A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When is a person liable for damage caused by an ox given to a shoteh (mentally incompetent person) or katan (minor)? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish, exploring whether giving to a shoteh/katan constitutes negligence in guarding or whether it creates the damage itself. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot offer fundamentally different frameworks for understanding the legal responsibility.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Bava Kamma 9b, focusing on the dispute between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding liability when one gives a guarded animal (shor kosher) or fire (gacheles/shalheves) to a shoteh (mentally incompetent person) or katan (minor), and damage subsequently occurs. The Gemara (גמרא)'s foundational question centers on the nature of the liability: Is one liable because of negligent guarding (peshiya in shemirah), or because one's action caused the damage (ma'aseh hezeq)? The shiur explores the concept of "derech le'natukei" — the natural tendency of an ox to break free — and how this relates to the requirement of proper guarding.
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 9b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
