s death, as explained in the next sentence.”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai²⁶This should read: R. Ḥaggai objected to R. Yose (who holds that any obligation starts only with the court’s action.): In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold²⁷There is no doubt that he stole from the estate and has to make good. But since the injured party is no longer alive, according to R. Yose he should not have to pay the extra penalty for selling or slaughtering. The Babli, Baba Qama 71b, agrees with this reasoning.? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here²⁸The verses, in R. Simeon’s interpretation, determine the obligation to pay a fine irrespective of the recipient of the fine. Therefore, the question of the start of the obligation is secondary., everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

HALAKHAH: “If he was drawing it to lead it out but it died,” etc.; “If he gave it for his first-born son,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, if somebody would explain to me the following, I would carry his בנרייה⁸⁹The word and its meaning are unclear. In E, the reading is בנרייתיה, the Genizah text reads either בנליתא or בולנייתה or ברלייתה. None of these words has a parallel in Talmudic literature.: What means “is not liable”? Is he not liable for his obligation or not liable for theft⁹⁰In Mishnah 9, what means “is not liable”? If the Cohen or the creditor accepted the assignment but then the animal died in the assignee’s hand before a theft happened, are they barred from asking the person who tricked them for payment or is the explanation as given in Note 85, that no theft did occur? The Babli, 80a, only considers the second alternative.?