A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does tzoros (pebbles kicked up by an animal) require three acts to become muad, and what is the nature of its payment? The shiur analyzes whether tzoros is fundamentally classified as regel (foot damage) or keren (horn damage), exploring how shinui (deviation) affects liability and whether damages paid are me'aliyah (from owner's estate) or migufo (from the animal itself).
This shiur delves deeply into the sugya of Bava Kamma 18a-b concerning the nature of tzoros (pebbles kicked up by an animal's foot) and how it is classified for purposes of damages. The central issue is whether tzoros has a din of ha'ad (becoming muad after three incidents) and whether its payments are considered migufo (from the animal itself) or me'aliyah (from the owner's estate). The Gemara (גמרא) examines the position of Rav Elazar who holds yesh ad le'tzoros (tzoros can become muad), contrasted with the view of ein ha'ad le'tzoros. Rabbi Zweig carefully analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary, which presents significant interpretive challenges. Rashi suggests that when there is a shinui (deviation) in tzoros—such as throwing pebbles with unusual force—the question arises whether this removes it from the category of regel and transforms it into keren. According to Rebbe Eliezer, such a shinui causes tzoros to depart from its original tolda of regel and become a tolda of keren.
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-b
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.
