No community start suggestion yet.
Does yiush (the owner's despair) make a stolen item fully owned by the thief? The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 57a says "yiush is not koneh," yet Rabbeinu Tam holds yiush is koneh except for korbanos. The shiur explores a novel reading: yiush removes the original owner's claim (chirush hashava) but doesn't create full ownership—only a right to use, which is enough for most halachic purposes but not for mitzvah (מצוה) ba'aveirah cases like korbanos.
This shiur examines a fundamental dispute over the halachic status of a stolen item after the owner is miyaesh (despairs of recovering it). The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 57a discusses the case of a stolen animal designated as a korban Pesach (פסח) or Chagiga. The Gemara states that such an animal remains pasul (invalid) even after yiush because "gazul is like pisul," and just as pisul is always pasul, so too is gazul always pasul. The Gemara (quoting Ulla) derives from this that yiush einah koneh—despair does not transfer ownership. Rabbeinu Tam, however, presents a radically different approach. He argues that in all other cases besides korbanos, yiush IS koneh. The disqualification for korbanos is not because yiush fails to work, but rather because of the principle of mitzvah (מצוה) ba'aveirah—one cannot fulfill a mitzvah through a prohibited act. The shiur notes that this reading appears to contradict the Gemara's explicit language, which says "yiush einah koneh."
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.
