A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is one liable for damage when leaving a tied ox with a deaf-mute child, but exempt when leaving fire? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes based on derech - children naturally tamper with tied animals but don't typically fan flames. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot dispute whether the liability stems from inadequate initial guarding or from choosing an unreliable guardian.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Bava Kamma 21b, which discusses the principle 'kol shechaiv b'shmirasach shehaitiu nezikah' - anyone obligated in guarding who caused damage through inadequate watching is liable. The Mishna establishes that if one is partially responsible for damage, they are liable for the entire damage as if they caused it completely. The Gemara presents a case where someone gives a tied ox or covered pit to a deaf-mute child (cheresh she'eino pikeiach), and damage occurs. The question is whether the owner remains liable, unlike the case of fire where one would be exempt. The Gemara explains that with an ox and pit, their natural tendency (derech) is to eventually cause damage - ropes come undone and coverings fall away. Fire, however, naturally extinguishes over time.
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 21b
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.
