No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that a shomer who was poshea in caring for land must pay for lost profits—something even a mazik doesn't pay? The shiur develops the chiddush that shomer obligations are not about negligent watching but about the original taking: when you take something with conditions, failure to meet those conditions makes the taking itself a mazik b'yadayim. This reframes the entire din of shemirah.
The shiur begins with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling in Hilchos Sechirus 1 that a shoel is liable for everything, even oness gadol, except when the animal dies during the actual work (beshas melacha). This is mechuyav the Rambam from other Rishonim like the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rosh, who hold that meisa machmas melacha exempts even after the work. The Lechem Mishneh asks why the Rambam distinguishes between death (which requires beshas melacha) and exhaustion/weakness (where machmas melacha exempts even afterward). The Rivash explains that by death you cannot assume causation unless it happens during work, but exhaustion clearly stems from the labor even if manifested later. Rabbi Zweig challenges this: why can't an animal die beshas melacha from unrelated causes like a heart attack? The presumption should work equally well after melacha when the animal drops dead from apparent overexertion. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion creates further difficulties. The Gemara asks about the status of kichush machmas melacha and indicates that if meisa machmas melacha is chayav, you can ask about kichush; if meisa is patur, then kichush is certainly patur. Yet the Rambam holds meisa machmas melacha is chayav while kichush machmas melacha is patur—seemingly contradicting the Gemara's assumption that they are linked. Additionally, the Tur's formulation "lo mibai kichush ela afilu meisa" seems backwards, stating the smaller chiddush after the larger one.
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 4b
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.
