No community start suggestion yet.
How can yiush work with shinui she'eno chozer (irreversible change) if the change alone isn't enough to transfer ownership? The shiur develops a yesod distinguishing between radical change of form (new ownership belongs to the ganav) and change of use (still continuous gezeila). After yiush, ongoing gezeila ceases, leaving only a mitzvah (מצוה) d'oraita—not a chiyuv mamon—to return the object, which explains how the ganav can be makdish it.
Rabbi Zweig analyzes a fundamental difficulty in Bava Kamma 56b concerning the interaction between yiush (despair of recovery) and shinui (change in the stolen object). Tosfos states that kitzua (cutting) by itself is not enough of a shinui meisa (change of form) to transfer ownership—it only works together with yiush. The core problem: if kitzua isn't a real shinui, the object remains "kein shegazal" (what was stolen). If it's still called what was stolen, there should be a chiyuv to return it. So how does yiush help? What's the connection between yiush and a shinui that isn't considered a true shinui meisa? The Sma (Shin Samach Alef) raises a parallel difficulty. The Mechaber says that yiush together with shinui Hashem (ה׳) (change of name) works as kinyan according to some opinions. The Sma asks: we learn out shinui from the pasuk of "asher gazal"—but that pasuk only teaches that you don't return it if it's shinui she'eino chozer (irreversible change). How can it teach the din by shinui she'eino chozer when the Torah (תורה)'s case is limited to that? How does yiush work together with these forms of shinui?
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.
