No community start suggestion yet.
What kavanah is required for an eved to go free when his master injures his eye? The shiur analyzes a braisa (26b) distinguishing between intent to touch the eye versus intent to heal, examining how Tosafot requires both absence of healing intent AND absence of intent to touch the limb, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) appears to contradict the sugya by requiring a stricter standard of kavanah.
This shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion in Bava Kamma 26b regarding when an eved goes free (yotzei lecheirius) after the master damages his eye. The central question is what level of kavanah (intent) is required for the eved to be freed. The Gemara presents a braisa where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Chachamim argue: according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, if the master was applying medicine to the eved's eye (miskaven letovaso - intending to heal) and accidentally blinded him, the eved does not go free; according to the Chachamim, the eved does go free even in this case. The Gemara attempts to derive from this that the machlokes parallels the dispute about melechet machsheves (intentional labor) on Shabbos (שבת) - that you need kavanah for melachah. However, Rabbi Zweig raises a fundamental difficulty: the braisa's case involves someone who WAS miskaven to touch the eye (to apply medicine), so how does this teach us about a case where there is no kavanah at all? The Gemara should have compared this to a different Gemara in Kiddushin discussing hoshit yad bemei shifcha (putting one's hand in the birth chamber) where there was truly no kavanah to touch the eye of the baby.
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 26b
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.
