A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos (שבת) 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 (רמב"ם)'s position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
This shiur provides a deep analysis of Bava Kamma 60b, focusing on the case of a ganav (thief) who sells (mokher) a stolen animal on Shabbos (שבת). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses why the buyer's payment (the teina) does not constitute valid kesef for kinyan, since the ganav would not be obligated to return either the money or the animal—this money therefore cannot create a valid mechira. The shiur raises a fundamental question: if the Torah (תורה) requires "mechira" for the fourfold/fivefold payment (arba v'chamishah), and this is not a true sale (since the ganav never delivers title), why should the technical requirement of valid kinyan kesef matter at all? The Rashba's principle is examined: ganav v'nosan matana (a thief who gives as a gift) is liable because matana is "nishtarish b'chet"—the object has been completely removed from the original owner. The shiur probes what "nishtarish b'chet" means: does it suffice that the item has left the owner's possession, or must there be a formal mechira? The answer proposed is that matana is considered a form of mechira because even when giving a gift, the recipient incurs a moral obligation (machzik tovah)—he owes gratitude, if not a legal debt. This moral reciprocity gives matana the character of mechira for purposes of the Torah's requirement of "ganav u'mokach."
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.
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.
Does tzoros (pebbles kicked up by an animal) require three acts to become muad, and what is the nature of its payment? The shiur analyzes whether tzoros is fundamentally classified as regel (foot damage) or keren (horn damage), exploring how shinui (deviation) affects liability and whether damages paid are me'aliyah (from owner's estate) or migufo (from the animal itself).
