A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does each creditor collect according to his original din (k'dinah) when a buyer purchases all three qualities of fields simultaneously? The Gemara (גמרא) introduces the concept of shaskus (threatening to return the fields), which allows the buyer to push creditors to lower-quality land, but then challenges this logic when applied to a Baal Nezikin. The Rashba's resolution—that shaskus only prevents unjust gains, not legitimate entitlements—is weighed against the apparent position of the Gemara.
This shiur analyzes a complex passage in Bava Kamma 8a-b concerning the rights of different types of creditors when a buyer purchases all three categories of a debtor's fields (ziburis, beinus, and edis). The central question is: when one person buys all three qualities of fields from someone who owes debts to multiple creditors (a woman with a kesuvah, a regular creditor/Baal Hov, and a victim of damages/Baal Nezikin), from which quality of land should each creditor collect? The Braisa establishes that each creditor gets "k'dinah"—according to their original legal entitlement. The kesuvah collects from ziburis (lowest quality), the Baal Hov from beinus (medium quality), and the Baal Nezikin from edis (highest quality). This seems straightforward when the sales were sequential, but becomes problematic when all three fields were sold simultaneously or when the times aren't recorded in the sales document.
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 8a-b
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.
