Bava Kamma 112 - February 22, 13 Adar 1

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the engagement to Shai Laniado, son of our friend and co-learner Sami Groff,  to Lily Snyder. "May the home that they build together be filled with the passion for truth, clarity and equity and love for the Jewish nation that you model for all of us!" Today's daf is sponsored by Avi Jencmen in loving memory of Menachem ben Tzvi haCohen. Rami bar Hama holds that orphans are considered like purchasers. Was his statement derived from our Mishna or from a braita on a different issue - interest that a father collected and then passed on through inheritance to his children? What is the relevance of whether it was derived from our Mishna or the braita? The Gemara quotes two other braitot regarding stolen items consumed by a third party or passed on through inheritance. According to these braitot, do we distinguish between younger/older children? Are the older children believed if they claim they are certain the father returned the item? If a man borrows an item and then dies and the children use the item, what is their level of responsibility? What if they did not realize it was a borrowed item and consumed it? How does it affect the situation if the father leaves them land as inheritance? Do Rava and Rav Papa disagree about this case? Rav Papa's approach is premised on the understanding that a borrower takes on responsibility for accidents from the moment the accident happens, not from the moment the borrower borrows the item. According to some, Rava holds that it begins the moment the borrower borrows the item. Sumchus and the rabbis debate whether or not minors can be brought to court. Rabbi Yirmia has an issue with property rights to land of his father-in-law that he claimed was given to him but the orphans claimed they inherited it from their father (Rabbi Yirmia's father-in-law. Rabbi Avin was unsure about whether the case could be judged as the children were minors. Rabbi Avahu brought proof from a different situation where they ruled against minors, but the Gemara rejected the comparison. Can testimony be accepted without the presence of the litigant? What about the ratification of documents? Different opinions about the matter are mentioned and the amoraim explain the circumstances under which one can have a court session without the other side present.