A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What are the toldos the Mishna refers to, and can a tolda have different payment obligations than its av? The shiur analyzes how the Rif and Rambam (רמב"ם) understand the Gemara (גמרא)'s question: whether meshuna (abnormal damage) constitutes a tolda category that pays chatzi nezek, or whether all toldos share their av's status of muad mitchiloso, meaning meshuna is simply a separate halacha (הלכה) unrelated to the av/tolda framework.
This shiur undertakes a detailed analysis of how the Rif and Rambam (רמב"ם) understand the Gemara (גמרא)'s fundamental question about the nature of toldos (derivative categories) of the avos nezikin (primary damage categories). The shiur opens with the Rosh's difficulty on the Rif, who appears to be saying that the Gemara's question about whether toldos are "ki yotze bahen" (identical to their avos) is limited to whether keren tam and keren muad have corresponding toldos that pay chatzi nezek and nezek shalem respectively. Rabbi Zweig argues that the Rif is addressing a different question entirely: not whether toldos pay the same as their avos, but rather what constitutes a tolda in the first place. The Gemara's starting assumption was that meshuna (abnormal actions) might be classified as toldos—for example, a cat eating large animals or a dog eating small ones might be toldos that pay only chatzi nezek, even though the av of shein pays nezek shalem. This would only be possible if we learn the concept of chatzi nezek from keren tam and apply it to other avos.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Bava Kamma 2a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
