A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) distinguish av from toldah if you don't need to specify which you violated? Tosafos (תוספות) asks why not simply say the prohibition rather than name the melacha category. The shiur develops that hasra requires describing *creativity* itself — not just reciting the pasuk — because "lo saaseh kol melacha" includes non-creative acts like techumim. The av-toldah distinction thus functions differently than expected: you don't need the Torah (תורה)'s precise label, only a clear description of what was created.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental Tosafos (תוספות) on Bava Kamma 2a regarding the distinction between av and toldah melachos on Shabbos (שבת), particularly concerning the laws of hasra (forewarning). The primary question Tosafos raises is: Why didn't the Gemara (גמרא) state that the difference between av and toldah is that one must be masir (warn) about the toldah in the name of the av? Tosafos doesn't ask this question according to the Chachamim, where the halacha (הלכה) is clear that one brings separate korbanos for different avos and toldos. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds one is liable for a toldah even when done in the same context as an av, the Gemara seems to offer only a linguistic distinction rather than a halachic one. Rabbi Zweig challenges Tosafos's question from its very premise. He argues that the Gemara cited by Tosafos from Taanis — which states you must be masir a toldah in the name of its av — is actually following the Rabanan, not Rabbi Eliezer. According to the Rabanan, when you perform an av, you are not liable for the toldah separately, so the toldah is subordinate to the av. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, the toldah has independent status — even after performing an av, you have a separate chiyuv for the toldah. Given this independence, why would Tosafos assume that according to Rabbi Eliezer you must still be masir the toldah through the av? Perhaps according to Rabbi Eliezer, you would be masir the toldah from itself.
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.
