No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) say "mechutach be'ofer be'alma" when a thief slaughters for avodah zarah? Tosfos challenges the Gemara's language, arguing it should apply equally to all slaughter. The shiur proposes that kinyan geneivah can acquire issur hanaa when the slaughter creates a shinui hashem (ה׳), making the thief owner—and thus exempt from double payment for a stolen animal.
The shiur focuses on a complex Tosfos on Bava Kamma 71a regarding the mechanics of kinyan (acquisition) when a thief slaughters an animal for avodah zarah. The Gemara (גמרא) states that if someone slaughters on Shabbos (שבת) outside the Temple for avodah zarah, he is liable for three chatat offerings. Tosfos asks: the Gemara says that avodah zarah makes the animal "mechutach be'ofer be'alma" (literally "severed as dust"), meaning it is no longer the original owner's property because it is asur be'hanaa (forbidden in benefit). But this language seems imprecise—the Gemara should simply have said it is not ra'ui to be brought as a korban. Rabbi Zweig proposes that the phrase "mechutach be'ofer" in the context of kodashim reflects a deeper principle: when kodashim has an issur hanaa intrinsically (as hekdesh property), and one slaughters it improperly (e.g., for avodah zarah), the issur hanaa remains because the slaughter doesn't effect a proper shechitat kodashim. Thus it is "mechutach be'ofer" not because the avodah zarah creates a new issur, but because the kodashim issur hanaa was never removed. In contrast, when slaughtering an ordinary animal for avodah zarah, the slaughter itself creates the issur hanaa. Therefore, the Gemara's formulation is precise: by kodashim, the issur remains "be'ofer be'alma," while by chulin (non-sacred animals), the shechita generates the issur.
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 71a
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.
