A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When an animal standing in reshus harabim stretches its head to eat food on the side of the street (tziddei rechov), is the owner liable? Rav and Shmuel dispute whether tziddei rechov has the status of reshus harabim or reshus hayachid, turning on whether eating in an unusual manner (machzeres) creates liability under keren or shen.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 21a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of an animal that stands in the public domain (reshus harabim) but extends its head to eat food placed on the side of the street (tziddei rechov). The central dispute is between Rav and Shmuel: Rav holds the owner is liable (chayav), while Shmuel holds he is exempt (patur). The shiur begins by reconciling this sugya with the earlier discussion on daf 20a regarding whether liability follows the location where the food was taken (basar lekicha) or where it was eaten (basar achilah). Rabbi Zweig explains that according to Shmuel, tziddei rechov has the halachic status of reshus harabim, so there is no liability when the animal eats there. According to Rav, however, tziddei rechov is considered reshus hayachid (or at least has that status for purposes of liability), making the owner liable. The key issue is not merely geography but the legal characterization of the space and whether the owner has a right to place items there without concern for passing animals.
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 21a
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.
