A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a thief sell stolen property before the owner despairs? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet about when the fourfold/fivefold penalty applies. The core question: Does selling kinyan geneivah (the thief's limited acquisition) itself constitute a valid sale, or must the sale remove the object from the owner's control entirely?
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Bava Kamma (57b-58a) regarding the liability of a thief who slaughters or sells a stolen animal. The fundamental question is whether the fourfold or fivefold penalty (arba'ah v'chamishah) applies only after the owner has despaired (yei'ush) or even before yei'ush. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet. Rav Nachman holds that one is liable for arba'ah v'chamishah even before yei'ush (lefnei yei'ush), learning this from a special pasuk. Rav Sheshet, conversely, holds that liability applies only after yei'ush (achar yei'ush), also derived from a pasuk. Rashi (רש"י) explains that without their respective pesukim, each would have held the opposite position from what the pasuk teaches. This creates an apparent contradiction in their fundamental assumptions.
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 57b-58a
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.
