A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does the principle "kol hameshane b'achar mishna patur" mean—that the victim contributed to his own damage, or that the unusual reaction itself is predictable? The shiur develops two approaches: the Rosh holds it's a shmirah-based exemption (no duty to guard against an object that shouldn't be there), while the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rabbeinu Chananel hold it becomes shen v'regel (the startled animal's meshuna behavior is itself predictable), creating major halachic differences.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Bava Kamma 20a concerning the principle of kol hameshane b'achar mishna—when the damaged party (nizik) does something unusual that triggers damage, exempting the animal owner (mazik). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses multiple cases: an animal eating unusual foods (sus and kelim), two cows where one is walking and one lying down (shetei paros), and cases involving objects in the public domain. The shiur begins by establishing that all the Amoraim—Rav, Shmuel, Rabbi Yochanan, and Reish Lakish—fundamentally accept the principle of kol hameshane b'achar mishna patur. The disputes concern when this principle applies. By shetei paros (one cow walking, one resting), there's a machlokes: Reish Lakish holds kol hameshane applies (patur), while Rabbi Yochanan holds chayav. By sus and kelim, Rav and Reish Lakish hold patur because of kol hameshane, while Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan hold chayav, but only because there's no shinui—a person has reshus (permission) to put down his kelim to rest.
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 20a
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.
