A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When are you liable for fire damage caused by your animal carrying someone else's burning coal? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether liability requires ownership of the fire itself (esh mishum mamono) or just the causal action (esh mishum chitzoh). Rashi (רש"י)'s approach distinguishes between lighting in your own field versus another's field, fundamentally reframing what constitutes an act of damage versus mere ownership responsibility.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding fire liability, focusing on Bava Kamma 22a. The central question is whether one who causes fire damage must own the fire itself (esh mishum mamono) or whether the causative action suffices (esh mishum chitzoh). Rabbi Zweig examines several cases presented by the Pnei Yehoshua and Nachlas Dovid, who distinguish between lighting a fire in one's own field versus another's field, though Rabbi Zweig finds their reasoning unclear. The shiur develops a novel approach based on Rashi (רש"י)'s methodology. According to Rashi, esh mishum mamono applies even when there is no external force (koach acheirim or ruach matzuya)—if you light the edge of something that will inevitably burn under current atmospheric conditions, this is considered esh mishum mamono. The critical distinction Rashi makes is that lighting in one's own field is not considered an act of damage (maaseh hezek) at all, since one may do whatever one wishes with one's property. Therefore, liability can only arise from responsibility for the fire itself—but if it's not your fire, you are exempt. In contrast, when entering someone else's field and lighting something, the initial act itself constitutes adam hamazik (direct damage), and one bears responsibility for all consequences regardless of fire ownership.
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 22a
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.
