A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When two people sequentially damage an object that will inevitably break, who pays? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that when holding boser mikar (we assess from the point of throwing), both damagers may be patur—the first because he didn't physically break it, the second because the object is already considered broken. This challenges Rashi (רש"י)'s view and reveals a precise reading of the Gemara (גמרא)'s proof.
This shiur undertakes an intensive analysis of Bava Kamma 18a and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of a case where one person throws an object (making it inevitably broken) and a second person actually breaks it before it lands. The central question is whether we follow boser mikar (assess liability from the moment of throwing) or boser ta'ar moni (assess when the damage actually occurs), and what this means for each party's liability. The Rambam in Hilchos Chovel U'Mazik states that if someone throws an object from a roof and another person breaks it mid-fall, the second person is patur because he is merely breaking something already considered broken. The shiur notes that this seems to indicate the Rambam holds boser mikar, since the object is already deemed broken from the moment of throwing. Additionally, the Rambam requires in Hilchos Nizkei Mamon that the animal must be "noseg achar gli machmoson"—actively pursuing the bucket—to create liability, which also appears consistent with boser mikar.
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 18a
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.
