A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When an animal's tail or feet cause damage in an unusual way (kishkesha biznova), is the owner liable or exempt? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question — whether this is a derivative (toladah) of keren (horn) or regel (foot) — generates a fundamental dispute about liability in public and private domains. The Raavad, Rosh, and Rambam (רמב"ם) disagree on whether the uncertainty produces exemption with collection rights (tefisa) or full liability.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 19b, which addresses the case of "kishkesha biznova" — when an animal's tail or feet cause damage in an unusual manner. The central question is whether the owner pays full damages, half damages, or is exempt, and whether this classification depends on whether the damage occurred in the public domain (reshut harabim) or the victim's domain (reshut hanizik). The Gemara (גמרא) initially asks whether this case should follow the rule of "mai havaleilah mevid" — that the owner is exempt because he couldn't prevent the damage without taking extraordinary measures. The Gemara then questions why this reasoning wouldn't apply equally to damages caused by the animal's horn (keren). The answer is that keren requires "kavana otzlo lehazik" (intent to damage), making it fundamentally different. This establishes that kishkesha biznova is not a straightforward case 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 19b
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.
