A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When the Mishna says "ein bein" (there is no difference except), does that mean an exhaustive list or only differences in one aspect? The shiur analyzes Tosfos's approach to this question on Bava Kamma 62b, raising four difficulties on Tosfos's treatment of kefel versus dalet v'hei, and resolving them through the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Ramban (רמב"ן) regarding the nature of nedarim and nedavos.
This shiur presents a deep analysis of Tosfos on Bava Kamma 62b, focusing on the fundamental question of how to understand the Mishnaic expression "ein bein" — whether it indicates an exhaustive list of differences or merely highlights differences within a particular aspect while allowing for other differences in unrelated areas. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether tashlumei kefel (double payment) is more extensive (meruba) than tashlumei arba'ah v'chamishah (four- and five-fold payment). The question arises: if the Mishna had used "ein bein" instead of "meruba," would that indicate an exhaustive list, making it a clear proof? Tosfos raises a difficulty from Megillah where the Mishna states "ein bein neder l'nedavah" (there is no difference between a neder and a nedavah except for achrayus), yet there are clearly other differences, such as whether one can bring the korban from ma'aser sheni.
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 62b
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.
