A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a loaded camel's flax catches fire and spreads, who pays? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of this Gemara (גמרא) departs radically from Tosafos (תוספות) and the Tur: he holds the overloading transforms the fire into esh mishum chitzah—the owner's direct action—making him liable for full damages without distinctions of mesach sechas or tzerus. The shiur defends the Rambam by developing a fundamental chakira between esh mishum mamona (liability for property) and esh mishum chitzah (liability for one's own destructive act), showing how the two generate entirely different liability frameworks.
This advanced shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 22a (amud beis) dealing with the case of a camel loaded with flax that catches fire from a shopkeeper's candle outside and then spreads the fire further. The central question is who bears liability: the owner of the camel (baal hagamal) or the shopkeeper (chen veni). The shiur focuses on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment in Hilchos Nizkei Mamon, which appears to contradict both the Gemara's reasoning and the Rambam's own earlier pesakim. The shiur begins by identifying three major difficulties in the Rambam. First, in Perek Beis Halacha (הלכה) Yud Zayin, the Rambam rules that damage caused at the makom hachoror (the initial burning point) is nezek shalem (full damages), while damage beyond that point is only chatzi nezek (half damages) because it involves tzerus (dispersal). Yet in Perek Gimel Halacha Yud Gimel, discussing the camel case, the Rambam seems to obligate full nezek shalem for everything, without distinguishing between mesach sechas (where the camel itself ignites something) and non-mesach sechas cases. Second, the Rambam states "bein she'amad bein shelo amad" (whether standing or not standing), treating both cases identically, whereas the Gemara uses "amad" as a reason to assign liability. Third, in the earlier case of a dog taking coals (Kelev shenata gachalat), the Rambam rules that the chen veni is not liable at all for the makom hachoror—only the baal hakelev pays. Why here does the Rambam obligate the chen veni for everything?
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 22a
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.
