No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna discuss an animal kicking stones (tzroros) in the middle of discussing regel? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) treat it as a toldah of keren, raising questions about the Mishna's structure. The shiur explores whether shinui (unusual action) creates keren or simply a different type of regel, examining the dispute between the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach (meshuna regel pays in reshus harabim) and Rashi/Tosafos (shinui makes it keren).
The shiur analyzes a fundamental difficulty in understanding the Mishna on Bava Kamma 17a. The Mishna begins discussing the av (primary category) of regel (damage caused by an animal's normal walking), but then introduces the case of an animal kicking pebbles (tzroros). Rashi (רש"י) explicitly states that this is a toldah (subcategory) of keren (damage through unusual actions), not regel. This raises the question: why does the Mishna insert a discussion of keren in the middle of explaining regel? The structural difficulty is compounded by the fact that if the Mishna wanted to discuss chatzi nezek (half damages) associated with keren, it could have listed all the toldos of keren together. Rabbi Zweig presents the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s unique approach to understanding this case. According to the Rambam, the case of tzroros is not keren at all, but rather a type of regel. The Rambam holds that when something involves shinui (unusual action) but occurs derech hiluchah (during the normal course of walking), it may still be classified as regel rather than keren. The key distinction is whether there is kavana l'hazik (intent to damage). The Rambam suggests that keren requires not just shinui but also kavana l'hazik. When an animal kicks pebbles while walking, even though this is meshuna (unusual), it lacks the focused intent that characterizes keren.
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 17a
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.
