No community start suggestion yet.
Can despair (yiush) discharge a financial obligation? The shiur analyzes a case where a community lent money to a duke who defaulted, then his son began repaying—who gets the money? The Ramban (רמב"ן)'s revolutionary approach distinguishes between withholding an object (where yiush helps) versus owing money (where it doesn't), with major implications for understanding issur vs. maaseh gezeila.
This advanced shiur explores a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 56a regarding whether yiush (despair of recovery) can be effective on a chov (monetary obligation). The central case is a responsum from the Marik involving a community that lent money to a duke with an arrangement that he would reduce their taxes as repayment. When the duke failed to repay and the community gave up hope, his son later began making payments. The question arose: should the money go to the original lenders (the gabbaim who fronted the funds) or to the entire community (since everyone had despaired of recovery)? The shiur presents a fundamental machloket between the Marik (cited by the Rema) who holds that yiush works on a chov, and the Taz who brings the Chacham Tzvi arguing this makes no sense. The Taz's proof comes from the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of someone who picks up an aveida with intent to steal it (al menas legozla), then the owner is miyaesh, and then the finder decides to steal it. The Gemara rules he is still chayav in hashavat aveida—demonstrating that yiush doesn't help by gezeila even when the object is besuso liyado (in the thief's possession).
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 56a
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.
