A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a stolen korban become valid after the owner is meyayesh? The Gemara (גמרא) suggests yiyush should not be koneh when paired with shem Yisrael, creating a mitzvah (מצוה) ba'aveirah problem. Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) disagree on whether one can ever be makriv a stolen korban for oneself, raising fundamental questions about the scope of mitzvah ba'aveirah and kinyan through yiyush.
The shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 56b, which discusses whether one can bring a stolen animal as a korban. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that if someone stole an animal and was makdish it before the owner was meyayesh, it cannot be a valid korban because of the principle that one cannot be makdish something that doesn't belong to him. The more complex case arises when the thief was makdish the animal after yiyush. The Gemara suggests that yiyush alone cannot be koneh in this case, because if yiyush were koneh by itself, the korban would be valid - it would belong to the thief before he was makdish it, avoiding any problem of mitzvah (מצוה) ba'aveirah. Therefore, the Gemara must hold that yiyush is only koneh together with shinuy reshus, meaning the kinyan and the hekdesh occur simultaneously. This creates a mitzvah ba'aveirah problem according to Tosafos (תוספות), since the acquisition and the transgression happen together.
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 56b
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.
