A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does the prohibition of Esnan depend on the object given or the woman's intent? The Gemara (גמרא) on Bava Kamma 65b-66a compares Esnan to Shinui Kona. Tosfos argues that Esnan is determined not by what was physically paid, but by what the woman agreed to receive—her kavana creates the issur, making Esnan fundamentally a din in kavana rather than in the chefetz itself.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 65b-66a dealing with the relationship between Shinui Kona (change of form creating ownership) and the prohibition of Esnan Zona (payment to a harlot). The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to prove from Beis Shammai's position on Esnan that Shinui is not Kona—if it were, the changed object should be kosher for a korban since it's now a different entity. Tosfos raises a fundamental question: Why does the Gemara compare Esnan to Shinui at all? What is the conceptual connection? Tosfos answers that the Gemara's logic runs in reverse of what seems obvious. Rather than learning from Esnan to Shinui, we actually learn from Shinui to Esnan. If Shinui were Kona, then by Esnan the changed object should be permissible, since it's now a different chefetz.
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 65b-66a
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.
