No community start suggestion yet.
What must a mazik pay when an animal eats immature crops that would have regrown? Rashi (רש"י) holds you pay only for the field's devaluation since the owner wouldn't have harvested early anyway. Tosafos (תוספות) argues the owner could have harvested, so the mazik must pay the full value of what was eaten plus the future loss.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on Bava Kamma 2b regarding the concept of lo mechalek karna (not destroying the principal) in damages. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where an animal eats shachas (immature crops) that would have regrown. The question is how to evaluate the damage and whether this qualifies as lo mechalek karna. The Gemara learns from the pasuk "v'shilach" that even when the keren (principal) is not entirely destroyed—lo mechalek karna—one is still liable. Through a hekesh (textual comparison) between shen (tooth) and regel (foot), the Gemara establishes that shen also has liability even in cases of lo mechalek karna. Rashi explains this with the case of achla aruga (eating a row of crops) that is se'ifa lachzor u'litzmach—it will grow back, though not to its original state. According to Rashi, v'shilach teaches that even when something will regrow, there is still liability for the diminished value.
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
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.
