No community start suggestion yet.
When an animal breaks a rope and the suspended object falls and shatters, is liability determined at the moment of cutting the rope or when the object hits the ground? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between direct (boser mikar) and indirect (tover moneh) causation, examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position that liability depends on when the damage becomes inevitable and Tosfos's distinction between damaging the object itself versus damaging something connected to it.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 17b, which discusses a case where an animal cuts a rope holding up a vessel, causing the vessel to fall and break. The central question is whether we determine the moment of breakage at the point where the rope was cut (boser mikar) or at the point where the vessel actually hit the ground (boser tover moneh). This distinction has profound implications for whether the damages are classified as nezek shalem (full damages) or chatzi nezek (half damages), and whether the case involves kocho (indirect force) or gufo (direct action). Rabbi Zweig raises several fundamental questions on Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation. First, Rashi assumes that the one who threw the vessel off the wall was not the owner (baal habayis), but this assumption is not explicit in the Gemara (גמרא). Why couldn't the case involve the owner himself throwing it down? Second, Rashi states that the entire din of boser mikar applies only when it is sof lihishaver (inevitably going to break). But the Gemara doesn't explicitly state that the case involves sof lihishaver. Perhaps someone could have caught the falling object, making it less than inevitable—similar to kar mikosasos (soft cushions) where breakage is prevented. If the breakage wasn't truly inevitable, how can the one who subsequently broke it (the sheni) be exempt?
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 17b
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.
