A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) require conscious yei'ush in gezeila but not in aveida? The shiur builds a fundamental chakira: passive yei'ush (not expecting the object back) suffices for aveida because it exempts the obligation to return; active yei'ush (haknah) is required for gezeila because taking property requires ownership transfer. This framework resolves the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s kasha on Rashi (רש"י) and explains the dual pesukim for yei'ush.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Bava Kamma 56a develops a fundamental distinction between the halachic mechanics of yei'ush (despair of retrieval) in aveida (lost objects) versus gezeila (theft). The shiur addresses a major kasha from Tosafos (תוספות) and the Ramban (רמב"ן) on Rashi (רש"י)'s shita regarding yei'ush shelo mida'as (despair without knowledge that the object was lost). The shiur begins by examining Rashi's apparent contradiction between Bava Metzia and Bava Kamma regarding the source for yei'ush. In Bava Metzia, Rashi learns yei'ush from the Yerushalmi on "asher matzah" (that which he found), while in Bava Kamma he learns it from a different pasuk dealing with avudah mimenu mikol adam (lost from him and from everyone). The Ramban raises three difficulties: (1) there appears to be a stirah (contradiction) in Rashi's sources, (2) how can we pasken like a Yerushalmi against a Mishna, and (3) if yei'ush works when shelo mida'as, how can it constitute a valid haknah (acquisition)?
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.
