A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) asks why yoshein (sleeping damage) is a tolda rather than an av. The shiur develops a bold reading of the Rambam (רמב"ם): the only true av of adam is geneiva, which requires both physical action and intelligent intent (machshava to acquire). All other forms of damage—yado, gufo, yoshein—are merely toldos because they involve only physical action without the full engagement of human intelligence.
The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 3a-b raises the question of why yoshein (sleeping damage) is classified as a tolda rather than an av of adam. The simple reading of the Gemara suggests that or (waking damage) is the av and yoshein is the tolda, similar in liability (tolda sama). Tosfos notes that the Gemara could have challenged this premise by citing sources that indicate yoshein is actually an av, but it doesn't do so, suggesting the Gemara accepts yoshein as a tolda. The shiur then examines Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary, which appears contradictory. Rashi uses both the term "gufo" (his body itself) suggesting an av, and "chayav" (liable the same) suggesting a tolda. This internal tension in Rashi requires explanation—if it's the gufo of adam it should be an av; if it's merely chayav like the tolda, then the reference to gufo is puzzling.
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 3a-b
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.
