A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why should yeiush work differently in theft (gezeilah) than in lost objects (aveida)? The Gemara (גמרא) learns gezeilah from aveida, but aveida requires yeiush before the finder picks it up, while gezeilah happens after the object is taken. The shiur explores whether yeiush transfers ownership immediately or only when compensation is paid, fundamentally reshaping how we understand yeiush lo midas in Bava Metzia.
The shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 56a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether yeiush (despair of recovering lost property) works by gezeilah (theft) the same way it works by aveida (lost objects). The Gemara attempts to learn that yeiush should be effective in cases of theft from the principle that yeiush works in cases of lost property. However, the Gemara itself notes a fundamental difficulty: by aveida, yeiush only works when it occurs before the finder picks up the object (kodem she'aslo l'yado), whereas by gezeilah, we are discussing yeiush that occurs after the object has already been taken. Rabbi Zweig presents this as a profound textual difficulty. The Gemara seems to be undermining its own proof - if aveida requires yeiush before acquisition, how can this serve as a model for gezeilah where yeiush necessarily comes after acquisition? This appears to be "mamash the opposite of what we're trying to prove."
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 56a
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.
