A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does yiush itself transfer ownership to a thief, or does kinyan geneivah? The shiur develops Rabbeinu Tam's revolutionary reading: "yiush eina konah" means yiush doesn't create ownership—kinyan geneivah does. This explains why stolen items used for korbanos remain tainted (mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah applies only when the aveirah creates the "lachem" requirement), while sukkos (סוכות) and matzah pose no problem.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Rabbeinu Tam's understanding of the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "yiush eina konah" (despair does not confer ownership) in Bava Kamma 57a. Rabbi Zweig develops a revolutionary interpretation that fundamentally reframes the entire sugya and its relationship to mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah (a mitzvah that comes through a transgression). The classic difficulty with Rabbeinu Tam is that the Gemara in Bava Kamma explicitly states "yiush eina konah," yet Rabbeinu Tam holds that yiush IS koneh—despair does transfer ownership. Furthermore, the Gemara in Sukkah seems to say the opposite: that yiush is koneh and it creates a mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah. How can these two Gemaras be reconciled?
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.
