No community start suggestion yet.
When does performing multiple melachos on Shabbos (שבת) obligate one korban versus multiple korbanos? The shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 2a's principle distinguishing avos melachos from toldos, exploring Rabbeinu Avrohom and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of when different mistakes require separate atonement. The discussion turns on whether forgetting the concept of toldos altogether constitutes one unified error or multiple discrete transgressions.
This shiur provides an intricate analysis of Bava Kamma 2a, focusing on the fundamental distinction between avos melachos (primary categories of forbidden labor on Shabbos (שבת)) and toldos (derivative labors). The central question is: when someone performs multiple forbidden acts on Shabbos inadvertently, how many chatas offerings must he bring? The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma establishes a principle: if one performs two avos b'he'elem echad (in one lapse of awareness), he is liable for each separately. The question arises regarding two toldos performed in one lapse—does the same principle apply? The Gemara discusses whether performing an av and its toldah together renders one liable for one korban or two, ultimately concluding that av v'toldah dedei (an av and its toldah together) obligates only one korban.
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 2a
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.
