A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does an ox that gores three species (shor, chamor, adam) become mu'ad for all animals, yet an ox mu'ad for people alone is not mu'ad for animals? The shiur unpacks Tosfos's position that mu'ad le-adam is not mu'ad le-behemah, arguing that adam requires a higher degree of viciousness. When an ox gores all three species and then is chozer from one behemah, it remains mu'ad for that behemah because the higher anger level (evidenced by goring adam) sustains the chazakah—a single chazarah doesn't undo what three gorings established.
This shiur on Bava Kamma 2b delves into a fundamental Tosfos (cited as "Tosfos Umilsa" in the filename) addressing an apparent contradiction in the Gemara (גמרא)'s treatment of mu'ad le-adam versus mu'ad le-behemah. The Gemara establishes that an ox that is mu'ad le-adam (has gored people three times) is also mu'ad le-behemah (animals), but an ox that is mu'ad le-behemah is not mu'ad le-adam. Tosfos sharpens this: specifically, when an ox gores three distinct species—shor, chamor, and adam—it becomes mu'ad le-kol (mu'ad for everything). Yet if it gores only shor and chamor (two species of behemah), it does not become mu'ad le-adam. Rabbi Zweig begins by distinguishing Rashi (רש"י)'s approach from the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s on the din of kofer (atonement payment), then turns to the core difficulty: how does the Gemara's statement that "mu'ad le-adam havi mu'ad le-behemah" (mu'ad for people is mu'ad for animals) square with Rav Papa's position that mu'ad le-adam lo havi mu'ad le-behemah (mu'ad for people is NOT mu'ad for animals)? Tosfos answers that there are two distinct scenarios. When the ox has gored three different kinds—one adam, one shor, one chamor—it is mu'ad le-kol because it demonstrates lack of discrimination; it is a wild animal that will gore anything. In that case, the fact that it gored an adam shows it is also mu'ad for behemah. But when the ox has only gored adam three times, that does not make it mu'ad for behemah, because goring adam requires a higher threshold of anger or viciousness. The pattern of goring only adam suggests that something specific about adam triggers the animal, much as the Gemara says that an ox mu'ad on Shabbos (שבת) (when people wear special clothing) is not mu'ad during the week.
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 2b
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.
