A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When five people are appointed to guard an animal and one leaves, is he liable if the animal later causes damage? The Gemara (גמרא) on Bava Kamma 10b explores the liability of a guardian who abandons his post when others remain watching. The Rosh holds he is exempt because his negligence didn't directly cause the damage, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) holds all are equally liable.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 10b dealing with shaid timitzris nisca (partial guardianship) and the question of liability when multiple shomrim (guardians) are watching an object or animal jointly. The central case discusses five people who are assigned to watch an animal, and one of them abandons his post by being pasheia (negligent), while the others continue watching. Later, the remaining guardians also become negligent, and the animal escapes and causes damage. The Gemara (גמרא) asks whether the first person who left should be liable for the damage that occurred afterward. The simple reading (psheta) suggests he should be liable since his negligence initiated the chain of events. However, the Gemara develops a more nuanced analysis. Rashi (רש"י) explains the case involves a wild animal that requires five people to physically hold it down. When one person lets go, the animal escapes even though four people are still holding it, making it clear that his negligence directly caused the damage.
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 10b
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.
