A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What standard of likelihood makes a bor liable for death versus injury? The shiur works through Rashi (רש"י)'s two approaches and Tosafos (תוספות) to define "darko lehamas" - whether it means the pit is likely to kill (but didn't necessarily cause this death), or whether death must actually be caused by the pit. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings on bor yud versus bor tes illuminate both readings.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Bava Kamma 3b-4a concerning the liability parameters of bor (pit) - specifically, what depth triggers liability for death versus injury, and what the term "darko lehamas" (its way is to kill) actually means. The Gemara (גמרא)'s back-and-forth establishes that bor yud (ten tefachim deep) creates liability for death, while bor tes (nine tefachim) does not, but the conceptual framework behind this distinction is the focus of intense analysis. The shiur begins by mapping the Gemara's oscillation: initially suggesting bor yud is an av and bor tes a toldah, then questioning where this distinction comes from ("lo av ksiv v'lo toldah ksiv"), then invoking the pasuk "v'hameis yihyeh lo" to establish the concept of darko, then concluding "sof sof zeh aveil misa v'zeh aveil nezikin" - that both are avos but govern different damage categories. The key question is what changed in the Gemara's understanding through this progression.
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 3b-4a
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.
