A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When you violate both an av melacha and its tolda in one helam, are you liable once or twice? The shiur explores how the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s two seemingly contradictory halachos resolve the dispute between Rav Elazar and the Chachamim, building on the fundamental question of whether chiluk melachos is a din in korbanos or a din in azharos.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Masechta Bava Kamma (Shabbos (שבת)) regarding liability when one performs an av melacha and its tolda in a single helam (period of unawareness). The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that performing an av and its tolda requires only one korban, yet performing two toldos from one av requires two korbanos. This appears contradictory and requires resolution. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing a foundational yesod: "lo ta'aseh kol melacha" on Shabbos is fundamentally an issur melacha—a prohibition on the person's creative action, not merely on the object (issur gavra, not issur chefetz). Therefore, even multiple melachos could theoretically be considered one prohibition that was repeated. The pasuk of "havara l'chalek yatzas" teaches us chiluk melachos—that each melacha carries separate liability.
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 2a
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.
