No community start suggestion yet.
When stolen property appreciates and is then slaughtered or broken, why does the thief pay the increased value? The shiur argues that taaveh v'shachat is not a new maaseh gezela but a continuation of the original theft. This reframes the Nesivos-Ketzos debate and resolves apparent contradictions with the Gemara (גמרא)'s yiush principles.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental question of whether taaveh v'shachat (slaughtering or breaking stolen property) constitutes a new act of theft or a continuation of the original theft. Rabbi Zweig challenges the conventional understanding of the machlokes between the Nesivos and Ketzos HaChoshen. The core issue arises from Bava Kamma 55a regarding Rabba's position: if you steal something worth one and it appreciates to four, then you slaughter or break it, you must pay four. The apparent problem is that if slaughtering creates a "new gezela," then according to the Gemara (גמרא) elsewhere (Rav Chisda's principle that after yiush you cannot collect from the second person), one should be exempt if the owner was mi'ayeish before the slaughter.
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 55a
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.
