A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does muad l'adam establish muad l'behema, and vice versa? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: the Gemara (גמרא)'s machlokes between Rav Zvi and Rav Papa isn't about the ox's nature (which remains a nakran for everything), but rather about the warning given to the owner — whether a warning for one species constitutes a warning for another. This yesod reconciles the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s seemingly contradictory pesakim in nezikin vs. kofer.
This Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes the sugya in Bava Kamma 2b regarding the fundamental question of muad l'adam and muad l'behema — whether an ox that has been established as muad (forewarned) for goring people is automatically muad for animals, and vice versa. The Gemara presents a machlokes between Rav Zvi and Rav Papa: Rav Zvi holds that muad l'adam is muad l'behema (because it's harder to gore a person than an animal, so if the ox gores people it will certainly gore animals), while Rav Papa holds that muad l'adam is NOT muad l'behema (they are different species requiring separate hazakos). The shiur begins by examining Tosafos (תוספות)'s second approach, which addresses the case where an ox gores one adam, one shor, and one chamor — establishing it as muad l'kol (muad for everything). Tosafos explains that when the ox demonstrates it will gore both adam and behema, this shows it doesn't differentiate between species. The difficulty arises regarding chazara (when the ox reverts from its muad status): if the ox was muad l'adam and muad l'behema, and then does chazara from behema (stops goring animals), why does it remain muad l'adam? According to Tosafos, since muad l'adam inherently includes the capacity to gore behema (as it's harder to gore people), the chazara from behema doesn't constitute a real change in the ox's nature, and therefore the muad status for adam remains intact.
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 2b
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.
