No community start suggestion yet.
When an animal jumps down from a wall and damages, is liability full nezek or chatzi nezek? The shiur analyzes a challenging contradiction between mishnayot and braisot regarding damage from above versus below. Through careful analysis of Rashi (רש"י), the Rif, and especially the Rambam (רמב"ם), the shiur develops a fundamental distinction: jumping down is muad (expected), creating full liability, while jumping up is not muad, limiting liability to chatzi nezek even for subsequent regular damage.
The shiur opens with a Gemara (גמרא) analyzing a contradiction between two braisot regarding an animal that damages after jumping. The first braisa (Tana Rabona) states that damage from above to below is chayav while damage from below to above is patur. This contradicts an earlier braisa that held one is chayav for damage from above to below. The core question: what does patur mean in this context, and how do we resolve this apparent contradiction? Rashi (רש"י)'s approach understands the Gemara as distinguishing between different cases. According to Rashi, when the Gemara says patur for jumping from below to above, it means chatzi nezek, not complete exemption. The animal jumping upward in an abnormal way (b'shinui) creates liability of chatzi nezek. When jumping down normally, one pays nezek shalem (full damages). However, this reading creates difficulties: why didn't the Gemara immediately recognize this contradiction with the Mishna?
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 Kama 21b-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.
