No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a ganav who steals on Shabbos (שבת) through zrika (throwing) escape double payment? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s answer in Bava Kamma 70b and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment in Hilchos Geneiva 3:2. The central difficulty: the Rambam paskens akirah tzarich hanacha, which should eliminate the need for the Gemara's special case. The answer develops a fundamental yesod: kam lei bideraba minei by knas (theft) only applies when the ma'aseh mechira and issur Shabbos occur simultaneously—not just the kinyan.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of the sugya in Bava Kamma 70b dealing with the principle of kam lei bideraba minei—specifically when a thief steals on Shabbos (שבת). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone throws (zarik) a stolen animal from reshus ha-rabim into his own reshus on Shabbos, violating both the issur geneiva (theft) and the issur Shabbos (carrying from one domain to another). The question arises: since the thief violates two prohibitions simultaneously, does he receive both punishments, or does the principle of kam lei bideraba minei exempt him from the monetary payment of kefel (double payment for theft)? The Gemara's answer is that the case involves one where the buyer stipulated "lo tikneh li ad she'tanuach ba-chatzer"—the kinyan should not take effect until the object comes to rest in his courtyard. Since the kinyan of the theft and the violation of Shabbos occur at the same moment (when the object comes to rest), kam lei bideraba minei applies and he is exempt from the monetary payment.
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 70b; Rambam Hilchos Geneiva 3:2
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.
