A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is hekdesh considered a "shini reshus" (change of domain) but not a sale that obligates payment? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: hekdesh effects a change of control, not a transfer of ownership. This explains the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that one is exempt from the fourfold/fivefold penalty, and why monetary responsibility (achrayus) ends when a korban reaches the azarah.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Bava Kamma 57a, focusing on the nature of hekdesh (consecration) and its classification as a "shini reshus" (change of domain) in the context of the laws of theft and sale. The central question is why hekdesh is considered a shini reshus for certain halachic purposes, yet does not constitute a "mechirah" (sale) that would trigger the obligation to pay the fourfold or fivefold penalty (daled v'hei) for stealing and selling an animal. Rabbi Zweig cites Tosafos (תוספות) on daf 56b, which raises a fundamental difficulty: consecrated items that remain subject to the owner's financial responsibility (kotzim she'chayav b'achrayusan) are classified as shini reshus, while those not subject to such responsibility (kotzim she'ein chayav b'achrayusan) are also shini reshus. The Pnei Yehoshua questions what practical difference this distinction makes. The shiur addresses this by exploring the unique nature of hekdesh as a legal category.
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.
