A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is the thief exempt from payment when he steals and sells on Shabbos (שבת)? The analysis builds on whether the melachah of hotza'ah and ma'avir dalet amos are "continuous melachos" or discrete endpoints. Tosfos asks why kam leh b'derabbah doesn't apply when damage occurs mid-flight, and the shiur resolves this through distinguishing between carrying (ongoing) and transfer (terminal).
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 60b, focusing on the principle of kam leh b'derabbah minei (a person already liable for a capital crime is exempt from monetary obligations) in a case where a thief steals and sells stolen property on Shabbos (שבת) by throwing it into the buyer's courtyard. The Gemara (גמרא) explores when exactly the obligations for theft, selling, and violating Shabbos occur, and whether they coincide. The shiur begins by reviewing unresolved questions from earlier sessions, particularly Rav Kiveges's question: if the stolen object is still ben (in existence), the thief must return it to the buyer, creating value in the transaction—so why doesn't this constitute a valid sale? The Gemara's case involves the thief throwing stolen property into the buyer's chatzer on Shabbos. According to Rabbi Akiva, the buyer acquires ownership through chatzer koneh while the object is still in mid-air (klutah k'mi she'munach damya—an object in flight is like one at rest). However, the violation of Shabbos only occurs when the object lands. This creates a temporal gap: the kinyan (acquisition) happens first, then the Shabbos violation, so kam leh b'derabbah should not apply.
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 60b
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.
