A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a fire spreads via an animal (camel bringing in coals, or owner leaving fire outside), who pays for damage—the animal owner or the fire owner? The Gemara (גמרא), Rambam (רמב"ם), Raavad, and Tur present contradictory positions on whether both are liable, whether one pays full or half damages, and whether "mesach sechas" (complete encirclement) changes the liability structure. Multiple unresolved tensions emerge across these sources.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Bava Kamma 22a, focusing on the complex liability issues when fire damage occurs through the medium of an animal. Rabbi Zweig systematically identifies numerous contradictions between the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion, Rashi (רש"י), Tosfos, the Rambam (רמב"ם), the Raavad, and the Tur, leaving many questions unresolved for further study. The core case involves two scenarios: (1) a camel enters someone's house, takes coals (gachalos), and sets fire to property (the gadol or a pile of grain/beer), and (2) the owner of the house leaves a candle outside (ner bachutz) where the camel takes it and causes damage. The Gemara explores whether the animal owner (baal hagamal) or the fire owner (chen veni) is liable, and to what extent.
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.
