A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is one liable for all injury damages from a bor kol shu (less than 10 tefachim) but exempt from death? The shiur develops that nezikim liability requires paying for actual damage caused, while misah liability is fundamentally different—it requires replacing the entire animal. A bor kol shu creates responsibility for injuries but isn't sufficient for the replacement obligation that death entails.
This shiur analyzes Rambam (רמב"ם) Hilchos Nizkei Mamon regarding the fundamental distinctions between liability for nezikin (injuries) and misah (death) in cases of bor (pit). The Rambam in halacha (הלכה) yud states that a bor less than ten tefachim deep exempts the owner from death liability based on the pasuk, yet in halacha tes vav, the Rambam introduces a new reasoning—that such a pit is not "motzei" (likely) to cause death. The apparent redundancy raises questions about why the Rambam needs both the pasuk and the sevara. The shiur examines Rishonim including Tosafos (תוספות), Rabbeinu Tam, and the Melo HaRo'im who distinguish between two forms of bor liability: (1) damage caused directly by the bor itself (falling into it), and (2) damage caused indirectly when the bor causes a person to trip and get hurt on karka olam (the ground). According to Rabbeinu Tam and the Melo HaRo'im, there exists a din of "gorim hahezek"—causing the damage—where even if the injury occurs on the ground rather than in the bor itself, the baal habor is liable because he caused the person to trip.
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 3a-b, 10a
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.
