No community start suggestion yet.
Does despair (yeush) work after the finder picks up a lost object? The Gemara (גמרא) learns gezeilah from aveidah, implying yeush only helps before acquisition. Tosfos suggests yeush might work even after—exempting from returning the object itself, though monetary obligation remains—creating a fundamental chakira about whether yeush itself creates mechilah or merely defines "lost."
This shiur explores a fundamental question in the laws of aveidah (lost objects) and gezeilah (theft): does yeush (the owner's despair) work to transfer ownership if it occurs after the finder or thief has already acquired the object? The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 56a attempts to learn the din of yeush by gezeilah from the din of yeush by aveidah, stating that just as yeush works by aveidah when it occurs before the finder picks up the object (kodem she'ba l'yado), so too it should work by gezeilah. The Gemara rejects this, arguing that by aveidah the yeush only helps when it occurs before acquisition, whereas by gezeilah the yeush necessarily occurs after the thief has already taken the object (achar she'ba l'yado), creating a fundamental difference. Tosfos addresses a critical difficulty: if the Gemara knows for certain that yeush doesn't work by aveidah after the finder picks it up, then there should be no question whatsoever about gezeilah—it obviously wouldn't work either. Why does the Gemara even entertain the possibility? Tosfos suggests a revolutionary understanding: perhaps yeush does work partially even after acquisition in aveidah. Specifically, the finder might be able to keep the object itself but would still owe monetary compensation to the owner. This partial effectiveness of yeush would make the question about gezeilah meaningful.
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.
