No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief consecrates stolen property or designates it as terumah, does he need full yiush (despair of recovery) or a lesser degree? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: yiush that creates ownership requires total abandonment, but yiush that enables a shinui hashem (ה׳) (change of status) only requires that the owner isn't actively pursuing. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation—"if the owners aren't chasing after it"—defines this lesser threshold.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 57a, examining the relationship between yiush (despair of recovery) and shinui hashem (ה׳) (change of status) when a thief or robber consecrates stolen property or designates it as terumah. The central question is whether such designation is valid and what level of yiush is required. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s comments, which raise several difficulties. Rashi seems to suggest that the discussion applies only to specific cases involving terumah and tevel, not to general theft situations. The shiur questions whether Rashi means there is no acquisition (kinyan) of the tevel at all, or whether the acquisition is limited in some way.
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.
