A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a thief exempt from the quadruple/quintuple penalty (daled v'hey) when he consecrates stolen property and then slaughters it? The shiur unpacks the machloket between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish over whether yiush (despair) transfers ownership, and exposes a fundamental difficulty: if the animal now belongs to Hekdesh, the slaughter is mere damage, not theft—so where is the basis for any daled v'hey obligation?
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 58b, focusing on a braisa that deals with a thief who consecrates (magdish) a stolen animal and then slaughters or sells it. The gemara (גמרא) struggles to reconcile the braisa with the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish over whether yiush (the owner's despair of recovering the stolen item) confers ownership on the thief. Rabbi Zweig begins by reviewing Rashi (רש"י)'s opening question: How can Hekdesh (consecration) take effect on stolen property at all? The gemara's answer depends on timing and ownership. According to Reish Lakish, yiush does not transfer ownership, so if the original owner consecrates the object even after yiush, the consecration is valid. According to Rabbi Yochanan, yiush does transfer ownership to the thief, so only the thief's act of consecration (after yiush) can take effect—because at that point, he is the owner.
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 58b
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.
