A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is someone liable for damages when their animal falls from a wall onto vessels below? The shiur analyzes whether hilchisa peshiya v'sofa b'onus applies when there's no chiyuv shemirah, drawing a fundamental distinction: peshiya liability requires that the damage was likely to occur from the jumping itself (kfitzah), not merely from walking afterward. Rabbeinu Chananel and the Rambam (רמב"ם) disagree on whether this applies to two separate vessels.
The shiur begins with a fundamental challenge to understanding the Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 21a regarding an animal standing on a wall that falls and damages vessels below. The standard framework of hilchisa peshiya v'sofa b'onus (beginning with negligence and ending with unavoidable accident) ordinarily applies where someone has a chiyuv shemirah—a duty of watchfulness—such as a shomer (guardian) of an object. In such cases, being poshei'a (negligent) in one's duty removes the exemption normally granted for oness (unavoidable accident). The fundamental question raised is: how can this principle apply in our case of an animal on a wall, where there is no pre-existing chiyuv shemirah? The owner hasn't accepted responsibility to guard someone else's property, so what creates the peshiya? Rabbi Zweig further sharpens the question by analyzing the nature of the exemption. When an animal falls due to a ruach she'eino metzuya (unusual wind), the exemption is not based on having fulfilled one's shemirah obligation—it's based on the fact that this is simply not the person's ma'aseh (action). It was the wind's doing, not the owner's. This distinction is critical: hilchisa peshiya v'sofa b'onus can only remove an exemption that is based on proper shemirah. But when the exemption is based on "lo ma'aseh sheli" (not my action), there can be no concept of hilchisa peshiya removing that exemption. The shiur demonstrates this with an example: if someone picks up your animal and throws it onto vessels, you are clearly exempt—not because you were a proper shomer, but because it was the other person's ma'aseh entirely.
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 21a
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.
