No community start suggestion yet.
Why is one liable for stealing and slaughtering a treifa or slaughtering in the Beis Hamikdash, yet exempt on Shabbos (שבת)? The shiur analyzes whether shechita she'eina re'uya (slaughter that doesn't permit consumption) counts as valid slaughter. The resolution turns on whether the Torah (תורה) grants the act "chashivus shechita" through creating an issur—distinguishing cases where the prohibition flows from the slaughter itself versus external factors like Shabbos.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Bava Kamma 61a regarding the halachic status of shechita she'eina re'uya—slaughter that does not render the animal permissible for consumption. The Mishna presents cases where one who steals and slaughters an animal is liable for the four- or five-fold payment (arba'a v'chameisha), even though the slaughter doesn't produce kosher meat: slaughtering a treifa, or slaughtering ordinary animals (chulin) in the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdash. Yet slaughtering on Shabbos (שבת) exempts from payment. The Rosh explains that the exemption on Shabbos follows Rabbi Yochanan of Sander, who holds that shechita she'eina re'uya is not considered valid slaughter at all. But the Maharsha raises a difficulty: our Mishna itself seems to hold that shechita she'eina re'uya IS valid slaughter—otherwise why would one be liable for slaughtering a treifa? The Gemara (גמרא) explicitly holds that slaughtering a treifa is shechita she'eina re'uya, yet the Mishna still obligates payment.
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 61a
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.
