No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a purchaser from a thief have to pay the original owner when yiush and shinui reshus transfer ownership? The shiur develops two competing frameworks: yiush works like aveida (independent kinyan) or through kinyan genevah (theft-based property rights). The Raavad's position that the lokeach must pay even after acquiring ownership forces a fundamental reexamination of the basis of payment—not because ownership is incomplete, but because the purchaser obligated himself through the agreed price.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur explores the fundamental mechanisms behind yiush (despair of recovery) and its relationship to kinyan genevah (acquisition through theft), focusing on Bava Kamma 57a and the dispute between Rishonim regarding when and how a purchaser from a thief acquires ownership. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting Rabbeinu Tam's position from Tosafos (תוספות) and Sefer HaYashar: yiush works in conjunction with kinyan genevah. The question arises—if the Gemara states "amar Ula mehanaya yiush einah konah" (Ula says from where do we know yiush does not effect acquisition), how can Rabbeinu Tam hold that yiush is koneh? The resolution lies in distinguishing two possible mechanisms for yiush: (1) yiush combined with kinyan genevah removes the chiyuv hashavah (obligation to return), allowing the theft-based acquisition to stand, or (2) yiush operates independently like by aveida, where despair itself creates ownership. Rabbeinu Tam holds the former—yiush enables kinyan genevah to work, which is why there remains an issur of mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah (commandment fulfilled through sin). The Gemara's statement that "yiush einah konah" means yiush alone, without kinyan genevah, does not create ownership.
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 57a
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.
