No community start suggestion yet.
When does damage occur—when you throw the object or when it breaks? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between basar mikara and basar tavramona, distinguishing between the moment the maisa hezek begins and when the chefetz loses its shavus. Rashi (רש"י) and the Tosfos are shown to hold fundamentally different positions on why a second damager is exempt.
This shiur offers an in-depth analysis of Bava Kamma 17b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s fundamental question of when damage is considered to have occurred. The discussion begins with Rashi (רש"י)'s comment that the second damager is exempt, and the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s challenge: if the reason for exemption is that the object has no value (ain lo damim), why does it matter whether you threw a stone at an object (zorich even) or stepped on the object itself (zorich kli)? In both cases, there should be no value. Rabbi Zweig develops the Tosfos's position that there is a fundamental distinction between zorich kli and zorich even. When you step on an object (zorich kli), the damage assessment follows basar mikara—the moment of initial contact. When you throw a stone at an object (zorich even), it follows basar tavramona—when it actually breaks. The Tosfos proves this from the Rosh's question about throwing an object from reshus harabim that breaks in reshus hayachid, where the Gemara's principle of basar mikara should exempt the damager, yet the Rosh says there is liability because of bir bestacha.
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 17b
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.
