No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief sells on Shabbos (שבת), is he liable for the act of selling or only when the buyer acquires it? The Gemara (גמרא)'s two approaches define whether mechira is the seller's transferring act or the buyer's ownership. This distinction resolves the kom lei b'derabbana question and explains why the Rambam (רמב"ם) rules the sale and Shabbos violation must occur simultaneously.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 60b, which discusses the case of a ganav (thief) who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos (שבת). The Mishna states that one who steals and sells on Shabbos is chayav, and the Braisa elaborates on when kom lei b'derabbana (a principle that exempts from monetary liability when already liable for capital punishment) applies. The Gemara (גמרא) presents two approaches to resolve when both the sale (mechira) and Shabbos violation occur simultaneously, which is necessary for kom lei b'derabbana to apply. The first approach, attributed to R' Yirmiyahu bar Chama, involves the case where the buyer tells the thief to detach a rope (teina) from his property, and through that act transfer the animal. The problem raised is that this wouldn't constitute a valid mechira since the thief has no obligation to return the rope, so no value has been exchanged. Rava resolves this by invoking the principle of esnan osra Torah (תורה) afilu ba'al imo—even when kom lei b'derabbana would normally exempt, there remains a midinas shamayim obligation to return the item, which constitutes sufficient value for mechira.
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 60b
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.
