A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) bring a pasuk from Nach to teach keren talush when it holds divrei Torah (תורה) midivrei kabbalah lo yalfinan? The shiur argues the Tanna uses the pasuk as an asmachta—not to derive halacha (הלכה) but to signal his svara that keren talush pays chatzi nezek just like keren mechubar. The distinction between asmachta here and lexicon-learning by shen/regel is carefully developed.
This shiur analyzes a difficult passage in Bava Kamma 2a concerning the halacha (הלכה) of keren talush (a detached horn) and the Gemara (גמרא)'s use of a pasuk from Tanach to teach it. The central question is: if the Tanna holds divrei Torah (תורה) midivrei kabbalah lo yalfinan—that we cannot derive halacha from Nevi'im—why does he bring a pasuk from Melachim (Tzidkiyahu's symbolic horns of iron) to teach the case of keren talush? Rabbi Zweig works through the Gemara's structure. The Gemara cites two pesukim: one from Nach (Melachim) and one from the Torah (Devarim's "bechor shor hodulo, karnei re'em karnov"). The Gemara asks: if you hold divrei Torah midivrei kabbalah lo yalfinan, why bring the pasuk from Nach at all? Just go straight to the Torah's pasuk about keren! The Gemara concludes it must be a gili milsa—the pasuk is merely revealing the plain meaning of the word, not deriving new law.
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.
