No community start suggestion yet.
When is one liable for damage caused after creating a changed circumstance (kol hamishaneh bo acher veshina)? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether placing garments and vessels in the public domain creates liability when an animal eats them. Rav holds one is liable except in the case of siccing; Reish Lakish and Reb Yochanan dispute whether normal placement is considered a shinui that exempts from payment.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 20a, exploring the fundamental principle of kol hamishaneh bo acher veshina—when one person creates a changed circumstance and another causes damage, who bears liability? The Mishna establishes that in reshus harabim (the public domain), there is generally exemption from liability for keren (goring/unusual damage). The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether this exemption applies when someone places garments (ksus) and vessels (keilim) in reshus harabim and an animal eats them. Rav states that one is patur (exempt) when there is kol hamishaneh bo acher veshina—if the owner of the garments created a shinui (change) by placing them in reshus harabim, and then the animal owner's animal created another shinui by eating non-food items, both changes combine to create exemption. Shmuel disagrees, holding that this exemption applies only to fruits and vegetables (peiros v'yerakos), but by garments and vessels one is chayav (liable).
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 20a
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.
