No community start suggestion yet.
When a pebble (tzror) is kicked up by an animal's foot and causes damage, is it classified as keren or regel? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question centers on whether tzror pays chatzi nezek like keren and therefore carries liability in reshus harabim, or whether it's treated as a toldah of regel and exempt in the public domain. Rashi (רש"י)'s reading introduces a chakira about when bei'ta (repeated unusual kicking) transforms the status.
This advanced shiur analyzes one of the most challenging sugyos in Bava Kamma 19a, exploring the fundamental question of how to classify tzror (pebbles kicked up by an animal's foot) within the avos nezikin framework. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a debate about whether tzror should be treated as a toldah of keren (horn/goring) or a toldah of regel (foot), with profound implications for liability in reshus harabim (public domain). The shiur carefully examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, which diverges significantly from the straightforward reading. While the simple understanding suggests the Gemara is asking whether tzror is keren or regel, Rashi holds that everyone agrees it is a toldah of regel. The real question, according to Rashi, is whether we compare it to keren for certain dinim because it pays chatzi nezek (half damages) like keren, or whether we maintain all the dinim of regel because it fundamentally remains a toldah of regel.
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 19a
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.
