No community start suggestion yet.
Why is the final digger liable when a pit is completed by multiple people? The Gemara (גמרא) on Bava Kamma 6a offers two approaches: either he created a qualitatively new lethal pit (Tosfos), or he increased the damage potential by utilizing the prior work (Rashi (רש"י)). The shiur develops how this dispute affects cases where the pit goes from 7 to 8 tefachim versus 10 to 30.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion on Bava Kamma 6a regarding the principle of "acharon chayav"—why the last person who completes a bor (pit) is liable for damages. The core question is: what is the conceptual basis for holding the final digger responsible? The Gemara presents a fundamental dispute about whether the Mishna's case must involve nezakin (damages) or can involve misah (death). According to Rebbe, when one person digs 9 tefachim and another digs the 10th, they share liability for nezakin but only the second is liable for misah. According to the Chachamim, the acharon (last digger) bears full liability. The shiur explores what happens when both parties jointly dig the final tefach together—Rashi (רש"י) explains this creates a "kol sheken" (all the more so) case where both are liable.
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 6a
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.
