No community start suggestion yet.
Why should a thief who has someone else shecht a stolen animal on Shabbos (שבת) pay the four- or five-fold penalty when normally Shabbos violation would exempt him? The shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between agency (shlichus) and causation (grama), showing that even when true agency doesn't apply due to ein shaliach l'dvar aveira, the thief may still be liable through indirect causation for the shechita itself—just not for the Shabbos violation.
This shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 61a dealing with the intersection of monetary liability and Shabbos (שבת) violation in cases of theft. The central question is: if someone steals an animal and has it slaughtered on Shabbos through an agent (shaliach), should they be liable for the enhanced four- or five-fold penalty (arba'a vachamisha), or should the Shabbos violation exempt them from payment? The Gemara initially questions why Rabbi Meir holds that one who slaughters on Yom Kippur must still pay. Since Yom Kippur violation carries malkos (lashes), and Rabbi Meir generally holds "lokeh umeshalem" (one receives both lashes and pays), the question arises whether the same principle should apply to Shabbos violations which carry the death penalty (misah). The shiur develops an important conceptual distinction: when the punishment is death (misah), it may already encompass all lesser punishments, whereas malkos is considered a separate, discrete punishment that doesn't automatically include monetary liability.
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 61a
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.
