No community start suggestion yet.
Does yiush work through kinyan geneiva (like shinui), or is it independent like aveida? The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 56b presents Rava arguing yiush operates via kinyan geneiva (which the issur delays), while Rav Yosef holds kinyan geneiva prevents yiush from working since one cannot be me'ayeish on an obligation. The Rosh's position—that midrabanan you can hold the object but lack full kinyan—depends on whether we follow Rava's mechanism or Rav Yosef's reasoning.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding how yiush (despair) functions in the laws of gezeila (theft). The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 56b presents the question of whether yiush allows the thief to acquire the stolen object, and if so, whether this works on a Torah (תורה) level (midoraisa) or rabbinically (midrabanan). The shiur opens by establishing that shinui (physical change) clearly works to transfer ownership because once the object is no longer the same, the chiyuv hashava (obligation to return) no longer applies, allowing the kinyan geneiva (the thief's inherent acquisition) to take effect. The question is whether yiush operates through the same mechanism—removing the chiyuv hashava and activating the underlying kinyan geneiva—or through an entirely different mechanism, similar to how yiush works by aveida (lost objects).
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 56b
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.
