No community start suggestion yet.
What determines whether a damage falls under keren, shen, or regel—the physical action or the underlying principle of harm? The Gemara (גמרא)'s dialectic about neshicha reveals a fundamental chakira: are the avos categories of actions requiring specific shmirah, or abstract principles of damage? The Rashba and Rambam (רמב"ם)'s dispute over nachash and neshicha crystallizes this question with practical ramifications for tam versus mu'ad.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 2b-3a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s fundamental inquiry into the classification of damages under the avos of nezikin. The opening question examines the Gemara's challenge: why isn't neshicha (biting) classified as a toldah of shen instead of keren, given that it involves the animal's mouth? Similarly, why aren't revitza (running/trampling) and be'ita (kicking) considered toldos of regel rather than keren? The Gemara answers that neshicha cannot be shen because it lacks hana'ah l'mazik (benefit to the damager), and revitza/be'ita cannot be regel because they are not hezeik motzi (damage from normal walking). The shiur develops two approaches to understanding the Gemara's logic. The first approach suggests the Gemara initially held that toldos are determined by the specific chiyuv shemirah (obligation to guard) associated with each av. If one is obligated to guard the animal's mouth from eating (shen), then any damage from the mouth—even neshicha without eating—would fall under shen as a form of peshi'ah (negligence) in that shemirah. The Gemara rejects this, establishing that the avos are not defined by bodily actions requiring shemirah, but by underlying principles of damage: kavana al l'hazik (intent to damage) for keren, hana'ah l'mazik for shen, and orchei/hezeik motzi for regel.
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 2b-3a
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.
